BigBendFishing.Net

Sir reel raised this question and I thought it was worthy of a separate post.
Any thoughts on this article? It raises some interesting questions.
http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahas ... 508395.htm

One concern about reading this article is that it’s a secondary source. Newspapers are written for a high school aptitude. This subject is a complicated one that doesn’t lend itself to 4-5 paragraphs in Friday’s paper. This study made it into the journal Science. That means it has been seriously reviewed for the quality of the research.

My one biggest question about it is, why did they include Redfish in the study, when it is a recreational fish only "illegal to take commercially" yet felt compelled to remove menhaden and pollock from it to show recs catching even more fish I think that Felicia has sold out to the highest bidder and made her worst nightmare a reality She was one of the few researchers that the recs had any respect for and has now lost that!!!!!!!!!

I think those are good questions and are examples of the limitations of a newspaper article. This interpretation of the stats (remove Menhaden and Pollock, adding Redfish) shows that the recreational impact is significant. Is it relevant to consider the numbers that way? Maybe.
Aren’t Menhaden and Pollock the fish most caught commercially but few to none are caught recreationally? If that’s true it makes sense to look at the numbers minus Menhaden and Pollock to see the total’s relative to the fish caught by both groups (grouper snapper etc).
Why were redfish included in the article? I’d say it was irrelevant, especially to be included in the rec catch percentages with gag and red snapper. I’m not sure Felicia was responsible for that but that addition is inappropriate because it makes it look like the rec numbers are excessively high.
That said, there’s not really a debate about those #’s. Redfish account for 93% of the rec catch. So?
The point is that the study shows that recreational fishing may have a impact more significant than previously thought.

First impression here was suspicion. I would have to read the whole report and ponder for a few days. Don't trust the democrat. Anybody know where a copy could be had?

Well here ya go. but it will cost $275.00 to read a report. What a bunch of garbage!!!!!!

http://www.sciencemag.org/sciencexpress/recent.shtml

Natrally, how many recs can afford to pay that to oppose the findings I wonder just how CHEAP she went for

The paper stated that rec fisherman accounted for 64% of the fish caught of the overfished species. What happens to that # if redfish are taken out of the equation? As you guys know, I'm fairly new to the Florida and saltwater arena. Weren't redfish populations really hurting until they outlawed commercial fishing for the species...Haven't the redfish populations been storming back since that rule was made. If rec. fishing is so harmful wouldn't the redfish population still be in decline? I also found the statements about limits kind of...well ignorant. They give the impression that limits don't matter because there is no limit to the number of fisherman. Well, I don't care if you have 10 anglers or 10,000. They can still only keep certain numbers and certain SIZES. That means all the fish that don't meet those size requirements whether, too small or too large, aren't kept...regardless of # of anglers. Nets don't make that discrimination...

Littoral wrote:The point is that the study shows that recreational fishing may have a impact more significant than previously thought.

Littoral:

Don't think so. Thought by whom? The stock assessments conducted by Florida or the Gulf of Mexico Council HAVE considered recreational harvests as well as commercial, so the argument is misleading and frankly disingenuous (perhaps not on purpose).

As I said on another forum, the paper is not original research, just a reworking of existing statistics, for probably supporting Felicia's point of view. Of course anglers contribute to fisheries harvest, and as you have pointed out, in some cases almost all of the harvest (e.g., red drum).

This is not news, but it somehow got big play in the press. Through this rather unexceptional paper, Felicia earned herself a lot of bad feelings in the recreational fishing community, which is not good for a researcher that needs to appear impartial. I like Felicia personally, but I believe this paper was a mistake. And it isn't science, its a fisheries management editorial.

Luck,

EJ

wevans wrote:Natrally, how many recs can afford to pay that to oppose the findings I wonder just how CHEAP she went for

Just wait a little while. Felicia told me (via e-mail) that the full paper will be available via a link on her website soon, for free. It might be there now. Didn't look today.

EJ

Thanks EJ I really HAD liked Felicia and her impartial way of presenting things But this "if presented truthfully" is a slap in every recs face that has supported her in the past I look forward to reading the FULL report and hope the she will perhaps give a reasoning for this article as well

EJ, Lit, and all. I think it only fair to really read the whole paper, footnotes and appendices, before conclusions are drawn. I would think that the media would want to overblow this whole research to create some degree of sensationalism.

I could imagine a notice to the media of a study being presented. The reporters certainly are not going to read the whole study, but instead ask the author to give a synopsis - then the reporters "roll" with it. The author more than likely hit the very high points of his/her thoughts on the study. Reporters write the oooooh good, or oooooh bad notes. Do not trust the media to report. Trust them to editorialize based on their own thought of what is good and bad for their personal agenda. I am too old to see it any other way.

Remember the old Eagles song "Dirty Laundry".

Look up the lyrics, we are obviously a bunch of idiots. I hold no ill will for the author of this report, just wish we did not have to deal with the "selling" of news.

dbplug wrote:EJ, Lit, and all. I think it only fair to really read the whole paper, footnotes and appendices, before conclusions are drawn. I would think that the media would want to overblow this whole research to create some degree of sensationalism.

I could imagine a notice to the media of a study being presented. The reporters certainly are not going to read the whole study, but instead ask the author to give a synopsis - then the reporters "roll" with it. The author more than likely hit the very high points of his/her thoughts on the study. Reporters write the oooooh good, or oooooh bad notes. Do not trust the media to report. Trust them to editorialize based on their own thought of what is good and bad for their personal agenda. I am too old to see it any other way.

.

Perhaps. But the Press Release from FSU set the stage. The reporters responded to it. I do believe Felicia intended to make a point that she believes in, and that was not mis-represented. Of course Journalism does not exist any more, just media entertainment and money to be made.

EJ

Amen brother EJ.

Bulls___ !

I think some one in the commercial fishing industry sponsored her research, or her family has close ties to the fishing industry.
It's too fishy to believe. How would one apply the scientific method
to her reasearch ?

Although I am very interested in this subject, I have no respect for the news media. They are no longer interested in publishing the whole story. They are interested in making News. That equals controversy. I've had personal dealings with the news media on a local, and national level.

I would like to read the whole research paper and form my own opinion.

I was around during the net ban controversy. I know what it's like to be a rec fisherman, park my truck and boat at a public ramp, only to return at the end of the day to find my trailer damaged, and my tires slashed.

I have a bitter taste for the media.

I'll get off my soapbox now.