Review of the Marine Recreational Information Program (2017) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
7 Communication and Outreach with Stakeholders
7 Communication and Outreach with Stakeholders
Pages 107-122
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 107... ...
WHAT SHOULD BE COMMUNICATED AND TO WHOM The multijurisdictional nature of combined federal and state fisheries management (see Chapter 1) , which in some regions of the country necessarily involves multiple states, presents challenges to data collection, data management, assessment, and ultimately catch allocation.
|
From page 108... ...
It is necessary to know specific areas of authority and responsibility within the fisheries management process to understand what should be communicated and to whom it should be communicated. The complexity of fisheries management depicted in Figure 1.2 requires that the MRIP be a component, but not the entirety of any plan for communicating fisheries management issues.
|
From page 109... ...
A few additional details are provided in the annual implementation plan updates on the MRIP website. However, it is the committee's perception that a detailed implementation plan remains to be developed, although the committee notes that the 2016 Communications Plan (NMFS, 2016b)
|
From page 110... ...
. AUDIENCES The MRIP communication plan seeks to concentrate its efforts on several audiences that include internal agency partners, state fisheries agencies, the regional fishery management councils, interstate commissions, the Fisheries Information Networks, Congress, the recreational fishing community, and environmental nongovernmental organizations (NMFS, 2016b)
|
From page 111... ...
) are state-federal cooperative programs in which NMFS participates as a partner with the state fisheries agencies, interstate marine fisheries commissions, regional fishery management councils, and other federal agencies, such as the U.S.
|
From page 112... ...
Partners Who Establish Catch Limits Since the 2006 report, the Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization assigned specific responsibility to the SSCs of each regional management council to set ABCs for management species.2 Because they are required to allow for scientific uncertainty in developing their catch recommendations, the SSCs have become an important new user of MRIP information. More so than assessments analysts, who may need to limit the uncertainty in catch estimates to an arbitrary low figure for analytic purposes (e.g., 5 percent for red snapper in SEDAR, 2013; Boreman, 2016)
|
From page 113... ...
. This creates a tension in the fisheries management process in which a survey designed for one purpose is being used for another purpose, for which its design may not be optimal.
|
From page 114... ...
. For example, perceptions of poor communication in the Gulf have generated support for development of a Regional MRIP Communications Committee within the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Council (GSMFC)
|
From page 115... ...
Many in the for-hire sector hold strong views regarding fisheries management in general, and on the MRIP and its predecessor MRFSS in particular. For-hire captains tend to be better informed about fisheries and fisheries management issues than individual anglers, and often (but not always)
|
From page 116... ...
Some pilot programs are being conducted to evaluate the feasibility of such options, but the pressure from stakeholders to adopt self-reporting systems can be expected to increase. From a communications viewpoint, this pressure can be mitigated by ensuring that materials that explain the statistical issues associated with selfreported data are a priority in the MRIP communication plan.
|
From page 117... ...
Thus, for example, the website could invite users to share their thoughts, offer opportunities to partner in data collection, offer opportunities to provide input about the communications plan and other aspects of the MRIP, and so on. The MRIP Communications Plan contains elements of both one-way and two-way communication, but there is little in the way of specifics, particularly with respect to two-way communication.
|
From page 118... ...
. Engaging Data-Collection Partners and Data Users A component of the 2016 MRIP Communications Plan (NMFS, 2016b)
|
From page 119... ...
Conclusion: The MRIP Communications Plan lacks a clear needs analysis and an implementation plan. The plan identifies broadly what the MRIP wishes to achieve, but there is little discussion of specific and practical matters that the MRIP and its predecessor, the MRFSS, from which the MRIP must have learned.
|
From page 120... ...
Conclusion: There is a need for increased and regular coordination and communication with regional fishery management councils and their scientific and statistical committees, and with the regional stock assessment programs. This increased communication would provide opportunities for identifying and addressing data needs for stock assessment and management at the regional level.
|
From page 121... ...
Recommendation: The MRIP should provide the for-hire captains with a method to review their own data submittals to provide further quality assurance of these data. The committee recognizes that the MRIP must follow federal regulations to maintain data privacy and anonymity.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.