Notices
Like Tree17Likes

Monitoring the recreational fish catch.

Old 06-05-2019, 11:13 AM
  #21  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Saunderstown / Pt Judith, RI
Posts: 1,665
Default

Originally Posted by FV Orca View Post
slper - This might be the most ignorant reply I have ever read on this site.
you should spend more time in dockside.
baja_01 likes this.
Sin Bin fishing RI is offline  
Old 06-05-2019, 05:55 PM
  #22  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: North of Cuber, South of Gawga
Posts: 520
Default

FV Orca they must be really state of the art techniques with specially chosen scientist to peer review, to arrive at some of their reports.

Take this example for instance which was part of the documentation used to justify closing red snapper harvest by the SAFMC.
In 11 of the 15 years we show zero shore caught fish, but in 4 of the years we had thousands of pounds of these "shore fish".
You are correct these techniques are so special that the average Joe can't comprehend them. To the average Joe it appears they just plug in bullcrap numbers when and where needed to reach the total they need to justify their "findings" Footnote says these fish were in between NC & FL. Were they caught surf fishing?

SolOps likes this.
Grunts N Grits is offline  
Old 06-07-2019, 09:06 AM
  #23  
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location:
Posts: 53
Default

This is the part where you boggle our minds with your better idea for how to completely account for each individual fish stock, Grunts. Go ahead. Especially the ones that move up and down the coast through state and Federal waters and through ~10 jurisdictions and ~20 fisheries.
I admit - I know very little about the snapper fishery - I'm a New England guy. But one picture out of a report is a tough way to judge anything. Even if they botched that one, I bet the southeast fisheries science center could explain the issues to you.
Point is... so many people bitch and moan but very few understand the science mixed with political BS and even fewer ever do anything about it.
FV Orca is offline  
Old 06-07-2019, 11:49 AM
  #24  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: North of Cuber, South of Gawga
Posts: 520
Default

Originally Posted by FV Orca View Post
Point is... so many people bitch and moan but very few understand the science mixed with political BS and even fewer ever do anything about it.
No, we completely do understand the "science mixed with political BS". We go to meetings and we are scoffed at and told what we see is not what their expert historically bench marked data supports. Then we read these "peer reviewed" reports that always have something in them that is so wrong it's laughable. And we give public input that is recorded in the federal register and voted against anyway.

We can only draw the conclusion it is ineptitude at it's finest or corruption. This is the part where maybe you could boggle our minds and explain which one it is??

And yes, bless their heart, I bet the southeast fisheries science center could explain to me how thousands of pounds of red snapper were landed from shore between NC and FL east. Probably the same way they explained Jewfish only eat crustaceans (because their data says so) and never steal fish off spears or fishing lines, to me at a meeting in Cape Canaveral a few years ago, at the beginning of this "red snapper debacle" we are currently in.

We need some congressmen with enough sense to get our federal fisheries managers put on the ballot for "retention voting" every few years, like our current federal judges are, then we may have a chance of holding someone accountable.

You say people bitch and moan and do nothing, have you ever looked through the "public comments" and then checked to see how often the voting council member's went against what the majority asked for.

Yes I know they are only required to request and consider the public input, not follow it. But the overwhelmingly lopsided way it seems to always go, should be a red flag to someone.

So don't tell me we don't understand the big picture, we do and we understand under the current regulatory structure we can't do anything about it. "Except bitch & moan"!!!!

Last edited by Grunts N Grits; 06-07-2019 at 11:58 AM.
Grunts N Grits is offline  
Old 06-07-2019, 12:03 PM
  #25  
Senior MemberCaptains Club MemberPLEDGER
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: mass/Point Judith, RI dockage
Posts: 11,795
Default

Don't confuse council membership with the science behind the assessments. They are completely different.

Council members can be, and are in many cases, corrupt to the extent they have HUGE financial stakes in the decisions they make. It is a built in conflict of interest. Not all. But some actually own commercial fishing fleets.

In what universe does it make sense to have the regulated in charge of the regulations?
gerg is offline  
Old 06-07-2019, 12:10 PM
  #26  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: North of Cuber, South of Gawga
Posts: 520
Default

Originally Posted by gerg View Post
Don't confuse council membership with the science behind the assessments. They are completely different.
So none of the voting members are controlling the budget dollars, or decide who gets awarded funds to conduct the science? Is that what you are implying?

The NOAA regional fisheries managers for each area are voting council members aren't they?
Grunts N Grits is offline  
Old 06-07-2019, 12:16 PM
  #27  
Senior MemberCaptains Club MemberPLEDGER
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: mass/Point Judith, RI dockage
Posts: 11,795
Default

Originally Posted by Grunts N Grits View Post
So none of the voting members are controlling the budget dollars, or decide who gets awarded funds to conduct the science? Is that what you are implying?
Not what I was implying. What I was implying is they have the power and authority to interpret the data results in any way they chose, even if the scientists don't agree.

A lot of the rules and budget are set by congress. The councils get to make decisions, which is a weakness when they have huge conflicts of interest.
gerg is offline  
Old 06-07-2019, 01:50 PM
  #28  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Downingtown, PA
Posts: 1,109
Default

Age old disconnect between data and analysis. Data isn’t political, analysis can be. Unfortunately too many people conflate the issue and just bitch about “junk science” when in reality it’s bad analysis and politically driven policy that’s f’ing things up.
Polapea is offline  
Old 06-07-2019, 04:52 PM
  #29  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: North of Cuber, South of Gawga
Posts: 520
Default

Well the figures may not lie, but the liars sure can figure.
Grunts N Grits is offline  
Old 06-08-2019, 05:30 AM
  #30  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: South Caroliina
Posts: 204
Default

Until the Magnuson Stevens Act is reconfigured, not much will change. NOAA/NMFS comes up with a number of fish that can be removed, and hands it off to the regional Councils which in turn sets size limits, creel limits, split between recreational and commercial, etc. The Councils are not any type of data collection agency, they can only work with information provided to them by the states and NOAA/NMFS.

There are typically recreational and commercial fishermen on the Councils. I believe they have to be appointed by the governor of the various states. Probably some recreational boat dealers and builders in there too. Would you rather have people that have no connection to fishing, be it recreational or commercial, on the Councils?

If you want an extremely accurate count of recreational landings, the state or local government is gonna be involved. I don't see a way around it. from a political and funding perspective I don't see this happening.

Regarding those shore caught red snapper, that does seem odd. I suspect 1) either a handful of red snapper were indeed caught from a pier and then the statistics program blew the number up 2) Fish were misidentified by the pier anglers 3) anglers interviewed simply lied Regardless, the shore landings were a rather insignificant part of the landings.
beaufort boy is offline  
Old 06-08-2019, 06:15 AM
  #31  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: North of Cuber, South of Gawga
Posts: 520
Default

Originally Posted by beaufort boy View Post

Regarding those shore caught red snapper, that does seem odd. I suspect 1) either a handful of red snapper were indeed caught from a pier and then the statistics program blew the number up 2) Fish were misidentified by the pier anglers 3) anglers interviewed simply lied Regardless, the shore landings were a rather insignificant part of the landings.
OK, perhaps obviously incorrect conclusions in landings data is insignificant.

But perhaps they were very significant, if without them the landings totals would not reach the level necessary to declare over fishing was occurring, and according to Magnuson Stevens the emergency action to address over fishing must be implemented.
Grunts N Grits is offline  
Old 06-08-2019, 06:39 AM
  #32  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: South Caroliina
Posts: 204
Default

Grits, you and I would have both tossed the shore landings out of the analysis. Then it would be discovered that we "cooked the books" and been out of a job!
beaufort boy is offline  
Old 06-08-2019, 09:03 AM
  #33  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: North of Cuber, South of Gawga
Posts: 520
Default

Not cooking the books..........holding a legitimate peer review.

Peer review ----- It functions to encourage authors to meet the accepted high standards of their discipline and to control the dissemination of research data to ensure that unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations or personal views are not published without prior expert review.
Grunts N Grits is offline  
Old 06-08-2019, 12:51 PM
  #34  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: South Caroliina
Posts: 204
Default

The legit peer review is the SEDAR process. SEDAR Process | SEDAR
  • Stage 1 - Data: A workshop where datasets are documented, analyzed, and reviewed and data for conducting assessment analyses are compiled.
  • Stage 2 - Assessment: A workshop or series of webinars where quantitative population analyses are developed and refined and population parameters are estimated.
  • Stage 3 - Review: A panel or group of independent experts reviews the data and assessment to determine if the methods applied are scientifically sound.
beaufort boy is offline  
Old 06-08-2019, 04:18 PM
  #35  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: North of Cuber, South of Gawga
Posts: 520
Default

Yes legit as in "conforming to the rules; legal", but not legit as in "extremely good or truly genuine".
Grunts N Grits is offline  
Old 06-08-2019, 06:40 PM
  #36  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Johnsonville, SC
Posts: 375
Default

FWIW,
I actually got checked by two NMFS officers last weekend in Murrells Inlet, SC
I found it cute that they were writing the info on a little yellow notepad.

not sure if they found it funny that when they told me they were NMFS I said “the No More Fishery Service?”
he said “No More Fishing Season”
reel trick is offline  
Old 06-09-2019, 09:32 AM
  #37  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Fort Pierce,FL
Posts: 5,048
Default

Originally Posted by Timex View Post
recreational fisherman that DON'T REPORT their catch are actually hurting themselves. when the pie is divied up so to speak those that previously used the most of a resource (reported) their catch get allotted the most in the future. it's a little hard to wrap your mind around but those that use less of an allotted resource (not report )in the future will be allotted less of that resource
Correct, It is a fact that the blue fin tuna catches rarely get reported as required and the europeans want a larger quota because the Americans are not taking/reporting their catch.
barrell is offline  
Old 06-10-2019, 09:54 AM
  #38  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 514
Default

Originally Posted by barrell View Post
Correct, It is a fact that the blue fin tuna catches rarely get reported as required and the europeans want a larger quota because the Americans are not taking/reporting their catch.
Oh like anyone in the Med reports fish accurately......................
Ron@.38 Special is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread