ACCURACY - of DFO Catch Stats.

Fish-Hunter

Active Member
This peaked my intrest from another thread I started the other day.

Last year (2010) I made it out on the water between 18 and 20 times to go fishing.
NOT ONCE on any one of those trips was I asked how many, when, where and what type of fish I caught. NOT ONCE!

DFO bases our number of fish caught on fly overs and creel counts (averages of estimates).

They have no clue what I really caught.

I was wondering how many others have had the same experience, and have not been asked what they caught all year. How many trips did you make and how many were you asked about your catch? I am curious to see what kind of percentages of fishing trips were in some realistic way accounted for over the last year.
 
Had a funny thing happen today. Our Creel survey guy came by my house in his jacket and asked if I knew how many guys where out and if I knew how many fish a buddy caught today. He was happy he was getting paid 30 an hour, he normally starts work in June but was hired for these two days....
 
Our Creel survey guy came by my house in his jacket and asked if I knew how many guys where out and if I knew how many fish a buddy caught today.

Ker-Rist! Now THERE's efficiency! Second hand information rather than hitting the docks?? WTF?? And we wonder why there is a problem?

Shakin' the nog yet again...
Nog
 
Ker-Rist! Now THERE's efficiency! Second hand information rather than hitting the docks?? WTF?? And we wonder why there is a problem?

Shakin' the nog yet again...
Nog

Funny thing he wanted to count the fish at my house for a buddy heading to Sooke to weigh in his fish so it would be counted twice if a creel guys was in Sooke. And knowing this guy he will write something down. would like to know if the guys came across more surveys at the other marina's
 
How unusual. This is not science; it is an effort to inflate the sport catch numbers to support a case that the recreational sector is catching higher numbers than we are. Sounds like the use of Enron style number crunching, over estimate and double counting the same fish. I trust DFO on this not at all. Let me guess for example; they don’t need to adjust the halibut allocation because their new improved system has determined that anglers actually catch 50% already, in fact we will now have to transfer some of ours free to the quota owners.
 
Why on this thread is everyone agreeing? so far

Right now...... if it was a 80/20 split we could/would still have short seasons.... because: the lodges used it up, the guides...... there are more sporties targeting them.... The excuses could be endless.

I said this from the start. If someone in the know at DFO tells me they don't have a clue..... I can see that.
As long as its good enough for the IPHC? It has nothing to do with the IPHC, they say what we can catch...DFO splits it up... Then somewhat makes up our # IMO
 
I thought the whole point of a Creel Survey was that they were at the dock and actually laid eyes on and took samples from the fish they count as the boats come in, - in short, no BS. Now they are going to people’s homes and asking how many their friends caught who are not even there nor are the fish. What is next, stop by the pubs in fishing communities and ask the drunks how many fish they caught this month or maybe just phone people at random.
 
Yup! I just caught a halibut thru the ice here at Gregoire Lake Ft Mac.
 
Had a funny thing happen today. Our Creel survey guy came by my house in his jacket and asked if I knew how many guys where out and if I knew how many fish a buddy caught today. He was happy he was getting paid 30 an hour, he normally starts work in June but was hired for these two days....

Hourston said:
Funny thing he wanted to count the fish at my house for a buddy heading to Sooke to weigh in his fish so it would be counted twice if a creel guys was in Sooke. And knowing this guy he will write something down. would like to know if the guys came across more surveys at the other marina's

That is just screwed up plain and simple! :mad:

These surveys if they are to have any credibility to them at all, must be first hand info confirmed by the Creel Survey member or else they are just as good as not even counting at all.

This system is total BS! And some claim that we have and adequate amount of accuracy in how the Sport Sector fish are accounted for! I would hate to see what these folks would consider inadequate accuracy; what would one have to do, make up the numbers or something:confused::mad:.

Let's hear some more first hand experiences people. How many of your trips out on the water, have you been asked about what you caught (or what your buddy caught for that matter), over the last year?
 
Yup! I just caught a halibut thru the ice here at Gregoire Lake Ft Mac.

IF and when I meet a Creel Survey Member, I will be sure to let him know, just so that all the fish are counted. Should I tell him where you caught it? LOL:p
 
This topic was recently discussed at the SFAB Nanaimo meeting a couple weeks back. Like it or not, DFO has invested a lot of money in the monitoring system and it has been audited to be quite accurate. This system of monitoring is not going to go away or change much in the future. DFO believes the figures to be quite accurate.
Below is an excerpt of the minutes of the meeting. Brad is the current Sports Fishing Liaison for Nanaimo.



"Recreational catch data / monitoring:
Brad explained to the group how the system has been in use for 25 years and various improvements have been made. He described how the creel survey and data collection works. This included the dockside creel surveys, guides and lodge questionnaires, flyovers and catch surveys that are mailed out. The 10% sample size is considered large enough to be accurate but a larger sample size would provide better optics as to the accuracy. Probably would not change the numbers. Cost is the restricting factor.
He explained how the average weights are calculated for different areas and stated the system is deemed credible by DFO and the IPHC and is in use in at least three other countries.

Brad was asked how we can believe the system is credible when faced with all the negative publicity being put out by the commercial halibut sector and seeing no response from DFO. He said it was up to us to believe in the system and convince our peers that it is accurate. It was pointed out that it was time for someone in DFO to stand up and defend the recreational catch monitoring system as the public is interpreting their lack of action as agreement with PHMA that the system is flawed.

A motion requesting DFO issue a public statement defending their creel survey and recreational catch data system was put forward and passed. Motion is attached."
 
You might ask “Brad” when and how often DFO does those overflights… “by sector.” You might also ask, how often DFO mails out those “catch surveys.” Every FIVE years? Might also want to ask if Brad (from DFO) has ever read DFO’s discussion paper dated November 2010.


I am not saying DFO hasn’t improved their motorizing system for halibut – they have! You can thank IPHC for that! However, does this sound like DFO believes their monitoring system is accurate and working?


Strategic Framework for Fishery Monitoring and
Catch Reporting in the Pacific Fisheries
DRAFT
A DISCUSSION PAPER
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Pacific Region
Fisheries and Aquaculture Management
November 2010

3. Challenges and Opportunities There are considerable challenges to achieving the regional goal for fishery monitoring and catch reporting. At the same time, greater collaboration on information gathering and fishery management in general can bring longterm benefits to the Department and harvesters alike. Key challenges and opportunities include:


Building trust To arrive at a common awareness and understanding of the need for improved monitoring among all resource users and the public is no trivial feat. The challenge is especially daunting for the Pacific salmon fisheries, given the current level of distrust between and within harvesting sectors. Nonetheless, the application of consistent standards for monitoring and reporting through a transparent process could go a long way towards restoring confidence in fisheries information and resource management.

Linking accountability and access In the Integrated Groundfish Program, commercial harvesters know that if they want access to the resource they must pay for monitoring and reporting. The notion of resource user responsibility for these costs is not so prevalent elsewhere. Linking harvester accountability with continued access to fishing opportunities is meant to provide a positive incentive for compliance, as opposed to the use of penalties. With time, harvesters are more likely to accept their responsibilities if monitoring and reporting costs are fair and fully accepted by every harvest group in every fishery.

Funding constraints DFO and harvesters are both challenged to pay their respective shares of monitoring and reporting costs. In addition, the recreational sector currently has no functioning mechanism for collecting the funds to cover these costs. The Department must work with sector representatives to develop and implement a practical selffunding mechanism for cost recovery. More generally, where harvester contributions are limited by the reduced economic viability of a fishery, an alternative harvest regime or other management options may be needed to ensure an acceptable degree of risk.

Capacity development An effective monitoring and reporting program requires not only sufficient funding but also the appropriate skills for information gathering and management. Individual harvesters may lack the knowledge necessary (e.g., the ability to identify different species) to conduct fishery monitoring and catch reporting on their own. Adequate resources must be provided for the training and certification of First Nations and third party onboard observers and dockside monitors, as well as for equipment and other support.

Clarifying responsibilities For shared accountability to work, there has to be a clear statement of roles and responsibilities at all stages in the monitoring and reporting process. Within DFO, this means clarifying who is accountable and what the dependencies are for a variety of functions, including monitoring and reporting standards, training and certification requirements, auditing plans, data provision, information management, catch estimation, public reporting and enforcement. These internal accountabilities and relationships must be carefully ironed out, and any significant gaps identified and filled, if the right information is to flow efficiently between harvesters, third parties and the Department.

Communicating the benefits While While continued access to fishing is the intended incentive, in fact harvesters may be more motivated to participate in information gathering out of a concern that their fishing privileges will be hampered or withdrawn. DFO needs to actively communicate the longterm benefits of comanagement and improved monitoring and catch reporting, in terms of more sustainable fisheries and ecosystem protection. This communication effort should target the recreational and commercial sectors, First Nations, other stakeholder groups and the general public.

Work is already under way to address some of these issues. Over the past few years, the Accountabilities Working Group has documented the accountabilities and relationships for DFO’s data services and information management functions. A subcommittee of the M&C Panel is preparing a discussion paper on the relative merits of different kinds of incentives to motivate monitoring and reporting compliance. As well, discussions have begun between the Sport Fishing Advisory Board (SFAB) and a departmental Monitoring Technical Committee on a cost recovery mechanism for the recreational sector.

Recreational sector: From the mid-1950s through the 1970s, DFO estimates of catch and effort in the sport fishery relied on subjective assessments by fishery officers and small-scale creel surveys. The need for greater rigour and consistency led to the launch in 1980 of a major creel survey program focused on salmon for the Strait of Georgia. Since then, creel surveys have been added for other coastal areas and in some freshwater systems, as the scope of recreational fishing has expanded geographically and to include other species. To conduct these surveys, aerial overflights estimate effort and fishery technicians visit marinas, boat ramps and river locations to interview anglers about their catch and take biological samples where needed.

First Nations fisheries: For many years, FSC fisheries, like sport fishing, were monitored on an ad hoc basis by fishery officers. Currently, methods such as census programs, roving or access point surveys and mandatory landing sites for pilot sales fisheries are being implemented in cooperation with First Nations.

Other recent monitoring developments include:
· Several commercial demonstration salmon fisheries, such as the Area F troll fishery on the North Coast, have adopted enhanced monitoring to verify all catch in a pilot quota fishery; as well, all gear types have been testing electronic logs (elogs) to enable faster, more accurate data reporting.

· Elogs have also been piloted by sport fishing guides, some commercial fleets, and lodges and recreational creel surveys have expanded to include halibut and other groundfish information.

· In FSC fisheries, a new role (data management advisor) to coordinate data collection for several First Nations has been successfully piloted on the Central Coast; further, catch calendars and customized data systems have been adapted in many communities to collect and forward local catch data.

Despite such improvements, deficiencies remain in information gathering, in terms of coverage of the fisheries, missing or unreliable data, reporting delays and other issues. In a recent analysis, Pacific Region resource managers were asked to rate the current level of monitoring and reporting for their fisheries using three indicators—target catch, bycatch and fishing effort—and then to suggest what the appropriate level should be in each case.13 Based on this partial assessment, many existing monitoring programs were found to provide the necessary information. However, in every species group and harvesting sector, there were also many fisheries in need of better monitoring and reporting. Consequently, for these and all other Pacific fisheries going forward, a systematic approach must be applied for determining fishery information requirements and how best to meet them.

http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/consul.../monrep-survdecl/stratfwk-cadre-strat-eng.pdf

P.S. - Don't even get me started on why IPHC is now accepting DFO's numbers! :)
 
As always Charlie, a very FACTUAL informative non-prejudiced posting!
Too bad others wouldn't follow suit!
 
[FONT=&quot]Fishhunter to answer your question, I have been asked to participate in a creel survey two to three times a year. I fish around 50 plus days a year. I have also filled out a mail in survey that was sent a couple of months ago. I send all my marked fish heads in and have gotten info back from DFO on their origin. I know its cool to bash DFO but until you meet and get to know some of the field staff we have here you just don’t know how hard these guys are working to make things right.
GLG:rolleyes:
[/FONT]
 
[FONT=&quot]Fishhunter to answer your question, I have been asked to participate in a creel survey two to three times a year. I fish around 50 plus days a year. I have also filled out a mail in survey that was sent a couple of months ago. I send all my marked fish heads in and have gotten info back from DFO on their origin. I know its cool to bash DFO but until you meet and get to know some of the field staff we have here you just don’t know how hard these guys are working to make things right.
GLG:rolleyes:
[/FONT]

The front line people for DFO are all pretty good hard working people- the fight is with the Ottawa folks
 
You might ask “Brad” when and how often DFO does those overflights… “by sector.” You might also ask, how often DFO mails out those “catch surveys.” Every FIVE years? Might also want to ask if Brad (from DFO) has ever read DFO’s discussion paper dated November 2010.

It was asked at the meeting how many overflights are being done and the answer was approximately 3 per week during peak fishing season. It was also argued that angler effort might be unfairly shown if these flights only took place during 'nice' fishing days and not the 'snotty' days but Brad assured us that was not the case.
I'm not defending him (I'm leaving my personal thoughts out of these posts), I'm just stating what was said at the meeting.

And yes, it would be great if we could get more people out for these meetings. We keep getting the usual crowd of 20 or so but would be good to see more involvement.
 
[FONT=&quot]Fishhunter to answer your question, I have been asked to participate in a creel survey two to three times a year. I fish around 50 plus days a year. I have also filled out a mail in survey that was sent a couple of months ago. I send all my marked fish heads in and have gotten info back from DFO on their origin. I know its cool to bash DFO but until you meet and get to know some of the field staff we have here you just don’t know how hard these guys are working to make things right.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]GLG:rolleyes:[/FONT]

Thanks GLG, so you were surveyed aproximately 4-6% of your trips out on average, and it sounds as though you are out there a fair amount so you should be exposed more than the average guy to the creel surveys. At least it is better than the 0% that I have been surveyed. I did not receive a mail in survey either. Does the mail in survey account for your whole year of fishing? Never seen one, don't know what they entail.

I just want to make this clear so that I am not misunderstood. I am not bashing the DFO people that are on the ground (water) in our local areas, not what so ever. These are the people that see what is really going on and they are just as frustrated if not more with the problems and the restricting policies that they are bound by, than we are. You are right they work very hard and are very concerned for the well being of the Pacific Saltwater fisheries, but they can only do what they are mandated to do, and my issues are only with the persons in DFO that draw up these mandates (the upper levels of DFO). So If any of my rants sound like they are "bashing" DFO, it is directed to the upper level decision/policy makers. Sorry if there was any misunderstanding, I will try to keep this clarified in the future.
 
Last summer fishing out of Sooke - Sunny Shores, during the prime mid-late summer period we were creel surveyed a lot, I would estimate about 25% of the time.
 
It was asked at the meeting how many overflights are being done and the answer was approximately 3 per week during peak fishing season. It was also argued that angler effort might be unfairly shown if these flights only took place during 'nice' fishing days and not the 'snotty' days but Brad assured us that was not the case.
I'm not defending him (I'm leaving my personal thoughts out of these posts), I'm just stating what was said at the meeting.

And yes, it would be great if we could get more people out for these meetings. We keep getting the usual crowd of 20 or so but would be good to see more involvement.

Did "Brad tell you, that equates to "one" overflight per sector, per week?
 
And I can say out of sooke harbor/jocks never saw them ONCE where there is 10 plus charters and at least 40 sportfisherman going out from both places.... System works really good....... NOT
 
Back
Top