Hoping for an Answer

[capt.george]

posted on 27-Dec-2005 6:25:16 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last spring we apparently took between 10,000 and 25,000 trophies more than allotted us during the season - a figure that still is being contested.

------Based on last years OVERAGE of fish, Charged to Maryland--Does anyone know if possibly the 8% mortality rate & 10% charged for poaching, were converted into the fish overharvested figure---If so did it start March 1st or April 15 th ----
----------------------------------------------------------------------

---Took the Liberty of moving my Question to this site , hoping for an answer----[grin]

[Tom Powers]

George,

Unless there is a fish by fish reporting program in MD, they probably use MRFSS for the number of fish.

I have a pretty good understanding of how MRFSS works. They use A + B1 fish when they count fish killed. Those ar fish kept and released dead. I would suspect that for striped bass that not many are reported as released dead when they do the dockside interviews. Also they would have a hard time justifying a size distribution of the released dead fish.

They do not charge any of the recreational quotas for release mortality fish, which is released alive times mortality rate.

In 2004 March/April MRFSS has MD as landing 33,364 fish and May/June it was 60,871 fish. Using the size distribution from their pages here is the distribution of harvest for those two waves. The third column is the sum of larger than fish. For instance if the cut off is 32 inches (fork length) then there were 14,500 fish in wave 2 and 20,300 fish in wave 3. I do not have access to the 2005 data.

Wave 2
Inches -- # fish -- # fish larger than
21 -- 1,221 -- 33,371
22 -- 137 -- 32,150
23 -- 761 -- 32,013
24 -- 897 -- 31,252
25 -- 881 -- 30,355
26 -- 1,268 -- 29,474
27 -- 824 -- 28,206
28 -- 2,773 -- 27,382
29 -- 3,123 -- 24,609
30 -- 2,335 -- 21,486
31 -- 4,638 -- 19,151
32 -- 3,777 -- 14,513
33 -- 1,101 -- 10,737
34 -- 4,548 -- 9,636
35 -- 340 -- 5,088
36 -- 587 -- 4,748
37 -- 1,011 -- 4,160
38 -- 911 -- 3,150
39 -- 1,325 -- 2,239
40 -- 440 -- 914
41 -- 414 -- 474
42 -- 30 -- 60
43 -- 0 -- 30
44 -- 30 -- 30

Wave 3
Inches -- # fish -- # fish larger than

15 -- 67 -- 60,877
16 -- 262 -- 60,810
17 -- 1,613 -- 60,548
18 -- 1,522 -- 58,935
19 -- 2,380 -- 57,414
20 -- 1,771 -- 55,033
21 -- 359 -- 53,262
22 -- 1,437 -- 52,903
23 -- 901 -- 51,466
24 -- 213 -- 50,566
25 -- 2,593 -- 50,352
26 -- 2,100 -- 47,759
27 -- 3,147 -- 45,659
28 -- 3,622 -- 42,512
29 -- 6,763 -- 38,890
30 -- 3,920 -- 32,128
31 -- 3,932 -- 28,208
32 -- 1,997 -- 24,275
33 -- 5,771 -- 22,279
34 -- 1,936 -- 16,508
35 -- 3,269 -- 14,573
36 -- 2,818 -- 11,304
37 -- 3,257 -- 8,485
38 -- 1,248 -- 5,229
39 -- 2,934 -- 3,981
40 -- 505 -- 1,047
41 -- 542 -- 542



The released alive fish were:

Wave 2 -- 87,028
Wave 3 -- 407,062

Multiplying that by 0.08 you get:

Wave 2 -- 6,962 fish
Wave 3 -- 32,564 fish

Again without any contractor measured fish they would have a difficult time coming up with a size distribution of dead fish.


Tom

[scotty80]

The bottom line is that way too many pre and post spawn fish were caught last year. Unless you want another moratorium, there needs to be cut backs. We can sit here and pretend to be Biologists, or we can accept that this is based on the best available science and studies.

Personally, I don't think spawning fish should be targeted for catch & kill.

[Tom Powers]

Scotty actually this is more of an allocation issue. A while back I did the numbers coast wide by age for 2003 based on an ASMFC report and came up with the following.

The total recreational harvest of age 8 and above (kinda 32 inches) was 948,600 fish.

The total commercial harvest of age 8 and above was 249,000 fish

So you are looking at a MD bay spring quota of 30,000 big fish as compared to a total harvest of about 1,200,000 fish coast wide annually. Something less than 3% of the harvest. Oh and these numbers do not count the recently "discovered" (by MRFSS) harvest off of NC in Jan and Feb. I don't remember how many but it was a goodly fraction of the 1,200,000 fish and it does not count discard mortality coast wide. A dead fish is a dead fish.

All that being said I agree with you that the spawning reaches should be protected in the spring.

Tom

[Matt]

Don't agree its more of an allocation issue, nor should we put any faith in the MRFSS "data." Its not data. Its highly suspect guesswork that will not stand up to any kind of legitimate statistical test.

Scotty has it right. Anadromous fish should not be targeted for harvest during the spawn. Thats just good conservation. Unfortunately there are still too many people who really believe striped bass are fine

[Tom Powers]

Matt,

The MRFSS data on striped bass is probably pretty good when it is looked at coast wide. When I say pretty good I mean +/- 20 % maybe as good as +/- 10 %. Probably not much better.

For MD for 3 or 4 months in bay MAYBE it is as good as +/- 50%. It gets worse as you make the area or number of months smaller. The problem is a lack of intercepted fish. There are also issues regarding localized fisheries that are expanded to state wide effort, etc.

How many fish over 8 years old are harvested each year coast wide? My best guess is between 900,000 and 1,400,000 fish. In MD during the spring it is a whole other matter. But hey that is the data that the managers are looking at. If you don't like it try working within the system to get it changed.

Tom

BTW the best data in Virginia is probably croaker because there were several thousand intercepted fish each wave.

[capt.george]

[q] Personally, I don't think spawning fish should be targeted for catch & kill.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scotty
-------------------------------Scotty & Others, I must respectfully address this negetive thought in this manner ---WHEN is a female fish not a spawner?
----Unfortunatly Maryland, being the largest provider of replacement stock to the East Coast fishery, it is under constant pressure , & a Jaundiced eye from other states to save THIER fish from the Maryland spring season----
----In ANY given year's catch figures based on fish caught & fish Allowed---It stands to reason that Some of the fish in the 28"---35" class are resident MALES--Could we safely say 25% ?------OR more,-- as so many of Maryland anglers state they return roe laden fish-------------
------The April---May Spring season is a 30 day or less (weather loss) season when anglers get a well deserved shot at fish that return to our waters ---These SAME POST SPAWN fish are targeted by every TOM Dick & Harry, for the remaning 335 days of the year-----AND YES a percentage of these ARE potential spawners--
----As long as our young of the year studies, & our fishery management continues to provide positive results , Maryland's spring season should not be unjustly singled out as problem--

----If anything Maryland should be the subject of Praise & Achivement in it's role of "Nannie" to the east coast's success of this fishery----
----It should be obvious that with a state record of only 67#, that our BIG FISH reduction is limited in time & access----OH WELL-[wink]

[Capt Frank]

When is Md/Va going to consider mycobacteriosis in their count. Seems to me that this disease is like HIV, politically protected.

[Tom Powers]

Frank,

There has been a lot of grumbling in the background about adjusting the natural mortality used in the models upward for just that reason.

Tom

[Matt]

Tom, "grumbling" makes it sound unwarranted. I think it would be fair to say there's a desire for a more scientific approach, not grumbling.

Also, I would really appreciate it if you could support the statement: " MRFSS data on striped bass is probably pretty good when it is looked at coast wide. When I say pretty good I mean +/- 20 % maybe as good as +/- 10 %. Probably not much better."

I think the agency conducting the survey and politically appointed fishery managers want to believe the MRFSS findings are better than nothing, but I think the facts will show MRFSS was never intended to be an in-season assessment of quota, and survey itself does not attempt to generate an accurate assessment of landings.

Most serious recreational fishermen share concerns about the accuracy and reliability of the information MRFSS is reporting, because most of us have not been surveyed. DNR suggests that some of us will not be surveyed ever, and some of us will get surveyed two or three times a year. I don't think that argument will hold up in the court of public opinion, but thats just my opinion.

Based on the questions asked in the survey, I don't think there is a reasonable argument that MRFSS has a scientific basis of assessing recreational landings. Plus or minus 20% is as much a guess as the landings "data" presented earlier in this thread. It could be plus or minus 100%, or 1000%. First of all, the actual survey relies heavily on uses cold calling techniques, dialing phone numbers randomly. There is a relatively small amount of "intercept" data that is used to assess effort and landings, but I don't think the sample sizes are adequate to make generalizations about the entire recreational fishing community, in terms of landings or effort.

Questions asked in the surveys tend to be wordy and leading, which appears to skew the findings. NMFS openly admits the survey was designed to assess economic data and fishing effort, but not specific landings by species. If you've ever participated in the survey, you will recognize many of the questions here:

http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/recreational/documents/MRFSS%20Telephone/Appendix_D_CHTS_Questionnaire.pdf

Tom wrote: "If you don't like it try working within the system to get it changed."

I appreciate that sentiment, but one thing is certain: the "system" doesn't reward freethinking. The system rewards dogmatic rhetoric more than critical thinking. Right or wrong, marine fishery management is designed for economic sustainment more than wildlife management. I do not begrudge our politicians for using marine fishery management to do constituent service, and I don't really care if the fishery people choose to be political pawns. Just don't tell me we're using the best available science to conserve the bay. Thats not true.

With regards to George's question: WHEN is a female fish not a spawner? Its a good question. I guess the answer is never. Once she's part of the spawning stock, she's a spawner. My point, and support for Scotty's statement relates to timing. Harvesting spawners during migration constitues an "intercept fishery." Intercept fisheries tend to cause overfishing at an unacceptably high rate. Maryland's spring trophy season is an intercept fishery.

[scotty80]

Capt G,
WHEN is a female fish not a spawner? With all due respect, that is not a fair analogy of my statement. To use that analogy, male SB should also be off limits because they also play a crucial role in reproduction...

My point is that based on the best available science, the Trophy season can harvest X number of fish. We went way over X last year. The tone of your initial post suggests to me that you want more fish than allocated. The laws were bent in the past due to political pressure. Moratorium was the outcome. I just don't want to ever see that happen again.

[capt.george]

My point is that based on the best available science, the Trophy season can harvest X number of fish. We went way over X last year. The tone of your initial post suggests to me that you want more fish than allocated. The laws were bent in the past due to political pressure. Moratorium was the outcome. I just don't want to ever see that happen again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------
------- The tone of your initial post suggests to me that you want more fish than allocated. ----------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------Scotty----You will NEVER hear this Ole Dog Bark, for more than the Fishery Managers say is needed to continue what Maryland's --Delaware's & D.C.'s Sacrifice Started-----A Lopsided 5 years to Recovery-----Where was the so called Do Gooders & Enforcers from Maine to N.C.---During the 5 years of Moratorium ?------They All became Mile or More birds with thier Heads in the Sand----Thanks, Things Are better for US, Etc. the fish are more plentiful & the size is increasing ---Come on , fish for Stripers in our waters , No restrictions Here----Am I bitter on this point ? Somewhat---I'M proud to have been a Participting part of of the Recovery story, proud to have worked in the hatcheries, caught fish for blood tests, caught fish for studies as to the progress of the endervor ----My only Perpetuating bitterness was the lack of Co-Operation from the rest of the Coastal states---OH Well--
----Scotty, what I do question, is How in the world did these Overwheming catch figures come about?---Tom Powers assures me that mortality & poaching % Don't count during the trophy season ---So based on this, the fish count is on fish LANDED ONLY-
--------The only Formal fish count is the Charter Fleets Weekly log book reports---
------As I have Questioned before, where did the additional FISH LANDED reports come From?----
---The Overage is mind boggleing!!---Were talking FEMALES now, Migratory Females----Should we consider A Conservative Pecentage for Resident males caught----Probably not, but a thought----
--To set the record straight, I only want, is what every angler wants , & that is how did the Fish landed figure come about & is it reasonably accurate----[grin]

[Matt]

capt.george wrote:

how did the Fish landed figure come about & is it reasonably accurate



define "reasonable"

[Tom Powers]

Unless there is a formal reporting process the total harvest came from the MRFSS data.

It is broken into two basic parts. The first part is the dockside interview data. It provides several things.

1. Catch per angler trip by fishing mode (private boat, charter boat, shore based, etc.) They take the total number of harvested fish for each species and divide it by the total number of participating fishermen. Call this CPUE.

2. The size distribution of the landed fish which is normally turned into an average size per wave.

3. The percentage of fishermen who do not live in coastal counties within MD (or VA, etc.) Call this "Fx"

The second part is the random telephone interviews of coastal counties. This gives you the number of angler trips per household during each two month wave. Call this TPA.

The thrid part is the number of households in each county. Ncounty

So the total effort, TE, equals

TE = Sum{Ncounty * TPA * (1+Fx)}

where you sum across all of the counties.

So the total catch, TC, is

TC = TE*CPUE

Clear as mud, huh??

So let's talk about what can make MRFSS bad.

First and foremost. It is a statistical model. That means that you need lots of interviews, lots of interviews with individuals who fish and a reasonably lot of intercepted fish for it to be valid.

Second an anomoly in the data can skew things especially during times of relatively low effort. For example. One of the intercept calls in VA in spring of 2004 went to a household in a high population county where a family of 4 spent a month at their waterfront cottage (or campground or rental) for a month. They went fishing every day. That added something like 90,000 angler trips during that wave.

Third, is the concept of regional fisheries where a lot of fish are harvested in a limited geographical region. An example of that is the speckled trout fishery in VA. During the fall 60% of the intercepted fish come from Rudee Inlet. Those fish are expanded by all of the recreational fishermen state wide, even though they were probably caught by less than 150 people who actually fish there.

Regional fisheries also have problems which can skew the average size of the fish.

Private docks are never interviewed. Thus areas with limited public marinas or boat ramps get few intercepts. If they are areas of low CPUE or smaller fish. The data gets skewed towards larger fish.

Lots of things can go wrong with it. Last summer I did extensive work with the Virginia data trying to understand the issues of regionalisim (sp?). I worked with guidance from folks from NMFS, VMRC, VIMS and ODU. Also I was looking at the numbers of fish intercepted per wave, the distribution of interviews as related to fishing effort, etc. The reason that I said that Croaker were a good example is that about 15,000 fish where intercepted on any given year and during the waves 3 and 4, 30% of the intercepted trips left the dock targeting croaker. Speckled trout, for example, had about 400 intercepted fish, most coming from Rudee inlet during wave 5.

On a wave by wave basis, which is what you are talking about for striped bass trophy season it gets way worse. Number of itercepts of 100 or less is not unusal. Heck some species which are tightly managed have way fewer intercepts. In VA tautog only had 152 intercepted fish during all of 2004.

The more numbers the better the estimates. But like Matt said the system was never designed to manage quotas, especially real time.

You asked for an explaination there you have it.

Tom

[Matt]

I'm not sure how many statistical problems this survey has, relative to how it is being used, but I'm fairly certain it is not surveying an adequate sample of the fishing population to assess landings accurately

[capt.george]

---Thank you again Tom----As I said before I'm too slow to to understand the XY&Z's of fish calucation----in the 80's when I was a rep. from Maryland, Active in the Management of Bluefish, Id sit through Hours of Xy & Z's on the first day--I found that the second day devoted to Disscusion & Practical Knowledge, made the meeting Productive----Tho I fully understand the Importance of the Formulas & Written Reports

--Now back to the subject at hand----Contracted Fish Counters, & thier impact on Specific Landing reports-----
----Being a Pack Rat--I went to my old briefcase that I carried in the days I served as Pres. of MCBA-----
----OCT. 31 1991--Wash. Post.--Rec. Season Continues---115,000 #'s still ava. to Rec. anglers--Charterboat Operators who caught thier Ouota of 161,000 were Shut down Sunday-----ETC.

---THis shut down was based on CB logs & the Daily ESTIMATE of Contracted fish counters as to date poundage Quota would be reached----Right?----WRONG--

---The Maryland Charterboat Industry lost 5 days of fishing based on a Counter's estimate ----Our loss was about $151,000 in lost trips & returned Deposits----
----It came to light after audits Etc. that this shutdown was a result of improper calclutations Etc-----Apoligies etc. were recieved in Feb.---I relize this was our first season, in 5 years & the c b & rec. anglers at that time were seperate---OH WELL--
-----I took the time to Hunt & Peck this to show support on the counting process as you see it in VA.
--I whole heartley aggree, with your obsevations---There much the same here---What scares me is the fact in my neck of the woods is when rec. fishermen are scarce, at boat ramps, docking areas etc. they migrate to the charter fleet landings --Measure,weigh,record etc., as well as interview my anglers---

---As most Capt. co-operate,& make these visits Welcome, I am also always worried that THESE fish may show up as Double Counts----My log book report will show no. caught--Could thier report show the same fish & the count be Doubled?----What is your opinion on this ?----

[Tom Powers]

George,

There is good news with respect to your theory. I simplfied the description by one step. All of the CPUE and effort data is calculated for each mode of fishing. Charter, private/rental boat, shore, and head boats. The harvest by species is calculated for each mode and added together.

I do not think that they spilt the modes when determining the average size which is what they use to convert from number of fish to pounds.

Any way that you cut it the NMFS MRFSS data and analysis can not be used for real time fisheries management. There is usually a 3 or 4 month lag between the end of the wave and the preliminary results.

Tom

[scotty80]

Matt, Tom, and Capt G, all have good points. In my opinion the only way to semi-accurately count fish killed, is to have each fish checked in at a station. That is obviously unreasonable so we have to resort to some system of surveys, estimates, etc. There are probably a thousand + ways to do this and none are 100% accurate or popular. We could discuss the different ways forever.

I'll be the first to admit that I don't understand all of Tom's posts regarding studies. I am only starting to understand some of the ways the catch is counted.

Since the inception of the Spring trophy catch & kill season I believe this is the first year of a major overage ? I know there was overage in 04 as well but it was written off due to 'a fully recovered SB stock'. Since the same methods of reporting exist and the fact that the fish were approx a month late this year, isn't it reasonable to assume that there was in fact a substantial overage ? What else has changed ? Nothing except the timing of the spawning run.

Best to all in 06' !

[Matt]

As a professional operations research analyst and certified estimator, I also didn't understand Tom's explanation, but I'm not sure that was his point.

The MRFSS data is collected in two month intervals which I believe Tom is referring to as "waves." Even though we're technically always behind by two months, the sample sizes of survey data within any two month interval are still not representative of the fishing population. Also, the data collection techniques aren't consistent from period to period, leaving us with too many open questions.

I looked closely at the survey after I was surveyed for my first and only time in 25 years of soltwater fishing, and concluded that NMFS couldn't possibly be gathering adequate data to know how many fish are being removed from the water. I think the survey was only ever intended to generate an idea of what species the recreational community spends most of its time targeting.

If we really wanted to know we wouldn't have to check in every fish. We could go back to a system of tags. Every angler gets x number of tags at the beginning of the season, and can use those tags throughout the season, or use'em all up in one day. That strategy would encourage the harvest of mature fish, which is the only strategy that has ever been sucessful. But if some guy really wanted to put all their tags in 12" fish, maybe that would be fine too, if you believe a dead fish is a dead fish.

By using tags, each state would have a good idea of how many fish were harvested, and could simply count sales. Meathogs could buy additional tags in a pay-as-you-go system, where each tag over the initial allotment would be more expensive, and the revenues would pay into funding for the infrastructure necessary to count accurately.

[capt.george]

---Matt----I Sincerly believe there is No problem in Maryland's 18" May 15-------Dec. 15--fishery this is a poundage fishery & has been running smoothly for over a decade---
-----The migratory catch count based on individual fish is My primary concern----
-----As Maryland's fishery is a early one,& because it's our ONLY chance to catch a larger fish, THAT is exploited the rest of the year, my concern is ARE we being the" Scapegoat Of undue Control"----
------THE day's of EL NINIO are OVER--The years that the fall run extended to the upper reaches of the Chesapeake--

-----Two years we blamed it on Hurricanes--This year(05) last year now---It showed its true colors, ---Were back to the prior pattern----During the SEA LICE years, a Sudden intrest in this SHORT LIVED return made fish managers Uneasy, that Md. was getting TWO shots at the Migratory stock----& I truely believe it is affecting Thier planning of the Spring season--------

-----TOM, the Dink fishery was prevelent, here starting in mid November---Creating a mass Exudous to as Stanley says "Down Yonder"---BBT--Ocean----Virginia we love YA , fishing, The Maryland dollars are flowing in like pouring Pi$$ out of a boot---

---WHAT IS this going to do for your fish Count?---How does Virginia get its Figures---The posts seem to all be positive--Seems like the furry creature leaves the pilot seat ON every trip-----

----From the Maryland view point Managers must relize the SO Called Fall migration of "MOMMIES" is OVER for Us----
----If the mid & upper bay is Void of the EL NINIO returns,Some consideration Must be relized for our spring allowence----

-----This is A PERSONAL note----I already , see the hand writing on the wall--Maryland lost its most knowlegable voice on the Striped Bass fishery when Pete Jensen evaporated--His represention of Md.'s user groups before the ASMFC will be missed---Already there is the possible loss of the right to hold tournaments in April----Wer't any then Anyway---Why not May ?
----6,999 MSSA Members ( I belong) supposedly said NO to April--Why not May ?--Inquring minds Know WHY----OH WELL---
[shy][shy]

[Tom Powers]

Matt,

I am sorry that you can not understand my explaination. If you have specific questions about how the data is analyzed state them and I will try to explain. The goal of my analysis this past summer was not not to determine how valid the data was, rather it was to understand the concept of area bias of the data using the same techniques as used by NMFS.

I do agree with you that one of the problems is that there are not enough angler interviews. For instance in 2004 for all of Virginia there were

400 dockside interviews in Mar/Apr
1232 dockside interviews in May/June
1253 dockside interviews in July/Aug
1060 dockside interviews in Sept/Oct.
1028 dockside interviews in Nov/Dec.

In 2000 (the year they use) there were 1,268,800 households in VA coastal counties. They used a random calling system by coastal county and in 2004 they made:

2,315 calls which "documented" 367 angler trips which was expanded out to 247,202 trips in March/April

5,631 calls "documented" 3,517 angler trips which was expanded out to 931,947 trips in May/June

5,597 calls "documented" 3,700 angler trips which was expanded out to 1,215,661 trips in July/Aug

7,149 calls "documented" 3,746 angler trips which was expanded out to 704,172 trips in Sep/Oct

7,265 calls "documented" 2,875 angler trips which was expanded out to 458,995 trips in Nov/Dec

NMFS claims that all of those number of trips are about +/-8% with a 90% confidence level except Wave 2 which was +/-20%

It would be interesting to see your analysis of the errors for the number of trips as determined by the telephone interviews.

Like I said before the CPUE is probably pretty good on species where more than a few thousand fish were intercepted at dockside interviews, especially when the intercepted fish are spread out reasonably evenly state wide. Get it down to a few hundred fish for any given data set or subset and the data is probably not valid. Guess what the fishery management professionals that I speak with regularally agree with that.

The tricky part is expanding the CPUE to total catch.

Tom

[Matt]

Tom, the purpose the MRFSS is to collect information about recreational fishing, but the coldcalling portion of the survey is actually collecting data about the population at large. I think that is a fundamental flaw in that part of the survey that will not give us an adequate sample size to tell us about the habits of the overall recreational fishing population. At best the survey will tell us about the recreational fising habits of the overall population.

Also the cold call data does seek specific information about landings. In order to yield a valid CPUE, you need good landings data. The MRFSS does not assess landings with any accuracy. You're incorrectly suggesting the overall survey yields a reasonable CPUE when the best it could possibly yield is an estimate of just the effort.

Also you're incorrectly mixing "intercept" terminology. The intercept part of the survey is the part that collects data dockside, using eyeball witness examination of fish landed. Thats the only part of the MRFSS data that yields actual findings about number, weights and lengths of fish caught by species. In the other part of the survey, NMFS contractors coldcall randomly dialed phone numbers, primarily to gauge the presence of marine recreational anglers in the household. The phone calls do not "intercept" trips, The phone call portion of the survey is supposed to follow up with questions about trips if a response is positive about fishing, but the telephone survey does not ask for information about landings.

I think what NMFS is trying to do is estimate the catch AND estimate the effort without a good margin of error or confidence level for either.

[Tom Powers]

First there is the complication of the percentage of dockside intercepts who are indivuals that do not live in coastal counties.

The results of the telephone interviews is the fishing trips per household during the wave in question. That value is multiplied by the number of households in that county to give effort from that county during that wave.

For instance say 1000 households were called in a county and with 25 houses said that they fished during that wave. You are correct they would then ask ask how many trips they went on, the day of the week of each trip and where they launched or fished and the mode (shore, boat, charter). Say 200 fishing trips were taken during that would lead to 0.2 trips per household during that wave. Say there were 200,000 households in that county. Thus they would say that there were 4,000 angler trips from that county during that wave.

Somewhere around here I have numbers regarding how many of the households that were called during each wave actually had someone who fished during the wave. I agree that during most waves there are probably not enough housholds called that actually have saltwater anglers, for the way that the data is being broken down state by state, wave by wave. Results can easily be skewed by a family like I described above.

The problem is that you have to have a way to expand the fishing rate per call to total numbers. If you use a random calling scheme where all households are called you can expand it by total number of households which you know from the census data.

Until you have a universal licensing program AND there is a data base of every license holder's phone number I can not see how they could actually determine the effort.

Tom

PS I edited my previous post to put in different termology regarding the results of telephone interviews.

[Matt]

Tom, I think you should retract the statement :

"...the CPUE is probably pretty good on species where more than a few thousand fish were intercepted at dockside interviews..."

The survey might luck into something close to right at a particular survey site, but its not probable they can assess an reliable coastwide CPUE for any species. Especially a migratory species. What we're talking about is the "confidence" that a similar survey will produce the same results, within a given margin of error. Very doubtful. I do not think the finidngs of the MRFSS would hold up to review in the academic world, and I don't think its valid for the purpose in which the guesstimates are being misused.

[Tom Powers]

Matt,

The couple of thousand has to do with species within a given state. With the same condition "especially when the intercepted fish are spread out reasonably evenly state wide. " All of the numbers in that post had to do with Virginia.

For a coast wide number it would take something like 15,000 to 25,000 intercepted fish distributed over the states based on effort.

Tom

[Matt]

Tom Powers originally wrote:

The couple of thousand has to do with species within a given state. With the same condition "especially when the intercepted fish are spread out reasonably evenly state wide. " All of the numbers in that post had to do with Virginia.

For a coast wide number it would take something like 15,000 to 25,000 intercepted fish distributed over the states based on effort.



Tom, I'm still not sure what you're trying to say. 15 to 25....? Those aren't defensible numbers. Landings sampled in the intercept survey are what they they are...which among other things are inadequate to estimate coastwide landings.

If we had an adequate coastwide sample of recreational landings, the MRFSS might be helpful for managing a single species. Unfortunately that's not the case.

[Tom Powers]

When they do the surveys they have a given number of fish intercepted each wave and year. For some fish (sheepshead, and Cobia) they might intercept 2 or 3 fish per year in VA. Guess what MRFSS comes up with harvest numbers based on those fish, and years where there were no intercepted fish they reported landings. That data is bogus.

Fish like Croaker with several thousand intercepted fish in VA from several hundred trips there is much better (calculated) landings data.

MRFSS may very well be inadaquate for most species. (For Croaker in VA, in my opinion, is there is adaquate data for CPUE. For tautog, there probably is not.) That being said. It is what the fisheries managers are using in many cases.

My opinion is that it is better to understand the process so that you can tell the difference between numbers that are fair to good indicators of effort and landings; what is bogus due to inadaquate data and what is suspect due to anomolies in the raw data. Or I can do like you and shake my fist at the system and say they are all wrong.

George asked some questions regarding where the data came from. What fish were included and what fish were not. I hope I provided some useful information.

Here is a statement for you. The sky is blue. How do you feel about that?

Tom

[Matt]

Tom Powers wrote:

MRFSS may very well be inadaquate for most species. ...That being said. It is what the fisheries managers are using in many cases...Or I can do like you and shake my fist at the system and say they are all wrong.



Well Tom, it didn't take you long to go from being wrong to insulting me. I don't shake my fist at the system. I think its a good system for the purpose it is intended to serve. Fishery management is intended to sustain jobs in coastal communities. The federal, state and regional rules all direct marine fishery managers with that same intent. I accept the rules, and have stopped trying to convince myself there's real science behind the process.

I believe its probable the system will continue to fail to provide good recreational fishing opportunities on a continuous basis because this system is too skewed toward commercial interests. Frankly, that doesn't bother me much either. Thats the way many of our environmental laws, regs and policies are written and executed.

My only gripe is when people write in public in a manner that obfuscates reality about the so-called data. We don't have good data. We don't need good data to do what we're doing. All this system requires is an adequate number of political pawns to support these welfare-like programs, to give them stakeholder blessing. To that extent, I think we owe you a debt of gratitude Tom. Recs might not be able to catch many fish, but you're a good spokesman for the system that got us here.

[capt.george]

Well Tom, it didn't take you long to go from being wrong to insulting me. I don't shake my fist at the system. I think its a good system for the purpose it is intended to serve

-----0500--good morning MEN !-----------------------------------------

-----Woah-----Matt ole friend---We know that what is being posted may & will infurate you at times, as I understand It may touch your professional knowledge---BUT please, Don't let it Scuttle this thread, Were all Ship Mates here---Hopefully the type that would share a PDF in a time of need----I think there has been an outpouring of Info. & I'd hate to see it fail at this early date----That said Good Morning again !!

----AS a Charterboat operator, I sence a feeling for the first time since 1990 of Threatning gale winds closing in ---A decided effort of some to Split the hard fought Alliance between user groups in Maryland------It Always has been my Contention that when one bleeds, we all bleed----
-----AS a Primary Provider to the Striped Bass recovery, I am troubled by the fact that it seems like Maryland is in a Chokehold created by XY&Z's & uncertain so called Surveys---

----I read the phone survey, It seems very long & very Nit Picking---Wonder how many Hang up w/o compleation----
---Would a phone block against Spam stop this phone survey, from coming through---
---You mention good Data---I've compleatly Failed to find a simple 2005 30 day data sheet on Maryland's (rec.-chtr.) trophy season ---Guess I'm Dence--[grin]

[Matt]

fair enough, but we ALL need to a) stick to the facts and b) avoid personal remarks.

I'm on solid ground with my interpretation of the survey. This really is not a complicated subject. Govt is assessing rec landings accurately or they aren't. Either way, its not infuriating me. I actually take a little comfort in the exchange we've had here, because I am more certain, after reading Toms lengthy vacuous descriptions, that govt is not accounting for rec landings accurately. Also I think Tom beliefs about MRFSS CPUE data have yet to be supported with anything but conjecture.

Tom, we can't have good cpue without good catch data. Hope we can agree on that.

When it comes to striped bass, either govt is significantly underestimating landings, or significantly overestimating exploitable stock, or both. On the other hand, the fishery has been healthy, i.e. lots of people still fishing, so theres still a good argument that everything is ok.

Thats my opinion. Not infuriated, not shaking fist.

[capt.george]

Matt---We know that---My posts are also tempered with Restraint.-- Some times feel like Jimmy Carter at Camp David --Oh Well---The Boats are Asleep----[grin]

[Tom Powers]

Matt said "Tom, we can't have good cpue without good catch data. Hope we can agree on that. "

That is my point. To get good CPUE data you need sufficient intercepted fish in order to get valid size distributions, and well as to insure that the process is not completely missing some major fraction of the data. Furthermore the distribution of dockside interviews needs to be representive of the distribution of the fishing effort by type and geographical area.

If you want I can send you all of the raw data files from Virginia for 2004 and you can try to understand where there are problems with the system.

Species like Atlantic Croaker in Virginia are an easy example of what is probably the best data state wide.

1. In 30% of the trips during the summer waves the folks are leaving the dock with intention of targeting croaker. Thus there is less bias because the bulk of the individuals that are being interviewed are not targeting that species.

2. The intercepted landings are uniformally distributed across the state consistent with the distribution of effort.

3. The bulk of the fishery is during the peak fishing seasons is when there are lots of "reported" trips during the telephone interviews. Thus there is less potential for one household skewing the data.

4. During the 2004 season 10,250 fish were observed dockside in Virginia.

Take tautog for example in the fall as a problem.

1. The fall fishery is dominated by other species such as flounder (in Sept/Oct.) and striped bass in Oct/Nov/Dec. Thus the overall effort is not always a good indicator of tautog effort.

2. The fishery is generally regionalized to the lower bay and coastal waters. So effort in the up river areas should not really be counted against a lot of this fishery. (different CPUE on a regional basis)

3. Only 251 fish were intercepted during the entire season.

4. During the Mar/Apr Wave, 102 of those fish were intercepted (largest CPUE buy a factor of 4 to 10 as compared to the other waves) and there was half of the telephone calls made as compared to the other waves, which introduces a larger error in the overall effort.

I stated the following "MRFSS may very well be inadaquate for most species. (For Croaker in VA, in my opinion, there is adaquate data for CPUE. For tautog, there probably is not.) That being said. It is what the fisheries managers are using in many cases."

I stand by that statement. For most species there were very few intercepted fish in VA. While low (i.e. a few hundred fish) may be adaquate for calculating the CPUE (assuming good distribution of data geographically). Having less than 100 intercepted fish does not provide me with much confidence regarding the size distribution of that species.

For striped bass during wave 6 in Virginia (the dominant season) 825 fish were intercepted. While there may be geographic distribution issues. In my opinion that is a sufficient number of intercepted fish go give valid CPUE and average size data.

I choose to work within the system for positive change. I try to understand how the data is collected and processed. I have proposed changes to the system that hopefully will make it better.

I lurk and participate on several other fishing boards. Unlike this board, where those who are involved with fisheries management have been chased away, most of those boards have participation by individuals who are involved with fisheries management.

George I hope I have answered you questions. If you can get access to the raw data files. Let me know and I will look at them to try and understand the issues regarding your spring trophy season.

Tom

[Matt]

Tom Powers wrote:

Matt said "Tom, we can't have good cpue without good catch data. Hope we can agree on that. "

That is my point. To get good CPUE data you need sufficient intercepted fish in order to get valid size distributions, and well as to insure that the process is not completely missing some major fraction of the data.


on page three you wrote:

Like I said before the CPUE is probably pretty good on species where more than a few thousand fish were intercepted at dockside interviews, especially when the intercepted fish are spread out reasonably evenly state wide. Get it down to a few hundred fish for any given data set or subset and the data is probably not valid. Guess what the fishery management professionals that I speak with regularally agree with that.




then you wrote:

For striped bass during wave 6 in Virginia (the dominant season) 825 fish were intercepted.... In my opinion that is a sufficient number of intercepted fish go give valid CPUE and average size data.



??? Are hundreds of fish adequate or not? Just so we can be clear on what you really said...which species have good cpue estimates, and which don't? Also, please explain what factors you count toward effort, and how the MRFSS accounts for that effort.

Tom wrote:

I choose to work within the system for positive change.



ok Tom, I just hope you're not trying to say that anybody with a different opinion or approach is necessarily wrong, because thats not good for anyone. I choose not to waste my time working with a system that is designed by law and regulation to sustain commercial fishing jobs but not necessarily fish. Personally I value different opinions.

I think the only people who stop posting here are people who either don't value diverse opinions or they don't really care if anybody doesn't believe what they believe. Its no secret you're insinuating those people were "run off" by me. I can name a handful of CCA folks including yourself, who have insulted me repeatedly because I didn't believe what they believed.

Tom, I think I can sum up our differences to say that you believe contemporary marine fishery management is a good answer to our problems, whereas I think it is the problem. You think participating in the process is a good way for your voice to be heard, and I think supporting this process lends credence to a process that doesnt help me. You think you're changing the process, and I think this process is designed by law and regulation to sustain commercial fishing jobs but not necessarily fish. Right or wrong, thats the way the process really is.

Finally, you think its beneficial to dismiss and insult people who question your mixed messages, and I think its good for us to get different opinions out in the open so we may learn from eachother.

[boneman]

Where do I begin, where do I begin...

First of all, it's clear to me that Tom has gone the extra mile to share his knowledge of the MRFSS process - knowledge gained, I'm sure, only after countless and uncompensated hours of his personal time. For this I say, thank you, Tom.

And secondly, I gotta shake my head in disbelief... Somehow, after Tom explained what he has learned of the MRFSS processes at great length and detail, all while patiently and professionally responding to Matt's insinuations and provocations - somehow, some way, Matt would like us to believe that he's the victim here.

Matt, I got a question fer ya... Did you ever wonder what happened to that thread you recently started requesting folk's observations of pound nets numbers/locations? You know, that thread that had 100 views yet 0 responses? Could it be that most every boardmember has learned to avoid engaging you in any type of discourse - because they understand that invariably, you'll twist every discussion, no matter how innocuous, into an argument and end-up declaring yourself the victim?

[Matt]

boneman originally wrote:
Where do I begin, where do I begin...

First of all, it's clear to me that Tom has gone the extra mile to share his knowledge of the MRFSS process - knowledge gained, I'm sure, only after countless and uncompensated hours of his personal time. For this I say, thank you, Tom.

And secondly, I gotta shake my head in disbelief... Somehow, after Tom explained what he has learned of the MRFSS processes at great length and detail, all while patiently and professionally responding to Matt's insinuations and provocations - somehow, some way, Matt would like us to believe that he's the victim here.

Matt, I got a question fer ya... Did you ever wonder what happened to that thread you recently started requesting folk's observations of pound nets numbers/locations? You know, that thread that had 100 views yet 0 responses? Could it be that most every boardmember has learned to avoid engaging you in any type of discourse - because they understand that invariably, you'll twist every discussion, no matter how innocuous, into an argument and end-up declaring yourself the victim?



Boneman, I never claim to be the victim. I control my own destiny.

I appreciate your effort to get me rankled, but you have to do better than that. BTW, this board is for discussion. Please stay on topic.

[capt.george]

I think this process is designed by law and regulation to sustain commercial fishing jobs but not necessarily fish. Right or wrong, thats the way the process really is.

------Matt--Why this HANG Up in your thinking---( Iwill give you credit ,you don't hide the fact that you feel this way---) and I must agree 100 % with Bonemans post --I also have thoughts on pound nets , but did not post as I feel this is another user group , with thier seasons, Quotas,Concerns & Problems--I got enough of my own problems.

----My PERSONAL thoughts on the Commercial Fishery in Maryland , is that its pretty well Managed--( Striped Bass)
----ALL fish must be Tagged before off loading-& follow the fish till consumed----
----No fish over 36"
----Seasons are designed not to overlap--

---Winter net--Dec.1---Feb. 29--Shut down if Quota met early--Note--The 15 day over lap 12-1---12--15--was allowed to accomadate Rec. Anglers--
----Summer Pound net--June 1---Nov.30
----Summer Hook & line --June 15---Nov.30---AND this is FOUR day fishery--Mon---Thurs.---& starts on June 15 ---Biggies gone !---

-----Maryland's rules pretty well & Protects the Large fish in the commercial Industry---

--Back to the Question at hand ---Thanks every body, for tryin to answer my Question ----I KNOW that there are many that read this & sit on thier hands ---Some that thier ideas could be construtive & benifical----Go ahead & keep Mute, wait till you get Bit in the thing that sitting on your hands----As usual Virginia Gentleman, thanks for your input----geo.----[wink]--P.S. Matt, Don't get pissed , Theres not a bad bone in my PERSONAL Thoughts, & just think I could have stayed Silent-----[shy]

[Matt]

capt.george wrote:

------Matt--Why this HANG Up in your thinking---( Iwill give you credit ,you don't hide the fact that you feel this way---)



Capt George, I think I can make a good argument that our entire system of marine fishery management policy, federal, regional and state, is written and executed to protect "fishing communities" before using time-tested precautionary methods to conserve fish populations. Books have been written on this subject. Either you want to know, or not. Read "Cod" by Mark Kurlansky. Great book. That book conveys a history of modern marine fishery management that is deeply blemished with failure. The New England groundfishery is the worlds posterchild for sustaining commercial fishing jobs, but not necessarily fish. Our own oyster fishery is the same. Dozens of similar examples. And its the same thing over and over...we let too many fishermen take too many fish, then our stocks collapse.

I think it is unfortunate that history must repeat itself so many times before we learn, but I think when (not if) striped bass collapse again, we will see big changes.

[capt.george]

--Matt --I agree with you whole heartedly on Atlantic Raping---I subscribe to the " National Fishermen" & other publications Etc.To try to keep up with the E. coast's activities----

Am familiar with the Government buy out of the Boats in the North east fleets with the promise of Scrapping them ---ONLY to sell or give them to the Boat people in the Gulf States---But hopefully you wont let these Horror stories affect your outlook of Maryland's user groups---

[Tom Powers]

Matt,

A few, is 2 or 3. . . . A few hundred is 200 or 300. In many species there are less than 50 fish intercepted.

The species that have lots of intercepts are Croaker, Spot, Flounder,

825 is more than a few hundred. Those fish were intercepted during a 2 month period. That was done with 1060 dockside interviews. I have looked a lot at that data. From a CPUE the data is probably pretty good. The size distribution and geographical distribution of the intercepted fish could be better (i.e. it would be nice if there were more interviews.) Additionally, there is an issue of coastal fish being counted as bay fish. But, at a VRMC request, NMFS added a question to the intercept interviews this past fall to check where each striped bass was caught (in VA only).

Matt asked -- "Also, please explain what factors you count toward effort, and how the MRFSS accounts for that effort. "

I explained above that this is the way that MRFSS "calculates" effort.

(from the dockside interviews they determine) 3. The percentage of fishermen who do not live in coastal counties within MD (or VA, etc.) Call this "Fx"

The second part is the random telephone interviews of coastal counties. This gives you the number of angler trips per household during each two month wave. Call this TPA.

The thrid part is the number of households in each county. Ncounty

So the total effort, TE, equals

TE = Sum{Ncounty * TPA * (1+Fx)}

where you sum across all of the counties.

The only two issues that I can see with their technique is that

(1) they are probably not doing sufficient number of telephone interviews especially during wave 2 and

(2) By excluding intercept interviews at private piers, etc. and the lack of inteviews at the less frequently used access points (part of the design model) like private community ramps and those in sparcely populated counties the Fx correction factor is probably over estimated on a state wide basis.

There are other issues relating to how they redistribute the Fx factor at each of the telephone interview counties, rather than the destination counties, etc. but those are more in the hairy details of the analysis that may or may not be as major of a problem.

With respect to intercepted fish. The following is a summary of the number of intercepted fish by species for VA for 2004. As you can see most of the fish have very few intercepted fish. Very few intercepts means that you do not have any real idea as to a valid averge size for the fish or the size distribution. Here is the part that is not in the summary data, what is the distribution during the wave and by area of the fish. As far as CPUE is concerned a low number of intercepted fish MIGHT be OK, or it might not. It does demonstrate that there is not a big fishery.


ATLANTIC CROAKER --- 10,251
SPOT --- 2,689
STRIPED BASS --- 960
SUMMER FLOUNDER --- 562
BLACK SEA BASS --- 400
WEAKFISH --- 347
TAUTOG --- 251
BLUEFISH --- 240
PIGFISH --- 160
ATLANTIC SPADEFISH --- 97
SPOTTED SEATROUT --- 70
SOUTHERN KINGFISH --- 67
BLUE CATFISH --- 63
CHANNEL CATFISH --- 60
FLORIDA POMPANO --- 40
YELLOWFIN TUNA --- 37
WHITE PERCH --- 23
SCUP --- 22
NORTHERN PUFFER --- 19
DOLPHIN --- 17
KINGFISH GENUS --- 13
BLUEFIN TUNA --- 11
UNIDENTIFIED FISH --- 11
GRAY TRIGGERFISH --- 9
SPANISH MACKEREL --- 9
NORTHERN KINGFISH --- 8
SKIPJACK TUNA --- 8
SPINY DOGFISH --- 8
SILVER PERCH --- 7
ATLANTIC THREAD HERRING --- 6
LITTLE TUNNY --- 5
COBIA --- 3
RED DRUM --- 3
BLACK DRUM --- 2
CLEARNOSE SKATE --- 2
LEFTEYE FLOUNDER GENUS --- 2
SANDBAR SHARK --- 2
STRIPED SEAROBIN --- 2
WAHOO --- 2
ATLANTIC MACKEREL --- 1
ATLANTIC NEEDLEFISH --- 1
BLACKTIP SHARK --- 1
OYSTER TOADFISH --- 1
SHEEPSHEAD --- 1
SKATE GENUS --- 1
SMOOTH DOGFISH --- 1
AMERICAN EEL --- 0
ATLANTIC BONITO --- 0
ATLANTIC MENHADEN --- 0
ATLANTIC STINGRAY --- 0
BIGEYE TUNA --- 0
BLUE RUNNER --- 0
BULLHEAD CATFISH GENUS --- 0
CONGER EEL --- 0
COWNOSE RAY --- 0
DRUM FAMILY --- 0
DUSKY SHARK --- 0
GREAT BARRACUDA --- 0
GREATER AMBERJACK --- 0
INSHORE LIZARDFISH --- 0
KING MACKEREL --- 0
LARGEMOUTH BASS --- 0
MULLET GENUS --- 0
OCEAN TRIGGERFISH --- 0
PINFISH --- 0
PORGY FAMILY --- 0
RED HAKE --- 0
REQUIEM SHARK FAMILY --- 0
REQUIEM SHARK GENUS --- 0
RIBBONFISH FAMILY --- 0
SEAROBIN GENUS --- 0
SHORTFIN MAKO --- 0
SILVERSIDE GENUS --- 0
SOUTHERN FLOUNDER --- 0
SPOTTED HAKE --- 0
STINGRAY FAMILY --- 0
STINGRAY GENUS --- 0
STRIPED MULLET --- 0
THREADFIN SHAD --- 0
TUNA GENUS --- 0
UNIDENTIFIED (SHARKS) --- 0
UNIDENTIFIED EEL --- 0
UNIDENTIFIED FLOUNDER OR SOLE --- 0
UNIDENTIFIED SKATE OR RAY --- 0
WHITE MARLIN --- 0
WHITE MULLET --- 0
YELLOW BULLHEAD --- 0

Folks can decide how many fish are necessary to get a good average size and CPUE.

Tom

[Matt]

Tom Powers wrote:

....
Folks can decide how many fish are necessary to get a good average size and CPUE.



Tom, I don't dispute the survey is telling us some things worth considering, so if thats your message, I agree. If you're saying the MRFSS is adequate to reach any kind of scientific conclusion, I disagree. But I really do appreciate the fact that you are looking at the data closely and taking time to post info that you feel is relevant. Maybe we could conclude this thread if you made it clear what kind of decisions you think can be made with the MRFSS. In that light, I think we need to agree to disagree on the overall value of the MRFSS. Based on what I know about the survey, the data, and especially the misleading presentation of data on the Dept of Commerce website, I think the survey is inadequate to make scientific decisions about recreational landings or effort for any species. In isolated instances, the survey might be close, but not close enough to overcome normal statistic tests. Even if the findings were adequate, I don't think we have a reason to believe that regional fishery management decisions will be based on science.

The last statement in your post, quoted above, caught my attention. I think its time for us all to get away from the idea that validity of science used in mgmt decisions should be left to the judgement of general population. Stock assessment, landings, and total effort (among other indicators) need to stand up to real scientific scrutiny. We need to get the scientific part of the process out of the political arena, away from stakeholders, and into the hands of qualified marine scientists, who have no fear of political reprisal.

Until the marine fishery game gets adequate playing time in a pure science arena, recs need to expect decisions to remain political, based more on constituent economics than scientific indicators. If anybody wants to know why Va has the menhaden deal all locked up in the State legislature, look no further for an explanation. Look no further for a reason why we need tax dollars to fund asian oyster programs rather than shutting down the oyster fishery. At this point we have adequate history to know that what we're doing is good for jobs, but not so good for desirable species. And we need to ask ourselves if we're okay with doing it this way, or if we would rather have real science guiding mgmt decisions.

If we keep doing what we did, we're gonna keep getting what we got. Thats my message.

[ed robinson]

Hi guys. Tried my best to read and understand all the statistics and formulas and methods, etc., Thanks for imparting knowledge to us. However, this thread is a perfect example of why recreational fisherman as a group don't get any respect, or why we have little to no lobbying power......All intelligent, reasonable, logical people who are dedicated to the preservation of the striped bass, and vastly varying opinions abound. It seems we will never "get it together" as a user group. The Maryland Watermans Association "has it together" as a group. Say what you will about them, but they speak with one voice and play the political game to their best advantage.

[Matt]

ed robinson originally wrote:
It seems we will never "get it together" as a user group.


never were truer words written

with so many different fishing clubs representing recs, how can we get it together?

[ed robinson]

Wish I had a simple anwer to that question! CCA, MSSA, RFA, XYZPDQ...........Conservation, Sportfishing, Recreational.........
Somehow, someway, we need to conjoin all of these groups or place them under one bigger umbrella with one voice. Seems pretty much impossible at the moment. Folks need to learn how to 'give and take' and maybe it's not always the way you want it..
but if rec fisherman always present one front on any given issue, in force, they might gain a little more clout. Certainly, not every single waterman agrees with every argument made by Larry S. to Annapolis, but they back him and he gets the job done for them. It's obviously been a quite effective strategy, if you ask me.

[capt.george]

---Capt. Ed --What scares me to death as a CB operator, is that our Industry joined the Rec.s to give Parity on Rockfish limits --As You may remember , After the moritorium the Fishery was Seperated into 3 Groups & the allotments were as follows -

--Rec.----42 1/2 %
--Comm.--42 1/2 %
---Charter 15 %
----------the 1st season limit was rec. 2 fish --Chtr. 5 fish

--Our two user groups spoke & we agreed to merge as one, with the same laws & thoughts---

----Now there seems to be Radical Voices from some groups , in the rec. fishery to leave Our user groups problems & soulitions & get involved with the Commercial Fishery & thier operation---WHY?--For the first time in years (since the 80's) I see a Serious problem arising---

---E. G.---MSSA suposedly asked in Sept. to to limit tournaments to May----Are the Fish any diffrent in May than April---I'm a member, I didn't hear that my membership Voice was going to be part of this Request---I'd like to have been part of this desision----When you loose the RANK & FILE opinions Ava.you become a Victim to Leadership w/o input----Hopefully this will not be a every day trend --User group Wars as you well know can be Fatal----[excited]

[ed robinson]

No easy solutions for sure capt George. wonder why MSSA "asked" for no April tourneys? Every piece these groups give up voluntarily makes the next piece that much easier for DNR to take away. Isn't the MSSA who helped to "give-away" the Susky river in the Spring? We are indeed lacking direction as a user group and I wish I had an answer. (it wouldn't be aligning with comm. interests)
Doesn't it seem to you that as a Charter Operator, you're not rec and you're not comm either? and who speaks for who?

[Matt]

boneman wrote:

You know, that thread that had 100 views yet 0 responses?



fwiw, a conservation fishing club banquet ad just slid off page 1 with 0 responses and only 18 reads