[noreast]

Hello All!

I attended a meeting last night regarding a saltwater license in NY, and as part of the sales pitch we were reminded a number of times about the additional Wallop Breaux money ( a tax that is added to every piece of fishing tackle we buy) we would received for every license we sell. Having some background on this issue I had brought out the fact that we currently receive that money based on an estimate of anglers and that if the state sold fewer licenses then the estimate we could actually reduce our Wallop Breaux monies.

I assumed that these monies were based on the number of anglers that NMFS uses for management purposes. After all that's how they determine our season and bags, so wouldn't that reflect on Wallop Breaux? I was surprised to find out that the US Fish and Wildlife Service actually determine how many anglers states have fishing in saltwater when it comes to dividing the Wallop Breaux money among the coastal states. They have their own data on participation which as it turns out, is much less then what NMFS numbers show.

For example in NY, NMFS estimates that we have over 1,000,000 anglers in this state, yet using USFWS figures we only receive money based on 275,000 anglers. Now that is quite a discrepancy!

It begs the question of which one is actually using the "best available science" and why are anglers in NY, and I suspect elsewhere, being penalized by either NMFS for overstating and thereby showing we're catching many more fish, or understating and giving us less of the Wallop Breaux pie? There is no denying that it has to be one or the other.

This has huge implications in fisheries management. For example, if NY in fact had only 275,000 anglers as we're being compensated for, we would have taken a lot less fish then NMFS claims. We would not be facing the huge reductions in season and bags. Or on the flip side, if we were in fact at 1,000,000 anglers we would be getting short changed big time.

As for the license ? it will be here soon.

 

[MakoMike]

George,
At least part of the discrepency is due to the fact that USF&WS only counts total anglers, so they wouldn't count anyone that fishes in the salt chuck and also has a freshwater license, where NMFA counts all anglers who fish in salt water, whether they have a freshwater license or not.

 

[noreast]

MakoMike wrote:
George,
At least part of the discrepency is due to the fact that USF&WS only counts total anglers, so they wouldn't count anyone that fishes in the salt chuck and also has a freshwater license, where NMFA counts all anglers who fish in salt water, whether they have a freshwater license or not.

If in fact that were the case there would still be a 500,000 angler discrepancy in NY alone. Which equates to a lot fish and a lot of money.

 

[MakoMike]

noreast wrote:
MakoMike wrote:
George,
At least part of the discrepency is due to the fact that USF&WS only counts total anglers, so they wouldn't count anyone that fishes in the salt chuck and also has a freshwater license, where NMFA counts all anglers who fish in salt water, whether they have a freshwater license or not.

If in fact that were the case there would still be a 500,000 angler discrepancy in NY alone. Which equates to a lot fish and a lot of money.


How did you come up with that 500,000 number?

 

[LooneyTunes]

Questions

DISCLAIMER:

I AM NOT STATING THIS AS FACT. IT IS ACTUALLY A QUESTION

I recall hearing something about boat registrations being used when tallying the number of "estimated" fishermen.

Did they (NMFS) use boat registrations to come up with number of anglers, too?

I recall numbers being quoted based upon boat registrations in New York. Then they estimated by saying X amount of boats with X amount of fish caught based on fishing X times weekly.

Can someone verify?

Being a law student, I would be looking to take NMFS into a court room to recover funds due to fishermen and fix the size and bag limit problem. It would also may make NMFS more accountable for their thoughtless decisions.

LooneyTunes
Dave

 

[WaterAye]

Historically, NMFS NE would have field agents conduct what is known as the "Boat and Shore" survey. The NMFS port agents would use any and all information including state DMV boat registration records to count the number of commercial boats and the number of commercial vessels by port. The numbers of fishermen was extrapolated from this information. This was strictly commercial fishing boats. I don't know anything about how they recreational number is generated.

I don't believe the BS survey is conducted any longer. If I had to make a WAG analysis, I would estimate the NY recreational salt water fishing population between 300 and 400K.

 

[guest]

WaterAye wrote:

I don't believe the BS survey is conducted any longer.

No instead they have required everyone gets a license and report their landings. That is the fix to the problem with estimating rec catch and participants as well.

How does the USFWS count anglers vs. the way MRFSS counts them?


This post edited by guest 02:38 PM 01/18/2008

 

[noreast]

WaterAye wrote:

How does the USFWS count anglers vs. the way MRFSS counts them?

That is the million dollar question, or in this case the million anglers question
guest wrote:
MakoMike
How did you come up with that 500,000 number?
I just guessed isn't that what they do?

Actually I used a survey that we ran on this site a number of years ago that showed approximately 1 in 4 saltwater anglers had a freshwater license. And NY state sold approximately 1-million licenses last year. So I took the 250,000 and added it to the 275,000 to come up with that number.

 

[MakoMike]

noreast wrote:
WaterAye wrote:

How does the USFWS count anglers vs. the way MRFSS counts them?

That is the million dollar question, or in this case the million anglers question
guest wrote:
MakoMike
How did you come up with that 500,000 number?
I just guessed isn't that what they do?

Actually I used a survey that we ran on this site a number of years ago that showed approximately 1 in 4 saltwater anglers had a freshwater license. And NY state sold approximately 1-million licenses last year. So I took the 250,000 and added it to the 275,000 to come up with that number.

Not fair using undisclosed data!

I would have guessed that many more than 25% of salt water anglers also had a freshwater license. USF&WS uses the frshwater licenses to count noses and then adds a fudge factor for SW anglers? I always thought they went strictly by the numbers of licenses.

 

[SinkerBouncer]

Nothing surprises me anymore

noreast wrote:

For example in NY, NMFS estimates that we have over 1,000,000 anglers in this state, yet using USFWS figures we only receive money based on 275,000 anglers. Now that is quite a discrepancy!

Discussions of ?The Numb-bers? pop up like clockwork on these threads.

The more I hear about this stuff, the more I realize how dysfunctional the whole system is.

The statistics, numbers, data?..call it what you will??. are like paint on an artist?s brush. A talented artist can create any he picture he chooses to with that paint.

If you check this link from a previous discussion you will see that it was authoritively stated that in the previous year (2006) 875,000 anglers fished salt water for a total of 5,400,000 fishing trips.

 

[guest]

SinkerBouncer wrote:

The statistics, numbers, data?..call it what you will??. are like paint on an artist?s brush. A talented artist can create any he picture he chooses to with that paint.



Which means no matter where the numbers come from or how good they are, the will never be "good enough" as long as they mean someone's not catching as much fish as they want too or if it's not what they want too see.

This time it's the number of anglers in NY, next time it will be how much each catches, the number of trips they take, the surveys, the com landings, the discards, the natural mortality, the mixing between inshore and off-shore fish, the number of times the fish reproduces over their life times, etc...etc...etc. It's always something

 

[CaptPaul]

Yes, it does always seem to be something, doesn't it? People should just realize that the government workers are trying to get things done, so they should just shut up and believe whatever comes down the pipe. Heck, I don't even know why they even bother having public meetings and diseminating information. It's just a waste of time trying to explain the process to idiot fishermen who think they know what's going on.

Paul

 

[guest]

CaptPaul wrote:
Yes, it does always seem to be something, doesn't it? People should just realize that the government workers are trying to get things done, so they should just shut up and believe whatever comes down the pipe. Heck, I don't even know why they even bother having public meetings and diseminating information. It's just a waste of time trying to explain the process to idiot fishermen who think they know what's going on.

Paul

That wasn't my point. And you have taken it to the extreme. I do think we have the right to question the numbers and find out how they got what they got for an answer.

My fear is that with all of the questioning and the "I don't belive anything" attude just doesn't get us anywhere. Real questions just get run over, and NMFS will think the same thing....no matter what they do no one will believe them, so why bother?

Does it really matter how many anglers are in NY exactly? because if the MRFSS is over counting now then they were over counting when they figured out NY's share of the quota. You'll end up dividing both the amount of fish caught now and the quota by 0.27. Meaning it comes out to be the same.

The real focus should be on getting the coast-wide numbers right, not NY's

 

[CaptPaul]

guest wrote:
Does it really matter how many anglers are in NY exactly? because if the MRFSS is over counting now then they were over counting when they figured out NY's share of the quota. There's where you're wrong. The MRFSS numbers used to determine NY's numbers back in the nineties were constantly questioned- NY industry kept pushing that they were way off on landings, and effort. After several years of noise making, they changed the system, and came up w/ more realistic landings and effort numbers. BUT, but, BUT, they did not retrospectively adjust the orignal numbers. Do I need to elaborate?

Paul


This post edited by CaptPaul 07:07 PM 01/18/2008

 

[guest]

CaptPaul wrote:
There's where you're wrong. The MRFSS numbers used to determine NY's numbers back in the nineties were constantly questioned- NY industry kept pushing that they were way off on landings, and effort. After several years of noise making, they changed the system, and came up w/ more realistic landings and effort numbers. BUT, but, BUT, they did not retrospectively adjust the orignal numbers. Do I need to elaborate?

Paul


Yeah. you do. so are you saying there were more anglers in NY then they thought there was? How did they change change they system. How do you know they didn't redo the numbers after they changed the system? Are you saying that the relative numers of angler in NY now are less then what they were when they were figuring out the quota shares? and are you really saying that NY should have a larger share relative to the other states?

And even if you are right and NY is getting the shaft more then the other states, in the grand scheme of things, will changing NY share of the quota really help the overall situation?

This post edited by guest 07:05 PM 01/18/2008

 

[CaptPaul]

They changed the system by sending surveyors to areas that fishermen were concentrated in- trying to get more numbers into the equation. They increased surveys overall, also.

I know they didn't "redo" the numbers after the change, because that has never happened- If they did, then maybe we wouldn't have a 17% share of the coastwise quota, the exact same share we allways did. We also asked why they couldn't adjust the old data, after they admitted that they were now collected much better data (That does infer that the older data was much worse, no?). That was not going to happen, we were told.

I am not saying the relative numbers are less, I am saying that they terribly underestimated the numbers in the eighties and nineties. The number of anglers is not the great issue, but landings were terribly slandered. For example, if you break things down according to the numbers they published, in the mid eighties the party boats were averaging six to twelve keeper fluke per trip. Probably off by a factor of fifteen or twenty.

Changing NY's share will not change the world, but since we are getting our ears pinned back every time we turn a corner, a small respite once in a while wouldn't be a bad thing. Or, do you think that since everything is so bad, we just shouldn't bother fighting it? Like the Tex Antwon theory, I guess.

 

[noreast]

guest wrote:
CaptPaul wrote:
Yes, it does always seem to be something, doesn't it? People should just realize that the government workers are trying to get things done, so they should just shut up and believe whatever comes down the pipe. Heck, I don't even know why they even bother having public meetings and diseminating information. It's just a waste of time trying to explain the process to idiot fishermen who think they know what's going on.

Paul

That wasn't my point. And you have taken it to the extreme. I do think we have the right to question the numbers and find out how they got what they got for an answer.

My fear is that with all of the questioning and the "I don't believe anything" attude just doesn't get us anywhere. Real questions just get run over, and NMFS will think the same thing....no matter what they do no one will believe them, so why bother?

Does it really matter how many anglers are in NY exactly? because if the MRFSS is over counting now then they were over counting when they figured out NY's share of the quota. You'll end up dividing both the amount of fish caught now and the quota by 0.27. Meaning it comes out to be the same.

The real focus should be on getting the coast-wide numbers right, not NY's

I think you have it wrong. The bio-mass figure should remain the same so if effort is reduced by half we will not be overfishing.

 

[guest]

CaptPaul wrote:
They changed the system by sending surveyors to areas that fishermen were concentrated in- trying to get more numbers into the equation. They increased surveys overall, also.

I know they didn't "redo" the numbers after the change, because that has never happened- If they did, then maybe we wouldn't have a 17% share of the coastwise quota, the exact same share we allways did. We also asked why they couldn't adjust the old data, after they admitted that they were now collected much better data (That does infer that the older data was much worse, no?). That was not going to happen, we were told.

I am not saying the relative numbers are less, I am saying that they terribly underestimated the numbers in the eighties and nineties. The number of anglers is not the great issue, but landings were terribly slandered. For example, if you break things down according to the numbers they published, in the mid eighties the party boats were averaging six to twelve keeper fluke per trip. Probably off by a factor of fifteen or twenty.

Changing NY's share will not change the world, but since we are getting our ears pinned back every time we turn a corner, a small respite once in a while wouldn't be a bad thing. Or, do you think that since everything is so bad, we just shouldn't bother fighting it? Like the Tex Antwon theory, I guess.

No they need to scrap the estimates and redo them after they get an accurate count of the numbers of anglers with the registry. They could have changed how they calculated the past numbers, but if they changed that for all of the states then the change would still give NY 17% of the quota.

If they did this then it's buried in a tech report someplace.

But again it's not the real issue. the issue is getting better numbers to figure out how many people are fishing coast wide. if you really don't buy NY's numbers the registry might be your best bet. That or going with a coast-wide rec limits.

Just remember that whatever "relief" NY gets will come at the expense of the limits in the other states. If you're OK with that, then you can go with the coast-wide limits this year by lobbying the ASMFC

 

[CaptPaul]

Sounds great.

They can't scrap the estimates after they get a Registry because they was no registry in the last century, when all the pie was cut up.

They did not change the way they surveyed in the other states. They simply refused to adjust the old numbers in accord w/ the changes in the method of survey. That is the third time I said that. I guess you just don't want to accept it. But that's OK, I've gotten used to that from managers.


Moving on, a Registry will not change the way things were divided up initially, so the true numbers aren't going to do much for us now, huh?

Yes, I am alright w/ NY's relief coming at the expense of other states. There are many issues that just slide off the backs of other states, but NY doesn't get an inch. And thanks for the advice about going coastwide. I'll look into that one.

Paul

 

[guest]

CaptPaul wrote:
Sounds great.
Moving on, a Registry will not change the way things were divided up initially, so the true numbers aren't going to do much for us now, huh?



Maybe it's time to divide the pie based on how many anglers there are in each state, rather then who caught what 10 years ago