NorEast Fishing Forum banner
1 - 19 of 34 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,031 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
MakoMike wrote:
John,
"landing queery results" are for recs. NMFS counts dealer reports for commercials. PB/Charter boats are included in recreational landings.

???

landing query results are for recs? I'm totally lost as to your point?

I know where the #'s are posted...I did post them.

So- do you have anything to say about the #'s themselves?

Obviously theres something very very wrong with them.......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,585 Posts
JR...the numbers speak for themselves, and that is why you see the PSE being used by scientist so that they know the respective level of confidence in the numbers given. As you can see on the chart the PSE is low for the recreational community.

This is why I stated in yesterdays DOCK TALK for recreational anglers to NOT SCREW around with the survey people. Give the correct numbers, and that will allow the number crunchers who are statisticans to plug them in and then develop extrapolated mortality, landing or whatever statistical models they use to figure how fast a stock is growing, the rate of overfishing, and other statitiscal data.

Here is something on RECREATIONAL LANDINGS for summer flounder:

The Proportional Standard Error (PSE) of MRFSS landings estimates by number and weight averaged 6% over the 1982-2005 period, ranging from 26% in 1982 to 3% in 1996 and 2000

Now take a look at this chart and you can see the PSE change longitudinally (study that involves repeated observations of the same items over long periods of time):

Estimated total landings of summer flounder by recreational fishermen

In statistics, there is some very important words, and one that should jump out to you is Estimated. This is why the PSE is used, because reporting data will be skewed because of:

-purposely wrong data from the rec community
-estimated data among a unknown sized but large group, which again is the recs
-under reporting of data
-fluxuations in data collection

Now the landing query results, can be attained from using tools such as NOAAs COMMERCIAL LANDING STATS:

To summarize landings for an individual species

All that a query is, is a big data base that summarizes, condenses and combines inputed information.

The correct question you should of asked is if the confidence level of the reported recreational landings is strong or reliable to be used as accurate assessment of what that user group ACTUALLY brought to the dock.

The bottom line is that the data being used in this report, is the best available at this time. That is why they have to build in such a great amount of sampling error. How much, I don't know, because this is statistical modeling that grad students collect for the government.

Just look at the sampling that was done on dogfish....how high do you think the confidence level in that data was?

The problem with collecting any landings data with the recreational community is that the numbers are so pulled to different extremes as I listed above, that whatever numbers are given such as in the infamous MRFSS studies of the nineties we saw being used, have a high level of doubt attached to them, especially by those who fish for a living!

This also why that the fish-crats have a better handle on what the commercial community is landing/discarding when they fish. Using VTRs and then comparing them to dealer reports give some transparency and greater accuracy to what they are actually catching. Can we say the same about the recreational community..... because there are fewer checks and balances on the collected data from them.

Just read this from NEFSC...it really illustrates the doubts you are talking about with the numbers:

The commercial fishery VTR system provides an alternative set of reported recreational landings by the party/charter boat sector. A comparison of VTR reports and MRFSS estimates indicates that MRFSS estimates are higher by an average factor of 2.30 for the 1995-2005 period, ranging from a factor of 1.02 in 1998 to 4.35 in 2005 (Table 24). It is not clear if this is due mainly to under-reporting of party/charter boat recreational landings in the VTR system, or a systematic positive bias of MRFSS landings estimates for the party/charter boat sector.

Also one last thing that should clear up some of the mystery behind the collected data:

The landings from the commercial fisheries:

assume no under reporting of summer flounder landings. Therefore, reported landings from the commercial fisheries should be considered minimum estimates.

The recreational fishery landings and discards:

are estimates developed from the Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey (MRFSS). While the estimates of summer flounder catch are among the most precise produced by the MRFSS, they are subject to possible error and bias. A sensitivity analysis to examine to determine the impact of uncertainty in the recreational data on the assessment results revealed that the Proportional Standard Errors (PSEs) of MRFSS estimated landed numbers of fish (1982-2005 average = 6%) and discarded numbers of fish (1982-2005 average = 8%) are relatively small. Therefore, the impact of potential bias within the range of +/- 2 PSEs is also small.

Bad data in gets bad data out.

These numbers are run through different statistical models, for confidence, reliability and such. You can doubt them, but from what I have read, the confidence in the numbers are getting much better, and the results are becoming more reliable.

EC NEWELL MAN<>

This post edited by EC NEWELL MAN 06:24 AM 01/11/2008
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,585 Posts
JR...I just found this which gives a good assessment of collecting data from the commercial community to the recreational community-

Differences between gathering data from commercial versus recreational fisheries can be compared through analogy to methods used to estimate store inventory. Developing a stock assessment based on commercial and fishery independent data is like obtaining a computerized list of goods sold at the registers in Walmart. Developing a stock assessment using recreational fishery survey data is more similar to conducting a market survey by asking people at random in the parking lot at the Mall of America how many of a particular item they bought, and using that information to estimate store inventory.

Particularly in the case of recreational fisheries, timeliness of data availability was a major problem. To stay within the total allowable catch limits, for example, total catch data (commercial and recreational) and data on discards in other fisheries should be available in time to allow closing a season early. Although most commercial data meet this criterion, recreational catch data generally are not available in this time frame. Expansion of the recreational share of many fisheries has exacerbated the problem. Presently, in-season management of most recreational fisheries is not possible. New data collection is constrained by state and federal budget limitations. To meet expanding information needs, NMFS should work to improve the quality of data available from commercial and recreational fisheries.

Unlike most commercial fishery operations, in which a small number of vessels land large volumes of fish in a highly regulated manner at designated ports, most recreational fisheries tend to have a great number of individual fishermen who are highly dispersed in where they fish and how they land fish, operating in a system that is not uniformly regulated or licensed.

The lack of a national program for saltwater fishing licenses greatly complicates estimation of recreational catch and effort.

EC NEWELL MAN<>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,031 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
All I know is this EC- and these are facts- not up for interpretAation or discussion:

1- it is obviously impossible that MA landed over 2 million pounds of fluke, if we had, I think it would be one of the biggest overages ever recorded and we obviously would not have been fishing the next year.....but we were fishing, so obviously this never occured.

2.- the mackerel figure......? is all I can say, whatever formula/s they used to arrive at that figure? almost 3 million pounds....thats more than all the other species combined in Ma, rec'ly.

These are their #'s. This is obviously a much bigger problem than most folks have ever considered, IMO.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
74,095 Posts
And I'll just add one thing to Steve's excellen reply. Those numbers are the ones that MUST be used by the fishery managers, no matter what you think of them. All of this data should become much more reliable when the federal registry goes into place next yar.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,031 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
I guess no one has an opinion on my actual question?

The #'s are wrong- period...that was my point- I don't give a darn as to how or why...just that they are wrong.

As long as they keep using eronous, made up - imaginary #'s....we are all living with rulemaking that is based on BS!!!


Hence the question-
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,031 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
EC Newell wrote:
You can doubt them, but from what I have read, the confidence in the numbers are getting much better, and the results are becoming more reliable.

I don't just doubt them Steve, I absolutely insist that all those #'s are wrong, very wrong. 3 million pounds of mackerel???- C'mon man!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,031 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
more math.........

On the bluefish:

They say Ma rec's caught 3,222,942 #'s of blues in '06.:confused:

Lets do a little figuring here-

3222942 / 5#'s =644,588 fish.....follow me so far?
so- the limit is 10 fish- so if you divide the # of fish, by the trip limit, you end up with 64,458 instances of someone taking a limit of blues, in just 1 year.....I sincerely doubt thats even possible, never mind probable. Make the fish all 10 #'s which is huge for here on average and you still end up with 32,000 limits.....lol

Yep, my confidence is feeling better by the moment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,343 Posts
Great Post Steve


John I don't know enough about the fisheries in your area to add much to this but I will agree that it does seem odd that the commercial fluke landings could have been more than double the quota... with no payback... You didnt post what the quota was however... any chance you made a mistake?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,031 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
reelfisher wrote:
Great Post Steve


John I don't know enough about the fisheries in your area to add much to this but I will agree that it does seem odd that the commercial fluke landings could have been more than double the quota... with no payback... You didnt post what the quota was however... any chance you made a mistake?

I believe it was no more than 1,2 million? Thats a guess but I don't recall it ever being higher, I mean my guess is withing 100,000#'s+/-.

In any event, yes, it is rather odd that "they" recorded this # as our landings.

The whole point I am trying to make is- these #'s are really screed up, the more you look at them, the worse it gets.

Have many folks ever actually just sat there for a while and queriede the DB? The returns are shocking. This is why we are so messed up, they say we caught one thing, we all know isn't possible and yet they make rules based on these #'s.

Look at the rec landings for mackerel......how could that possibly be?

I've made it a point to ask a lot of people, sort of did my own survey about the mac #'s, same response from every single one- "whats a mackerel?" we haven't had a decent, never mind good, mac run in ages.......????

So who is fooling who?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,064 Posts
loligo wrote:
EC Newell wrote:
You can doubt them, but from what I have read, the confidence in the numbers are getting much better, and the results are becoming more reliable.

I don't just doubt them Steve, I absolutely insist that all those #'s are wrong, very wrong. 3 million pounds of mackerel???- C'mon man!

There is absolutely NO way that MA recs caught 3 million pounds of macks. There are hardly any macks around anymore, let alone enough to have recs catching that many!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,031 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
you know that and I know that 2fin. but- what rules are gonna be based on this, or what SA's will take this # as a viable #?

If so many #'s are off for just my state, not just rec, but both ways rec and comm'l, how on earth should we have any confidence in any other #'s?

think about it.

if the #'s are messed and they are saying NY and NJ are catching X of fluke and they are saying you have to cut back to X because of this,,,I think theres something fishy goin on....

This post edited by loligo 08:36 PM 01/29/2008
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
74,095 Posts
loligo wrote:
If so many #'s are off for just my state, not just rec, but both ways rec and comm'l, how on earth should we have any confidence in any other #'s?


If you take the trouble to axtually read EC's explanation and then look at the Standard Percentile error you will find that the error facotr drops as you increase the area and it reaches it lowest on a coastwide basis. The coatwide numbers are what really matters. And again, the commercial numbers have nothing to do with landings queeries, they are based on dealer reports. You can't find the commercial data from the MRFSS website.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,031 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
MakoMike wrote:
loligo wrote:
If so many #'s are off for just my state, not just rec, but both ways rec and comm'l, how on earth should we have any confidence in any other #'s?

If you take the trouble to axtually read EC's explanation and then look at the Standard Percentile error you will find that the error facotr drops as you increase the area and it reaches it lowest on a coastwide basis. The coatwide numbers are what really matters. And again, the commercial numbers have nothing to do with landings queeries, they are based on dealer reports. You can't find the commercial data from the MRFSS website.

Wow...
The comm'l landings are from the NMFS comm'l landings database, not the MRFSS site, give me a little credit, will ya Mike, I mean really.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,047 Posts
reelfisher wrote:
Great Post Steve


John I don't know enough about the fisheries in your area to add much to this but I will agree that it does seem odd that the commercial fluke landings could have been more than double the quota... with no payback... You didnt post what the quota was however... any chance you made a mistake?

For both the rec and commercial web pages Loligo posted, I think what you are looking at is something provided to the public. I don't think that's what they use to monitor the landings or catches for both sectors probably because it's not error checked.

They don't even count recs caught macks in figuring out the landings....do they?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,343 Posts
OK John... Just had to ask that lol Given how srewed up MRFSS is no numbes shock me on the Rec side of the fence.. In fact a couple of years ago I alone caught more weakfish than MRFSS said we landed for the year and I know a few other members and mods here that can say the same thing:rolleyes: Same goes with fluke though in the opposite direction.

What I am surprised at is how commercial landings could be that far off given landing reports etc....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,031 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
reelfisher wrote:
In fact a couple of years ago I alone caught more weakfish than MRFSS said we landed for the year and I know a few other members and mods here that can say the same thing:rolleyes: Same goes with fluke though in the opposite direction.

What I am surprised at is how commercial landings could be that far off given landing reports etc....


yep thats right

At the very7 least, isn't it odd that they even show a number, be it the final # or? but obviously there is something wrong with that #.
If this is wrong, what else is wrong, I find all kinds of oddities in both the rec and the comm'l estimates/landings.

Maybe I'm blind maybe I'm seeing something thats not there?? I don't think so.


NMFS had our sea bass landings as being less than some guys took individually (annually) when they first started all the quota crap....:rolleyes:


This post edited by loligo 04:00 PM 01/10/2008
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,047 Posts
loligo wrote:

yep thats right

At the very7 least, isn't it odd that they even show a number, be it the final # or? but obviously there is something wrong with that #.
If this is wrong, what else is wrong, I find all kinds of oddities in both the rec and the comm'l estimates/landings.

Maybe I'm blind maybe I'm seeing something thats not there?? I don't think so.


NMFS had our sea bass landings as being less than some guys took individually (annually) when they first started all the quota crap....:rolleyes:


Like I said, I don't think those are the "real" numbers, but done as a courtesy to the public. None of those numbers match the numbers that come out of the assessments. So maybe they should just shut those sites for the public down.
 
1 - 19 of 34 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