Handguns
Subscribe
Home› Conservation Front
TrippleTailIV
Posts: 197 Officer
Red Snapper "Season"
TrippleTailIV
Posts: 197 Officer
So, should we start a pool on how the over/under for red snapper catch in our illustrious 9 day season?
MRIP numbers won't come out until August (let's hear it for timeliness!)
MRIP numbers won't come out until August (let's hear it for timeliness!)
Replies
Guess that will really depend on how many fish are caught in FL state waters by AL and FL anglers between now and July 15, won't it? What was presented to the Council in April was that only about half the quota would come from the federal season; the other half from state catches in their extended seasons.
Considering some of the fishing report forums pictures, it looks like folks in FL (and AL?) are still putting a lot of good sized fish on the dock after the fed season closed. I too will be interested to see what the answers are. Especially how MRIP compares to the state estimates. Last year, after all the dust settled, the point estimate for LA was within about 10-15K pounds of the MRIP estimate. The MRIP estimate just had much larger uncertainty since MRIP covers all species and the LA survey was for snapper only.
B.S.
your source please.
As you can see in the attached the Alabama guys that were fishing in Florida state waters before federal season were really not taking that many trips. We will see how the numbers fall out . Also when reporting by the app you had to report if the landings were brought in to Mobile or Baldwin county. So it should be a truer picture of what was caught in the fed season with the Mobile county landings.
Source of which? I thought I "cited" source in my original post. Council April presentation, and fishing reports on this forum. Guess I wasn't clear, sorry.
That half the quota will come from state waters? Its a Council presentation at the April meeting. Think I even posted a slide of it in some thread here. Discussion of the presentation is available in the Reef Fish Committee Minutes from the April meeting, available in the June briefing book. Dang, wish I could afford to go to Key West. Haven't been there in a long time.
Edit: finally found it in Apr. briefing book. States were estimated to catch 1.9 million pounds of the quota during federal and state seasons, leaving 3.5 for federal season. That got ratcheted down after my LA folks changed their state season. Its also in the environmental assessment for the 2014 quota adjustment rules.
Source for good catches after the federal season ended? This forum, in the regional fishing report sub-forums.
Source for MRIP mean estimate was within a few thousand pounds of LAs mean estimate?
Edit: finally found it in the Oct 13 meeting stuff; its a LDWF presentation. My memory is slipping. MRIP mean estimate was 403K lb; LA was 346K lb; 16% difference in mean estimates (error bars were obviously much bigger for MRIP since its not red snapper specific like the LA survey).
Council briefing books are available online at gulfcouncil.org. April seems to be hosed, tho. I had it downloaded.
The comparison is a bit misleading since the LA numbers were a fixed point landing number and the MRIP
was a Median Average of a range so large that it exceeded the total LA number. The 3% MOE for LA compared
to a 30% MRIP MOE. That of coarse was after MRIP make adjustments due to the 70% overestimation of
effort in that target identified the previous year. MRIP's range of total landings being greater than the actual
median average should be a big Red Flag moment rather than being touted as a good management tool.
The fishery independent data has been showing a steady increase in the population.
In my mind there seems to be a real disconnect here. On one hand, we're going over limits year after year, but yet it doesn't seem to be detrimental to the population on the whole as it continues to rebuild.
So, arm chair logic suggests something isn't be measured correctly.
"Well Gary, the easiest way to look tall is to stand in a room full of short people." - Curtis Bostick
"All these forums, with barely any activity, are like a neglected old cemetery that no one visits anymore."- anonymouse
"Well Gary, the easiest way to look tall is to stand in a room full of short people." - Curtis Bostick
"All these forums, with barely any activity, are like a neglected old cemetery that no one visits anymore."- anonymouse
Hey, I just downloaded the Gulf Council briefing book and it has several MRIP newsletters in it. I backtracked to the MRIP site to see if I could find a link to post, but apparently, the newsletter is an email they send out. Anyway, MRIP is apparently side-by-side piloting a mail/phone survey to National Registry folks vs the highly condemned random phone survey, and guess what?!? They found it was a better response and more accurate response.
Can't give you a link since its apparently not on their site. To read their newsletters, get into the gulf council's ftp site and download the June briefing book (or parts thereof). Man! I hate their new system...... it is really not user friendly. But, you can read about the MRIP change if you do.
figured out how to copy it without getting all the sidebars.......
from a 3/21 news letter:
Angler License Directory Telephone Survey: Working
collaboratively with the Gulf States Marine Fisheries
Commission, the Gulf Coast states, and the North Carolina
Division of Marine Fisheries, we designed and tested
telephone surveys that selected anglers directly from state
databases of licensed anglers. We conducted the tests in
North Carolina, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and
Louisiana and found it was far more efficient reaching
anglers by using the licensed angler databases. We were also
able to contact anglers who lived outside of coastal counties.
However, exemptions to state licensing requirements and
unlicensed fishing activity, as well as incomplete and
inaccurate contact information for individuals included on
the license databases, created gaps in the coverage of the
survey resulting in poor response rates.
Conclusion: Although more efficient, a telephone
survey that relies exclusively on an angler license
directory as a sample frame does not adequately
cover the recreational angling population due to
unlicensed fishing activity.
DualFrame
Telephone Survey.
Since neither RDD nor a license directory provided complete
coverage of the total population of recreational fishermen
when used exclusively, MRIP developed an estimation design
that used both methods. This is called a "dualframe
design"
and was able to reach:
Unlicensed anglers with landline phones who reside
in coastal counties, AND
All licensed anglers, regardless of where they live.
We found that although this design increases the coverage,
it still cannot reach unlicensed anglers who do not have
landline telephones, nor can it reach unlicensed anglers
who live outside of coastal counties. A second challenge
with the design is that it is difficult to identify respondents
who could be selected from both sample frames.
Misidentifying respondents who overlap with both frames
results in inaccurate sample weighting, and can bias survey
estimates. Finally, response rates to the telephone surveys
remained low.
Conclusion: A telephone survey that uses both an
angler license database and a coastal county RDD
sample frame does not adequately cover the angling
population and is susceptible to both nonresponse
bias and bias resulting from inaccurate weighting of
sample data.
DualFrame
Mail Survey. Given the growing challenges
associated with telephone surveys, we began testing the
feasibility of mail survey designs. Again, by using a dualframe
approach, we sampled anglers from state license
databases and residential address frames maintained and
made commercially available by the U.S. Postal Service.
We found that sampling from the address frame provides
nearly complete coverage of the entire U.S. population. We
also found that response rates to the mail survey were
considerably higher than any of the telephone surveys we
conducted.
Conclusion: A dualframe
mail survey provides
many benefits over the telephone survey approach,
including better coverage and higher response rates.
from a 4/08 newsletter:
Telephone vs. Mail Surveys: What We Learned
As we covered in our second effort survey newscast, address
databases maintained by the U.S. Postal Service proved to be much
more complete and reliable sample frames than RDD telephone
frames. In addition, the DualFrame
Mail Survey
demonstrated that response rates for mail surveys were much higher
than for telephone surveys. To verify this finding, and to refine the
survey design, we designed two followup
studies.
DualFrame,
MixedMode
Survey. This study was
designed to directly compare how people responded to mail vs
telephone surveys. The project evaluated both of these data
collection methods in terms of response rates, nonresponse
error, data quality, and timeliness. The broad trends in the
previous study held up: response rates for mail remained
higher and sampling from the address frame provided nearly
complete coverage of the entire U.S. population. In addition,
anglers surveyed by mail responded within the timeframe
necessary to produce estimates.
Conclusion: The study confirmed that in a sidebyside
comparison, mail surveys achieve a higher
response rate than telephone surveys. The study also
demonstrated that the higher response rate can be
achieved without compromising data timeliness.
SinglePhase
Address Based Survey (ABS). Most
recently, in November 2012, MRIP implemented a singlephase
ABS pilot study in Florida, Massachusetts, New York,
and North Carolina. Within each of the study states, samples
of addresses were selected and augmented by matching the
addresses to each state's database of licensed saltwater
anglers. By using the license databases in this manner, we
were able to direct more sampling toward households with
known licensed anglers, which increases the efficiency (and
minimizes the cost) of the survey. Maintaining addresses
that don't match to the license databases ensures that all
anglers are covered by the survey, regardless of whether they
have a fishing license or not. Anglers who fish in the study
states but reside in a different state are sampled directly from
state license databases. The study is also testing multiple
versions of the questionnaire and different levels of cash
incentives to identify design options that maximize response
and increase the efficiency of the survey.
It's also in the original MSA, essentially stating as you do; something to the effect: NMFS shall (here we go with the 'shall' again:banana) create a program to serve as a reliable database for estimating the impact of marine recreational fishing on marine resources.
which in some respects they did, they just haven't evolved it to a scale that can handle fisheries like snapper.
NMFS has not will not, and probably never will create a "reliable data base". It does not fit into their agenda. Even after being ordered in 2009, nothing has changed.
Flubba's smoke screen is having some affect on you it seems TT4.
Flubba, still waiting on your source from previous....guess I'll have to wait on that like I've been waiting on ANUMBERzeroes report on import/export.
Agreed, sir; all I did was copy/paste, so don't blast me for what someone else wrote. And MRIP won't ever be that; its not designed for that, and will never be designed for that. But changing their phone survey will be a big step forward, even if the results are still delayed. That is why MRIP is working with the states, as I understand it, to do alternative surveys for situations like the short red snapper seasons. I think all the states had some alternative sampling program in place this year. Although LA, apparently, just walked away from MRIP compatibility surveys. I think, based on what I've read, that the other states are at least trying to develop systems that MRIP can convert for comparison.
As I said in one of the posts here, I think it will be interesting to see what the states report.
I just hope that folks realize that "better" data isn't always a good thing. I oversaw a commercial fishery project a few years ago, with voluntary participation, where the captains all said "If I'm gonna get shut down, I want to get shut down because the data are right; not from some estimate." Some captains didn't want to participate because they feared "real" data would hurt them; some captains and owners didn't want to participate because they were breaking the law and didn't want it documented. They liked living in obscurity.
The real data will flummox NMFS. Maybe they need to blow up some more oil rigs to get their numbers more conveniently aligned with the agenda. ARS collateral damage...like to see how they represent that in the model.
Garbage in, garbage out. Model is flawed, but that won't change until reform in the organization at NMFS occurs. When we get real scientists who actually follow the method, only then will the light begin to shine on what a sham the last 8 years has been.
Please, for god's sake, don't ever refer to us as "folks". You condescending dweeb.
better data normally means larger catches, more effort and less season.
would you prefer y'all? I grew up with folks. Didn't say "you folks".
geez; stop splitting hairs.
Accurate landings data for rec's would prove that NMFS has been wrong for 10+ years, but we still don't have a viable reporting method available. NMFS doesn't want one, it runs counter to their agenda. The states are going to step up and get this done, so let's see where the ground truth data takes us.
NMFS keeps using the bogus data for regulation - see bludgeon - yet you are on here telling us that the catches are getting better, based on what population? Based on a fatally flawed model? **** planet did you come from...
"Folks" is a term used by academics and pol's to appear more "earthy" when they are not even close to being such. Your previous comments here expose your level and by using the term "folks" you are merely falling back on what is comfortable for you.
We "folks" don't call one another "folks". It's only your cohort of academic and political hacks that use the term "folks" to talk about we the people.
Words have meaning flubba, I'm not splitting hairs.
idiot. its "refused" not "refuesed"....... just to make a point about you splitting hair and nit picking.
I don't know; jus' 'cause I gotted a edukation, it don't mean I don't hang onto dialect, that I grew up with, and lived with. Folks, y'all, no word ends in a "g" (sumthin'). Folks in the northwest had a hard time understandin' me with my drawl.
Again...... distracting displacement behavior on your part. The point of my copy/paste was to impart information about new changes coming to MRIP, which everyone seems to think is fatally flawed. These changes are exactly what Bob Bryant has been railing about as to needing fixed.
So pick at it as you choose; the proposed changes are exactly what you as a recreational community have asked for.
A Directed survey to known anglers would be great, but not what is happening or apparently
proposed with the Mail in Survey. At the MREP workshop a few month's ago Crabtree explained
this proposal and it was still random to coastal addresses. The comparison here (following)
appears to be more apples to oranges, with random phone calls to coastal numbers (landlines)
compared to mail in / phone to registered anglers. Crabtree stated the mail in reply got a better
response but did not disclose if it was random or directed, but did suggest the program being
implemented would again be random.
What MRFSS / MRIP both failed at is what appears to not only continue, but also apparently going
to keep on with what has produced inflated effort numbers. LA Creel numbers even when implemented
into MRIP were still seriously erroneous with a range of error so large that it exceeded the median
average. If you really want to know what fishermen are catching, who do you think it would be best to
survey? Of coarse that would require a completely different system of not only survey, but also effort
determination, which the NMFS seems unwilling to part with. After all, despite the MRFSS failures and
mandated replacement, the system remains very much the same, including the methodology found
so deficient.
Exactly NOT as the recreational community called for. See previous post. Bob Bryant and many others have been calling for all data to be based on a known universe of anglers. From everything I have heard the MRIP changes actually being implemented do NOT do
this. While it may have used Registry Anglers to 'Conclude' mail in as a better option to purely random coastal landline calls, that
do dot match what I heard about what is being rolled into the system. Random Mail surveys to coastal addresses is much
different than directed mail surveys to known anglers.
I'm being generous with my opinion too.
1) Angler license database aka the registry
and
2) Random households to pick up those not on the registry.
Even though the MRIP studies have shown increased response to mail versus phone, my thought is this will just increase the delay of estimates. I wonder if they have thought of this new thing called the internet as a possible means to reply to the survey.
I agree with Acme regarding a known universe as a means to gather data specific to target. A question I have is what if I think I'm going to target reef fish (FL's registry), get a permit but never fish? Will this make it seem as if participation is higher than it actually is? I can see many pitfalls but I imagine those biases can be dealt with statistically.
1 Corinthians 13:11:
"When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways."
You obviously have some growing up to do. Take you sandbox diatribe back to the schoolyard.
The whole idea of creating a known universe of anglers is to create a targeted survey
in which data such as who actually fished from the group would be included. Rather
than trying to determine from totally random survey of coastal residents. Rather than
a survey that gets a small fraction of a percent actual angling data (did or did not fish),
they would be able to get a complete fishing data set. A real angler, with permit not
fishing is as important to know as one that does, and much more meaningful when compared
to other actual anglers. Right now they really have to guess at all of this.
Your opinion is worth as much as you are, absolutely nothing.
Go crawl back under your rock and snort some more meth.
Wow, is that the best you can come up with? No, you can't as she died 13 years ago in my arms from a heart attack.
You think you are funny with your little attacks but the reality is you are a shallow, petty little man with a low I.Q. Meth does that to people...Grow up punk...