BigBendFishing.Net

Even as someone with a research background it does seem like they are making data up as they go https://digital2.olivesoftware.com/Oliv ... &mode=text

So am I reading it correctly that NW is below the goal?

It's incidents like this that lead a people to believe that the decision makers are using "junk science" to make decisions. Each Scientist that looks at the data interpret it a different way.

So, if I'm reading this right the data is based on the number of eggs produced by a ratio based on the size of the fish. Wow, they not only know how many fish are out there but the size of them as well. These guys must be some incredible people to have that kind of certain knowledge.

Here's the problem with some of these studies. At the base level of the science are always underlying assumptions that the rest of the data is built upon and that base usually is debatable even among scientist in the same field. So, is it really science or just a best guess?

And yes, I do understand statistical analysis.

Nw was above from 1990 on and that was in the 2016 assessment. Now they're saying that the size was wrong and its been under 35% for recent times

So they just don't know

I attended the May FFWCC Meeting and spoke on this very issue and discussed their selection of data for proposing the changes. For their SPR they didn't use their own friggen statistical model, meaning the model "they" FFWCC created themselves was evaluated for the rule, but wasn't applied. BTW, their very own statistical model (the continuity model) showed the NW Zone at being 64%, which is dang near 30% higher than what they say is needed and three times more than the bottom line base level.

Here's what their meeting minutes say about my comments: "Mr. Chris Russell of the Wakulla County Chamber of Commerce addressed the Commission. He supported
working with guides and law enforcement for additional data. He suggested a 40% reduction in bag limits for the NW zone will result in economic hardship. He is in favor of the February closure and supports a January closure as well." They don't mention I spoke about how their very own models show the trout population in the NW Zone is solid, or how they referred to a 2019 assessment, but their own data was only up to 2016 (one of the Commissioners called em out on this and staff had to clarify: an example of staff trying to lead them astray) , and lastly how out of all of their public meetings they touted they had for input (12 meetings), they only had a little over 200 folks show up, yet the day of this meeting over 20 folks showed up to speak about this issue. My analogy: if you hold a meeting to discuss ways of executing people, you may not get too many people, yet if you have a meeting to discuss your own execution (the sports fishermen) then you get a heckuva lot more folks.

That May meeting can be found via the link below. The spotted trout discussion starts around the 1 hour and 12 minute mark. If you care to see what I said, I'm around the 1 hour and 58 minute mark. Personally, I think it's worthy of watching the whole discussion, from staff's presentation, through public comments, AND including the Commission's comments. IMHO, the Commission smelled the BS and did a pretty good job of questioning staff on it, let's hope they stay consistent in the future.

https://thefloridachannel.org/videos/5- ... on-part-1/

I went back and looked at the 2016 assessment and it matches the "new" charts, at least for the northwest, I wonder where the 2017 data came from.

Wow....I wish I could base my job on WAGs..

I have to ask, it stated a guide was against 40% reduction because it will hurt his business but they are ok with closing in Feb. and maybe even Jan. Wouldn't that kill business also? Should I assume they would still take charters out to catch (stress out, maybe kill ) and release during these two months anyway? I am not understanding the view point. I get it that 40% reduction is a whole lot less, maybe they will decide a little less.

relicshunter wrote:I have to ask, it stated a guide was against 40% reduction because it will hurt his business but they are ok with closing in Feb. and maybe even Jan. Wouldn't that kill business also? Should I assume they would still take charters out to catch (stress out, maybe kill ) and release during these two months anyway? I am not understanding the view point. I get it that 40% reduction is a whole lot less, maybe they will decide a little less.

This is 1000% about the impact on the business of a handful of guides. Bookings in those winter months compared to others is next to nothing so not much potential loss.

Don’t worry. It’s the FWC. It’ll change again and again and again. Then the politicians will get involved and you’ll see some more changes. Then the economy will tank and more changes. Who’s running the zoo?