BigBendFishing.Net

Preach on, Brother.

Can't speak for Franklin, Jefferson or Taylor, but I can remember when Wakulla County had no size limit and no daily limit on just about everything I can remember inshore.

Fishing's much better now for numbers of quality fish. Back then a 15" trout was a big one.

In spite of my previous post I agree also. The limits and size restrictions have made for better fish to be caught. My point is,the scientist/biologist do not take into account what is happening on the water. You cannot base rules and regulations on data at a boat ramp.
Look at what nearly happened with the grouper thing a few months back.
BOAT RAMP TRAFFIC AND FISH CATCHING ARE NOT ONE AND THE SAME.

Another thing........I have never been asked how many I released. Only HOW MANY DID I KEEP.

First, I almost always release all my fish but if I catch a lot of trout I'll keep a few 18-20 inch fish.

Second, one reason I really enjoy this site is the avoidance of conversations that aren't recommended over dinner. Unfortunately I am very politically concerned, informed, ignorant, and involved. So it is always tough for me to not weigh in on topics that deal with science in politics.
Regulations are based on the best data "we" have paid for. Data are always part of a much more complicated puzzle, and the puzzle doesn't get any more complicated than the fluctuations of fish populations. The dock data is sketchy at best. FWC (etc) is well aware of this. They'll argue that is useful if it is kept in perspective. Here's a perspective too:

Charles wrote:...I can remember when Wakulla County had no size limit and no daily limit on just about everything I can remember inshore.
Fishing's much better now for numbers of quality fish. Back then a 15" trout was a big one.

Does that mean the reg's and net ban added up to more and bigger trout & redfish. Don't know. But it's a piece of the puzzle.
Absolutes don't exist but we do our best. The "crystal ball" will never be perfectly clear but how clear does it have to be before we deal with the evidence we have?
MHO

Don't know about total numbers. There seem to be more and bigger reds around now.

The trout, it seems like there were more around then, they just, generally, weren't allowed to get as big, between the unlimited take and the gill nets. It wasn't unusual to read in the fishing reports article in the Wakulla News of so-and-so catching in the triple digits.

They made great livebait for sharks. There were so many, nobody much considered not doing things like this.

Jumptrout51 wrote:Another thing........I have never been asked how many I released. Only HOW MANY DID I KEEP.

Well, lemme ask you a question Jump. Ever owned livestock or lived on a farm? If you did, then you might have captured your livestock every now and then for some purpose, and then released them back when you had treated them, counted them, or whatever.

Did it matter how many you caught and released back (assuming you didn't harm or kill them when caught, and some of that does get accounted for), or more which ones were harvested or slaughtered? All of these numbers are important, but it is only the deaths or harvests you measure. If they live, they are still part of the population.

If you could catch them all, then at least you knew how many you had, a feat that no fisheries biologist can duplicate, unless they are managing a small puddle. However, they do use various indirect means to estimate the starting population, as well as the age structure in the population, plus reproductive rates for each cohort, etc., plus the harvest rates of each group, as determined by those surveys that you evidently think are useless.

Granted, the methods used to manage fisheries or any other wildlife populations are imperfect, but the folks try hard. I sure did when I used to do them, myself, or was responsible for the overall program.

If you have some suggestions on the positive side for how it might be done better, why don't you pass them along to the FFWC instead of appearing to be angry over it.

Regards,

EJ

Jumptrout ain't angry. He's just crotchity.

In fact I was raised on a farm. That however,was a controlled environment. Yes we slaughtered animals to feed ourselves. We bred and managed animals for future use.
I believe in managing the fish populations. There are more fish than show up in the reports
What angers me is the regulations that are implemented that are based on assumed information from an uncontrollable environment. The starting numbers you refer to are also assumed numbers. My information does not come from parking lots. It comes from the fish I catch the fish I almost catch the fish I release the fish I keep.
Where are these people on the days you fish your ass off and catch nothing. If they happen to be at the ramp that day taking their surveys my guess is the data is extrapolated to indicate there are no fish in the area. RESULT....close the season,lower the bag,reduce the size,enlarge the size. That days poor catch couldn't possibly be related to inclement weather,bad tides,bad fishermen,cold front etc.etc.
By the time they act on the information collected its' 2-3 years old. By then Mother Nature has corrected any problem that MIGHT have been there to start with.
More later. I don't like to give up everything at once.

Read this and had to chime in. I work with data all day and get asked to produce result sets, if the person doesn't like the result set they just ask for it a different way and keep doing so until they see the numbers they want. To many human factors go into these numbers that bad results can and will be generated, from how it is collected to how it is calculated.

What I would like to see is multiple groups looking at the data so we do not have a singular outcome.

As a result of those wonderful figures that created the resent gouper fiasco I decided that it was in my best interest not to respond to the bean counters at the ramp until they can prove to me that they have a viable method of collecting and reporting data. whether that is good idea or not is another debate.

As for what started the thread, when I go fishing I ask myself if I want to clean and have fish for dinner that night. Never do I keep fish in the freezer. If I want fish dinner and trout is on the line it better be 16 or bigger. Only keep enough to feed who is gonna be home for dinner.

And JT does someone else know where your heart meds are just in case

I have read survey reports that indicate there are 2.5 million people fishing in Florida. Recently I have read a report that 2.5 million fishermen are targeting Redfish.
B.S. to one or both surveys.

Here is a link to how the data is collected and it has a link to the data itself. So we can go out and make the numbers look how ever we want

http://research.myfwc.com/features/view ... p?id=19870

The craziest number I saw was this, The MRFSS estimates more than 6.5 million recreational anglers took more than 27.4 million saltwater fishing trips statewide in Florida during 2004, half of which are visitors.

So the results of these statistics do not even effect 3.25 million people.