[skatemaster]

The NMFS decides the balance of rec/commercial catches based on historical data, ie, if recs traditionally caught 10 fish for 1 comm caught fish (just for example, not a correct ratio), then allocations would preserve that 10:1 ratio going forward, which would mean that recs would get a bigger piece of the pie and have more acceptable limits (higher possession limit, smaller size limit, longer season).

So now the NMFS is pushing for 60% of fluke to go to comms, which is in no way backed by historical data. Recs have always taken more fluke than comms. What is the reasoning behind this 60/40 favoring the comms?

REC FISHERMEN LIE

This is from a NJ fishing column.....

"When the fishing is good -- about one fish per hour -- fishermen tell the truth, Sullivan and his team found. As things get worse, their lies get bigger until, at a true catch rate of one fish per hour for 10 hours, they report four imaginary fish for every one they catch."

Ie, the NMFS says that rec landings are historically inaccurate, because recs boast about catching more fish than they really caught...... That gives the comms an open door to lobby for an allocation based on thin air.

I'm not saying that comms don't deserve their share or that I am unhappy with a [email protected] limit, but come on, the BS really is kinda deep

 

[Toutog]

NMFS data collection

Several years ago I went to work for a
"Contractor" to NMFS as a Data Collector
which involved randomly interviewing
fisherman engaged all types of fishing.
This was done at Party boats, Launch ramps,Fishing Piers and Surf Access Points.I gotta tell ya, the Info that
NMFS gets from us REC's is seriously flawed! WHY ??? Mainly because most
Fisherman do as you put it ... LIE !
The second reason is that each interview is counted as the equivalent
of about 1000 people fishing ( they got some crazy formula to support this)
Lastly , most interviewers didnt bother with those who didnt catch fish that day, just those who did, ( It looks better for the interviewer to report something , not nothing)so the system
does favor higher than reality REC catches by the models and formula that NMFS uses to "Count" REC landings , especially when it comes to Fluke. Really all they have is an Educated Guess based on some wacky computer formulas as to what we catch . The COMM's use actual reported sold wieght
which brings us to the other problem:
REPORTED AS SOLD .... so we LIE one way, they LIE the other , Ultimatly WE lose.... Accurate data collection is the only answer , only it cant be done.As the old saying goes when it comes to computed reports on anything:
DO-DO in S_-T out , and Boy are we gettin'the good smelly stuff ,aint we?

 

[Gamakatsu]

Haven't the comms been getting 60% of the quota for quite some time? My biggest problem with this thing is that dead, unsold by catch from other fisheries does not apply to the commercial quota. So in reality, they're seriously exceeding the 60% that they are supposed to get.

Gamakatsu

 

[LkyLindy]

Screwed screwed or maybe screwed

Holy Sh#$%%$

Is this the craziest catch 22 that you ever heard of

If tautog is correct then NMFS accuses us of lying about catching a lot of fluke so HISTORICALLY they give the comms a bigger percentage And then on the other end they take us at our word and claim we are catching OVER our measley 40% quota and want to cut us back even further with harsher regs. Hello Hello who is in charge of this looney toon system.I always wondered where they got the rec numbers from-nobody ever asked me for my catch numbers(hee hee).You can't even fudge them one way or the other to help our cause .It seems those bastards will use the numbers anyway they want to.
Boys -we are in deep do do

 

[619627]

Recreational fishermen always claim they catch a lot of fish.......

Commercial fishermen always claim they don't catch enough fish!

EC NEWELL MAN*

 

[togmaster]

No Truth

the sad part is just taking surveys and book data which everyone reports on there own is not a good source of Data period! Thats why the fisheries are so screwed up! It is a hard decison to make and Data is maybe 50% of it. Politics and money make up the other 50% so it;s hard to call? I wish more man power was there to do data fats and not word of mouth! This would give an overall better perspective on the whole story! Hey I never catch a lot of fish in my eyes?

 

[skatemaster]

Haven't the comms been getting 60% of the quota for quite some time?

Right you are. The allocation was supposed to be based on 1980-1989 landings. Do you know how long it has been 60%?

 

[Capt. Marc]

Tog,

I interviewed for almost ten years (KCA/Quantec#845) and for me I knew that 1 interview counted at least ten fold. I tried to be somewhat random the best I could and it was actually easier to interview if no fish were caught by the Angler (no weights & lengths). If I felt the angler had too many beers and was telling stories i used my judgement and passed him by.

Like you said, Who knows what assumptions were made with the data collected. Did (or do) they count fluke thrown back alive against the quota like cod? What percentage of fluke do they consider dead if thrown back alive. Big Mystery!

Typical day in the GSB in August, "Caught 15 fluke, kept 2, 13 thrown back alive" NMFS interpetation possibly 7 fluke killed, 8 back alive?

Imagine how this would effect the quota.

The answer can be found to this question and many more by writing a letter to NMFS and say "Under the Freedom of Infomation Act" I am requesting the following infomation.

By law they must answer your questions and within a few weeks.

Capt. Marc

 

[MakoMike]

Guys,
Just for clarification. On the commercial side all of the fishermen are required to keep logbooks, which have to be copied to NMFS there is no incentive for the guys to lie on their logs. Secondly, the dealers, who buy the fish, also have to report what they bought, again, no incentive to lie, and one is a check on the other. So in general I'd say the data on commercial landings is much better than the data on recreational landings.

 

[LkyLindy]

Bye the BY

Mako-

as Gama is always questioning-What about the comms bycatch numbers-Do they count this at all?

 

[Toutog]

Comm. vs. Rec. Reporting

Mako Mike ,
I agree that the Comm's reporting is
considerably more accurate then the
Rec's. However the issue of Bycatch
reporting is a BIG issue. Also , as in
most other Businesses, there is some
unreported backdoor sales to resturants
small retail fish markets, etc., especially with Striped Bass. The point is that the system is flawed in many ways and needs correction. The Comms.
have an organized big voice,mainly because of the $$$ involved.If all the
Businesses involved with Rec. fishing
(i.e. Boat mfg, tackle mfg,bait shops,
Party/charter boats,sport fishing magazines,etc.)were to organize and lobby We MIGHT have a voice, because in the end,it's the $$$ that count the fish
not who catches 'em.

 

[MakoMike]

Guys,
Nope, no one reports bycatch, which, as Gammy says, is part of the problem. Toutog, we were talking about fluke, not striped bass. Anyway, in NYS commercially sold bass have to have tags, so, once again, the commercial catch is accurately, reported. Of course, the "recreational" fishermen that sell their catch are'nt reported in either sector.

 

[Toutog]

Selling Fish

MakoMike:
Yep , There are so called "Rec" fisherman that sell Fish, not just
Striped Bass, either. Please,I don't call them RECs or Comm's they got their
own name, it's(unprintable).....
The point we all agree on is that the
reporting system stinks regardless of the species and leads to mucho anamosity between both sides.
What, if anything, could be done to correct it? Too bad NMFS has put both sides at odds with each other rather than try to put forth a forum of cooperation. What if we got together and demanded that they get their house in order (i.e. Fix the Data collection)
before imposing Quotas based on utter nonsense? Your comments,as always, are
appreciated.

 

[620427]

"What if we got together and demanded that they get their house in order (i.e. Fix the Data collection)
"

you would get a saltwater fishing license so they could determine who is fishing,
then you would get to fill out daily trip reports like the commercial guys, and have to mail them in after your day of fishing.

personally i feel that both the commercial and recreational data that is generated is wrong.

there is plenty of incentive for commercials to lie on the reports,
and lie both ways with reporting more fish than they caught and also less fish than they caught for various reasons. so i am not sure how accurate the commercial data is as well.

recreational data is a joke, as tautog mentioned each survey counts as thousands, and the quality of the surveys are based on the type of people collecting the data.
i have witnessed this data collection in some ports and usually the fisherman are in such a hurry to get off the dock and home, they do not have the time or desire to accurately answer the questions of the surveyor.
those that do i am sure stretch the truth about their success as not to look like bad fisherman.
so how valuable is this data ?

 

[Captneilf]

Hi all,

In the past I have had data collectors on the party boat. Very nice folks BUT they did not interview everbody. They would do so many and say that is enough.

Think about all the ports that recs sail out of and I include all the little canals. I think data collecting is almost impossible.

I would like to see by catch counted in the commercial total. A dead fish has to count someplace.

I would also like to see culling of fish stopped. Yeah right cap!!! LOL!

 

[MakoMike]

Guys,
I'll stand by my statement that the commercial count is pretty accurate. While there may be some incentive for a fisherman to lie ( I can't imagine what it might be though) there is absolutely no incentive for the dealers to lie and they are the double check on the fishermen. The fishermen can't sell more or less than the dealers buy. As for the recreationals, it becomes a lot more fuzzy. There are statistical methods that the NMFS uses which can yeild surprisingly accurate results. But if the average recreatinal fisherman lies to the survey takers, then whose to blame for overcounting the recreational catch?

 

[Gamakatsu]

Sampling

Sampling does work, just go back to Statistics 101. Interviewing a small percentage of anglers is no different than a political poll or any other poll for that matter. Most political polls are pretty accurate, with one famous exception, but even that poll was not totally out of whack. As MakoMike stated, if we lie to the interviewers, who's fault is that and how many people really lie anyway?

Gamakatsu

 

[Toutog]

Accurate Statistics ???

Polls work great if you have some idea of the total # of something, as in voters. How does NMFS know the total # of Rec. Fisherman??? They Guess!!
YES, the Comm's got us on accurracy
and they use it to their advantage.
If NMFS is off in total # of Rec's
by +/-10% and you take the Poll extention guess, the total landings by
Rec's # is way out of wack.
The only fair solution is that both sides get 50% of what is determined to be the yearly harvest of a spiecies.
By the way , it should also include
the same open/closed season dates for
inside state boundaries for both sides. The Comms are getting all the good stuff first, and we get the leftovers. If they need to fish, they can do it in Federal waters during a different season as long as the catch
(all of it) counts toward their 50%.
OK, so how do Rec's get heard by NMFS,
and how do we get an organized voice??
ANY SUGGESTIONS OUT THERE ???

 

[LkyLindy]

Catch 22

MakoMike

Thats my exact point-If the recs give to the polster higher numbers then that should count in a historical method and be to our advantage-But the nmfs calls us liars and discounts the high numbers until its time for the yearly poundage numbers and then of course we are saints and are over our quota-WE CAN'T WIN!

 

[620427]

time to read a book

AMAZON.COM
"There is terror in numbers," writes Darrell Huff in How to Lie with Statistics. And nowhere does this terror translate to blind acceptance of authority more than in the slippery world of averages, correlations, graphs, and trends. Huff sought to break through "the daze that follows the collision of statistics with the human mind" with this slim volume, first published in 1954. The book remains relevant as a wake-up call for people unaccustomed to examining the endless flow of numbers pouring from Wall Street, Madison Avenue, and everywhere else someone has an axe to grind, a point to prove, or a product to sell. "The secret language of statistics, so appealing in a fact-minded culture, is employed to sensationalize, inflate, confuse, and oversimplify," warns Huff.
Although many of the examples used in the book are charmingly dated, the cautions are timeless. Statistics are rife with opportunities for misuse, from "gee-whiz graphs" that add nonexistent drama to trends, to "results" detached from their method and meaning, to statistics' ultimate bugaboo--faulty cause-and-effect reasoning. Huff's tone is tolerant and amused, but no-nonsense. Like a lecturing father, he expects you to learn something useful from the book, and start applying it every day. Never be a sucker again, he cries!