BigBendFishing.Net

I have been surveyed twice both times were about 5 or 6 years ago. Once at Shell Point and the other Mashes Sands. Of course they like to see the fish you caught also.
It's no big deal its always nice to show off your fish .

I feel any of us who fish a lot and put their time in year after year have a better understanding of these fish populations then those who track it for a living. Every year there are changes to the conditions where we fish. It may be water color, different grass, no grass, new rock grass, Scallops vs. no scallops. These are the conditions we can see, But the fish see more changed conditions than we will never be able to see with the naked eye.

In 1998 and 1999 there was an area I would fish most of the time. This place stayed loaded with very nice trout. Since then it has never been the same. The bottom looks like it did back then, just no real fish anymore. It can't be explained. This area is what was known as the "Horseytree" (JT51, One Keeper, and Trenttrout know it well also).

If I continued to fish the Horseytree I would have been convinced the fish populations have dropped. The researchers may use similar techniques. Testing in the same area and not moving when the fish do.

My .02

Maybe they could setup a website for selected anglers to submit fish logs and then use that date to extrapolate statistical data that could be useful in determining redfish populations. They currently use escapement which they define as the percentage of fish that avoid harvest by fishers. They stated they use nets to net small areas then get a sample of the population. They did state that they are not sure how many breeders are currently offshore either though. I suggested an Angler program where anglers are awarded for catching fish over certain sizes, and they would be able to use the data from these submissions to further support the fish populations statistical calculations. Basically I thought they were trying to make decisions on less than dynamic data.

The problem can be summed up pretty easily with their definition of "Unit of Work Effort".

Their take numbers get skewed because of it. Example.

2 boats go redfishing for 8 hours. 1 boat catches 10 redfish, the other catches none.

The NMFS sees this as 2 boats with equal work effort.

This equates to 5 redfish caught per unit of work effort.

If in 3 years that number drops to 3 or 2 per unit of work effort you might say there is a decline in the poplulation of redfish.


Now what I didn't tell you about the boats at the beginning. One boat fished the oysterbars and creeks in a secluded area, the other anchored in the channel of the St. Marks river.

Now are these now equal units of work?

Which secluded area was the boat fishing Tom?

Tom Keels wrote:...their definition of "Unit of Work Effort".
... One boat fished the oysterbars and creeks in a secluded area, the other anchored in the channel of the St. Marks river.
Now are these now equal units of work?

No. And that is obvious to anyone who reviews the data collection protocol.
That is a variable within the design that is not quantified. They know that and we know that. The plus is that the process (at least the design) is transparent. That’s good because we can look at it and discuss/decide if the design is valid enough to tell us decent information.
The variability of work units will effect the quality of the data. The standard way to account for an issue like this (how and where “xâ€

Littoral wrote:

Tom Keels wrote:...their definition of "Unit of Work Effort".
... One boat fished the oysterbars and creeks in a secluded area, the other anchored in the channel of the St. Marks river.
Now are these now equal units of work?

No. And that is obvious to anyone who reviews the data collection protocol.
That is a variable within the design that is not quantified. They know that and we know that. The plus is that the process (at least the design) is transparent. That’s good because we can look at it and discuss/decide if the design is valid enough to tell us decent information.
The variability of work units will effect the quality of the data. The standard way to account for an issue like this (how and where “xâ€