NorEast Fishing Forum banner
1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
579 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
No slant here. This is right down the middle

http://counties.cce.cornell.edu/suffolk/sfdms/project.html

Recreational and commercial fishermen share a concern over the use of an arbitrary discard mortality rate. This may be a step in the right direction. Cornell Cooperative Extension's (CCE) Marine Program, with the involvement of local commercial fishermen, is currently conducting trawl surveys to determine actual fluke discard mortality.

Cornell Cooperative Extension's (CCE) Marine Program has done a nice job summarizing the project and published great pictures. I wish they would publish the number of fluke discarded dead.

I disagree with penning the fish. I think this might actually work against the commercial fisherman by tainting the mortality rate artificially higher, but they haven?t published the numbers of dead discards, so we really have no idea.

The other thing that may hurt commercial fishermen is the fact that they don?t report discards of dead fluke towards a quota. This may bring unwanted attention to that fact.

LooneyTunes
Dave

This post edited by LooneyTunes 07:56 AM 01/17/2008
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,923 Posts
Dave,

I didn't read the article, b ut penning the fish isn't such a handicap. firstly, they do have flat mortality rates they incorporate from earlier control experiments. Granted, some penning conditions are better, some worse, but good studies tend to follow the guidelines strictly.

Also, penning does mitigate the post-release predation that many larger fish are subjected to after such a trauma.

Paul
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,031 Posts
CaptPaul wrote:
Dave,


Also, penning does mitigate the post-release predation that many larger fish are subjected to after such a trauma.

Paul


True, but how will this mitigated predation skew this study as it relates to actual conditions where the predation does occur?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,031 Posts
Right.

I didn't mean to imply anything, just was thinking that if you do take away the predation of the discards, how do you figure out how this particular studies tag returns can be compared to the mortality rates of the fish that are actually "discarded", can you?

-JR
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
579 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Like I said, NO SLANT

CaptPaul wrote:
It doesn't, John. He inferred that the penning might artificially inflate mortality in the study, but I think it might actually lessen it to a small extent.

Paul

Like I said, NO SLANT

CaptPaul wrote:
It doesn't, John. He inferred that the penning might artificially inflate mortality in the study, but I think it might actually lessen it to a small extent.

Paul

As CaptPaul stated, I was inferring that it would artificially inflate the mortality to the detriment (meaning bad) of the commercial fisherman.

If anything, I am consistent. There was a thread back a while ago with a study penning the fish and the penning mortality rates worked against the recreational angler. I expressed that penning is not a valid way to attain accurate mortality rates. BUT the commercial guys were saying penning is very valid.

At least I am honest enough to not to flip flop my view just because it would benefit my personal point of view. I am clear. Penning fish in studies reduces the probability of true life results in any study.

LooneyTunes
Dave
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
948 Posts
They used pound net caught fish as their control fish. If they saw those fish dieing along with the trawl caught fish in the holding pen they would have a clue that something w/ the penning process was adding to mortality.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top