The past few months have been a tumultuous time for Maine’s lobster fishing industry, with new regulations looming and “red listing” of lobster by a watchdog group.

The heart of the issue is that lobster trap lines, which hang from the surface to the ocean floor, pose a threat of entanglement to the endangered North Atlantic Right Whale. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s  calculation of the risk of lobster gear to whales  resulted in restrictions put forth by the National Marine Fisheries Service.

Measures implemented in 2021 include decreasing the number of lines in the water, better marking of the gear, and adding “weak points” in lines which allow entangled whales to escape more easily.

Last year, a federal judge ruled that new restrictions were needed to protect the whales, but in November, allowed for two years for the development of those regulations. A recent bill, signed by President Biden in late December, included another four-year extension on the development of these new regulations, extended to 2028.

Both groups benefit from this extension. More time is needed to improve risk estimate models and to continue to work on solutions that protect whales while not creating a new endangered species in the form of lobstermen.

What, exactly, is the research marine fisheries service using to estimate the risk of lobster gear to whales? It comes down to a mix of academic scholarship and modeling estimates. Due to a lack of observable evidence in terms of whale entanglements and deaths, scientists use modeling techniques, relying on assumptions in combination with actual data. In order to assess risk reduction remedies, several variables are used, such as the estimated population of whales, the ratio of injuries and deaths attributed to vessel strikes and to gear entanglement, and the split between U.S. and Canada incidents.

To aid in determining risk reduction estimates, NOAA created a Decision Support Tool that evaluates risk reduction for right whales. This tool was recently revised and updated.

Risk reduction involves examining factors, such as how many vertical lines, the size of lines, and whales are present. The model then estimates the potential entanglement risk posed to whales in these areas.

The models and estimates of risk and what is needed to reduce that risk is overblown, to some. For example, the estimates of what portion of serious injury/mortality of right whales can be attributed to the U.S. (vs. Canada) and fishing gear (vs. vessel strikes), opponents argue relies on “worst case scenarios.” Critics say that the models do not match what they see in the real world.

Yet, forecasting and other forms of risk assessment are commonly used in a variety of contexts, from criminal justice to health care. In the absence of observable data, these are often the best tools available, and they are based on inputs, which experts are able to assess and tweak.

The problem is that some of NOAA’s models rely on inputs that are incomplete or, in our view, too assumption-based. The peer-review of the support tool  noted several deficiencies in both the data and assumptions making up the tool.

For example, the model fails to adequately report whale presence in inshore waters. The developers conclude that documentation of whales are “exceedingly rare” in these locations, but they do not provide adequate data to back up this statement.

One reviewer of the support tool noted that the models used to estimate gear and whale density have “serious limitations” and that the tool is in a “development stage.” In fact, one of the reasons the risk estimate was updated this fall is because of an overestimated amount of lines in the water in the decision tool model.

One major assumption being made in the estimates of risk is that the portion of right whale deaths attributed to entanglements vs. vessel strikes for unobserved deaths (e.g., when whales can no longer be located) is the same as for observed serious injury or deaths. While the rationale is based on published scholarship, there is simply no way to determine how whales that disappeared may have died (or if they did die).

It is essential that the six-year moratorium be used wisely to improve data collection and make the models more transparent to all.

One change that may help is tracking lobster boats to more accurately determine fishing activity. However, such data must be used ethically and transparently, to build trust on both sides.

Additionally, to make risk more transparent we must also fund and support research efforts to identify and document gear entanglement and movement of right whales.

In the end, models are useful — even necessary in the absence of observable data. But in order to work well, they require hard data that, as of now, is sorely lacking.

The Marine Mammal Commission has argued that there is no time to wait for better data before restrictions are implemented. The federal government has just provided that time.

Let’s hope it is used wisely.

Angela Craddock is an undergraduate student at Bates College in Lewiston working toward a degree in psychology and sociology. She is pursuing a career as a criminal psychologist. Michael Rocque, an associate professor of sociology at Bates, is a member of the Scholars Strategy Network. He has conducted extensive research on risk assessment in the criminal justice system and is initiating a sociological study of lobster fishing in Maine.

Copy the Story Link