ACCURACY - of DFO Catch Stats.

[Rockfish]

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

I don't think they have worked out how many are fishing from that side now. They seem to go back and forth between Beecher and Sunny Shores. I guess there will be even more over on your side when they get a gas dock.

 

[GLG]

Does the mail in survey account for your whole year of fishing? Never seen one, don't know what they entail.

Yes it covers the whole year. They ask a lot more than just what you have caught but you can see the format from the link below. The one I received was four or more pages long. Their focus was more to do with the impact to the economy than the stocks. Although I don’t have a copy of this years survey if you want to see the results of the last survey (2005) it is here. They do them every 5 years.
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/stats/rec/canada-rec-eng.htm


10-4
GLG

 

[drhook]

Did "Brad tell you, that equates to "one" overflight per sector, per week?

I understood him as saying that was approximately 3 overflights per week per sector.

 

[Charlie]

I understood him as saying that was approximately 3 overflights per week per sector.

Well, where do you want me to start? You can actually get the accurate information on overflights from the creel reports! Check with your SFAB, they should have the current and correct numbers! J

About, the only salvation to Brad’s statement is the terms, “approximately 3 per week during peak fishing season.” I guess “approximately” and “peak” season is always open to interruption! If you look at the published creel surveys, those would be closer to approximately 1.83 per week for Areas 3 and 4. Approximately 2.29 per week for Strait of Georgia and Areas 20-26 simply says 2 or three times a week, “The number of overflights each month was governed by budget constraints targets of desired precision, and by the expected number of interviews from a given number of sampling shifts.”

Read the creel reports noting the actual information and terms used, such as “within budget” limitations and constraints and “desired precision”? Unless DFO has changed their programs (just recently), they aren’t coming close to conducting 3 overflights per week per sector, not even during “peak” season.

Looking at Areas 3 and 4 current creel report, the first thing that jumps out to me is they actually use TRAILER COUNTS! “… during each creel survey stint at Rushbrook or Port Edward, a count of trailers parked at the location was conducted at a time between noon and 2 pm. Timing was similar to the aerial survey to conduct counts during the peak in fishing activity. The results of the trailer census were compared to the available flight data, and analyzed to determine the statistical correlation.” So, if anyone just parks their trailer at the above locations – they could arbitrarily considered by DFO – to be “fishing?” by correlating number of boat trailers parked and the number boats spotted during the aerial survey? Prince Rupert, Prince Rupertwithout any kind of actual count being done – how are those numbers used? How many fish do they considered caught, based on an empty trailer setting between noon and 2 pm (2 hours).

Want to see how accurate that information really is? You be the judge, I will just provide some information directly from the creel report itself and a few observations I made:

Creel surveyors inspected 437 Chinook salmon for adipose fin clips, of which 31 were marked. Creel surveyors inspected 815 Coho salmon for adipose fin clips, of which 8 were marked. 1,027 halibut were measured for length and weights were estimated using the International Pacific Halibut Commission’s length-weight table. The average weight of sampled halibut was calculated to be 22.5 pounds.

I have wonder who actually measured those halibut, was it the creel surveyors or the lodges? Keep reading I think you will get that information figured out!

Participants in the fishery include charter operators, fishing lodges, resident anglers and visiting anglers.

The purpose of this survey was to provide estimates of salmon and groundfish catch and effort with known variance. A priority for the survey was to provide in-season estimates of halibut biomass harvested by recreational anglers in Areas 3 & 4.

The 2009 creel survey was conducted between June 1 and September 13, 2009. The survey was a hybrid design with four components: an access point ground survey, an aerial survey, a trailer census and a fishing lodge log book program. The study design was similar to that in use in the Georgia Strait since 1982, and utilized entry and analysis tools developed by DFO South Coast, known as the Catch and Release Estimation Tools, or CREST (Korman et al, 2005). The fishery was stratified by the following criteria:
· Month – statistics were summarized for June, July, August and September.
· Sub-statistical area – the study area was divided into smaller areas, based on the nature of the fishery.
· Day type – the nature of the fishery was thought to differ between weekdays and weekend days. Holidays were considered weekend days.
· Trip type – guided trips generally have a higher catch rate than unguided trips according to unpublished data from prior creel surveys. While guided/unguided trips were kept separate during data collection, catch estimates were created using combined data.

There is five five major access points in and around Prince Rupert and sampling was conducted at each site. I will just recap that, if you want to read the actual report, please see the link posted; however, June through September jumps out now, doesn’t it? It actually is from Jun 1 – September 13, what happens with other eight and one-half months? That would be “zero”!

 

[Charlie]

1. Rushbrook boat launch and floats – the busiest sampling site, with do fish cleaning tables. At peak periods surveyor COULD NOT collect the data.

Yep, NO data collected from the busiest launch – they counted your trailers – NOT FISH!

2. Wampler’s Marine Services - six dressing tables were available at this site but the fuel and running water present in 2008 were no longer offered. This was still a popular landing site for the charter fleet and provided surveyors with opportunities to collect biological samples from most boat trips observed. This site was not available after 21 August 2009, due to dock construction.

Well, at least they got “most.” Wonder what most really is, keep reading - I am sure we will see the actual numbers in the figures and tables section.

3. Prince Rupert Yacht Club/Northwest Fuels (formerly Stromdahl’s) – these two neighboring locations were combined into a single sampling site due to their proximity to each other and moderate traffic. One surveyor could collect data from most boat trips landing at these two locations during a shift. There were a total of three dressing tables between the two sites.

Now we have one surveyor jumping back and forth between two locations? Well, we did get that “most,” again!

4. Port Edward boat launch – this site was located approximately 15km from Prince Rupert, and was popular with residents, visitors, and some charter operators. A single width boat launch and a dressing table with running water were the amenities on the site. Proximity to the fishing locations in the southern parts of Chatham Sound near the mouth of the Skeena River, as well as free parking made this a consistently busy landing site. This site usually offered opportunities for observations of catch and collection of biological data.

Well finally, it appears they might have gotten some reliable information from one creel site. So far, I believe that is ONE, out of the FIVE?

5. “The access road was closed between 17 and 21 August. Traffic volumes at this site were relatively low so very few shifts were conducted here.

IMHO, it stays at the ground creel surveys from those five locations, they obtained their objective and got the reliable information from ONE! What do you think? Then the sampling effort was increased coincident with increased fishing effort “expected” at the end of June, early July, and weeks with holiday weekends.

Now the:

AERIAL SURVEY

A total of 32 flights were made in a fixed-wing aircraft (de Havilland DHC-2 Beaver) following a standard flight path (Figure 2). The aircraft flew at an average elevation of 300 ft and airspeed of 100 mph to allow good visibility of sport-fishing boats. Flights were weighted 60% to week days and 40% to weekend days and flight effort was assigned by week using the 2008 weekly effort estimates (Table 8). Flight days within each week were selected randomly, (Appendix B). Minor adjustments were made to the flight schedule due to weather, visibility or scheduling challenges. Minor adjustments were made to the flight path to maximize observation of the fishing fleet during the season.

The flights commenced near noon to coincide with the peak in angler activity established in prior creel surveys (J.O. Thomas, 2002, Talbot-Ellis, in press). Flights averaged 1.7 hours in length. Data was collected on the number of boats observed in each subarea, the time spent in each subarea and the conduct of the boats, whether they were running or fishing (Appendix C). A Garmin GPS unit was used to determine locations of subarea boundaries. The aerial surveys provided estimates of the effort for each subarea at the time of the flights.

Yep, you read right! That was 32 flights over a three-month and one-half period. That doesn’t equate to three a week? They start at NOON and lasted for 1.7 hours! Well just how much exploitation has to happen there?

 

[Charlie]

Then we have my favorite:

TRAILER CENSUS

During each creel survey stint at Rushbrook or Port Edward, a count of trailers parked at the location was conducted at a time between noon and 2 pm. Timing was similar to the aerial survey to conduct counts during the peak in fishing activity. The results of the trailer census were compared to the available flight data, and analyzed to determine the statistical correlation. Prior to this analysis, any lodge boats active during the flight were removed from the boat count. The trailer counts were an economical way to track changes in effort during days without aerial surveys.

At least, I figured out why they count the trailers during noon and 2 pm – they correlate that trailer count with the overflights, starting at NOON, which only last 1.7 hours to determine how many halibut you catching – ALL DAY LONG! I am now wondering if the tides only change in Areas 3 and 4, between NOON and 2 PM?

LODGE LOG BOOK PROGRAM

Three fishing lodges were operating in Area 3 in 2009, and each was provided with log books. Log book data were collected in-season and post-season, and incorporated into catch estimates using CREST data entry and analysis tools. The log book data provided a census of fishing lodge angling activity, as complete catch records were kept for each lodge-based boat trip (Appendix C).

LOG BOOKS
The three fishing lodges in Area 3 completed sixteen log books containing catch/effort information for 990 fishing trips. 879 of the 990 boat trips were completed during the survey period (June 1 to September 13, 2009). Log book data included catches of 1,240 Chinook, 2,291 Coho and 384 halibut as well as release estimates (Table 21). Lodge effort and catch data have been included in the statistics summarized by subarea above.

Well it appears to ME… you have only ONE reliable creel survey – out of the five and, three lodges that can only be deemed as providing accurate information. Then they compile that limited information, with their other speculated information for the months of June 1 through September 13, and now come up with an accurate estimate for the entire halibut year? IHMO, that would be referred to and is called a “SWAG,” SIMPLE WILD @SS GUESS. Plus, that SWAG has absolutely NO verified information for the other 8 ½ months of the year.

The results:

Halibut

An estimated 12,842 halibut were retained by anglers during the 2009 survey period, with a standard error of 740. June and July were the most productive months, at over 4,000 pieces each (Table 7). Most of the halibut were caught in subarea 4H (Chatham Sound – North), with an estimated 2,729 pieces retained, representing 21% of the total catch. Subareas 3J and 4F were the next most productive areas for halibut, each responsible for 16% of the total halibut catch. An estimated 1,655 halibut were released by anglers during the survey period (Appendix D).

COMPARISONS WITH EARLIER SURVEYS
Effort in the recreational fishery in Areas 3 & 4 has grown from 6,740 boat trips in 1995 to 10,529 boat trips in 2009. Over the same period Chinook salmon catch has grown from 1,813 pieces to 9,177 pieces, Coho salmon catch has grown from 3,759 pieces to 40,324 pieces, and halibut catch has grown from 2,129 pieces to 12,842 pieces (Tables 1-7, Figure 21). Fishing effort in 2009 was reduced from 2008 levels, probably due to a downturn in the economy. Coho catch grew to 40,324, the highest amount recorded in any creel survey since 1995, in spite of reduced fishing effort observed in 2009. Management measures including the reduction in the daily bag limit for halibut from two in 2008 to one in early 2009 reduced the catch of halibut by nearly 50%.

Now we have labeled under “Discussion” or would “disclaimer” be more appropriate? You be the judge!

Catch (when not observed) and release estimates suffer from the vagaries of angler recollection.

The reduction in the halibut bag limit to one at the start of the season resulted in the reluctance of some anglers to reveal halibut fishing locations, often stating “Chatham Sound” when asked. The “Chatham Sound” label on the creel survey map happens to fall in subarea 4H, which could have resulted in a bias to the catch estimate for this subarea.

Examination of effort and interview data from subarea 4A, the Prince Rupert harbour area, suggests that this subarea was oversampled (i.e. angler interviews record more effort than suggested by the aerial survey). However, the nature of the fishery in this area was unique, with fishing activity concentrated in early morning and late afternoon hours as fishing parties set and hauled their shellfish traps. Interview data indicate that the fishing activity occurred in the morning and evening, essentially outside of the time when aerial surveys captured observations of effort.

The objective of sampling 20% of landings from Area 3 was not met through interviews. These areas were commonly accessed by multiple day fishing trips from Prince Rupert as they required significant time and fuel expense to reach. Although surveyors attempted to collect as much information as possible about multiple day trips, it was often difficult for anglers to recall details of the early portions of their trips. The CREST data entry and analysis program was designed to utilize interview data for a single day of fishing, usually the same day that the interview occurred. Aerial surveys observed multi-day boat trips that could not be sampled on the same day as the flight. The estimates assume that CPUE is similar between single day and multi-day fishing events. The goal of sampling 20% of boat trips in subareas I, J and K was only met if the Area 3 lodge trips reported in the log books were considered as 100% sampling events.

Direct observations of catches were limited due to anglers processing their catch at sea, storage of catch in coolers when surveyors had limited time to complete the interview, and reluctance of anglers to allow observation of their catch as they were in a hurry to leave the landing site. Port Edward, Wamplers and the Yacht Club were the best sites to collect biological samples. Rushbrook was generally a poor site for catch observation and biological sampling. Congestion at the Rushbrook ramp during peak periods and lack of any processing facilities such as fish cleaning tables limited opportunities for observing and sampling fish.

There was a total 223 stints and 32 overflights between June 1 – September 13, 2009 to establish the amount of “halibut” harvested by the sport sector for the entire year!

Just to note: “We thank the creel surveyors, Heide Monteith, David Nelson and Sean Offutt for their collection of reliable data from anglers.” It appears most if not all that information was provided by THREE surveyors! The only thing that comes to mind there is –WOW!

Here is where it falls short and starts to fall apart. How is was the most of the reliable information obtained mostly – GUIDES (three lodges). How is the weight determined – by actual measurement from, mostly – GUIDES (three lodges). Consider this, there was a TOTAL estimated 989 guided trips (35%) and an estimated 1867 (65%), with only three lodges providing information. That 35% (or less) accurate information is then exploited and used to calculate sport sector numbers to determine the total sport harvest! And ALL the information collected – fell below their target objective!

One might believe that information exploited correctly for “salmon”, I won’t argue that, just based on the guides log books; however, accurately for “halibut” – I DO NOT SEE HOW it is possible based on the verified and actual information obtained!

BTW… if you look at Tables 23, 25, 26, and 27 - you might be surprised where those 5 and 6 year olds caught in Area 3 and 4 during 2009 mostly came from! J
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/340689.pdf

 

[Fish-Hunter]

Thank you Charlie, for your input!

Once again, you truely are a wealth of information. The info that you have included in your posts is very much how I had envisioned the manner in which the surveys were conducted, and confirms my thoughts on this issue. No matter how accurate our current catch data is today, I believe that we all can do a lot better that we currently are, and that would give us way more realistic numbers to argue our position for more TAC % and also confirm the postion of the Sport Fishing Sector from a Conservation standpoint (based on TAC).

Thanks again.

 

[Charlie]

You are quite welcome! Don’t even get me started on the WCVI! J

Unfortunately, you are correct! It actually goes downhill from what was posted. L


Your SFAB should have all the current creel reports? If they don't or you rather, you can get information concerning South Coast by going: Recreational catch statistics; South Coast stats; Scroll down to 2010 and 2009, you will see "South Coast Creel Survey" bulletins. Start reading with Bulletin #1 [PDF]

The first thing you will notice is in Bulletin #2 [PDF] “Monitoring begins in July” for areas 15, 25, 26, 125, and 126. By the time you get to Bulletin #5 [PDF] you will find areas 11, 12, 25, 125, 26, 126, 27, and 127 ”not surveyed in September.” Then it states, “ Estimates for these highlighted PFMA's and PFMA sub-areas include the period September 1 to September 15 only.” Those would be Areas 20-1 to 20-4, 21, 121, 23, 123, 24, 124. So basically, there are NO creel reports or overflights for creel information, for any collection of halibut information, prior to July 1, and after September 15, on the ENTIRE WCVI! How’s that make you feel? Don't worry... they don't have any historically information, either!

I am sure there is no useful (or do they really care) halibut data from any one fishing before or after those dates. One word comes to mind there.... DAHHHH! I am sure their estimates (without any VALID information ever GATHERED whatsoever), is accurate and correct; even without any historically data, EVER being collected - EVER! Now throw in last year, when everyone was running out to Swiftsure “salmon” fishing! Want to bet where those estimates went? Sorry, I can’t and don’t buy it!

Make sure you read the fine print on all those reports! E.g. “(1) Flights cover multiple PFMA's, so are not additive.” If you see areas together, with the same number of flights next to them – that is probably just ONE flight made over ALL those areas, not individual flights over each! J

Simply put… you want accuracy… increase your creel surveys, and lobby for a mandatory catch cards and/or logbooks requiring the information to be turned in!

http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/rec/tag-etiquette/survey-enquete-eng.htm
http://www-ops2.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/xnet/content/salmon/sc stad/sc_creel/bulletin3-10.pdf


FYI… Your WCVI Creel survey landing sites are:
1. Port Renfrew Marina
2. Port Renfrew Boat Ramp
3. Gus Bay
4. Doobah
5. Clutesi Boat Ramp
6. Clutesi Marina
7. China Creek Marina
8. Seabeam Fishing Resort
9. Kingfisher Marina
10. Island West Marine Resort
11. Weigh West Marine Resort
12. Gold River Boat Ramp
13. Critter Cove Marina
14. Westview Marina
15. Kyuquot
16. Fair Harbour
17. Rugged Point
18. Coal Harbour
19. Winter Harbour

 

[IronNoggin]

Good job as usual Charlie!

I'm going to jump in here with an admission that some might find questionable...

In Ucluelet the creel kids are about for only a couple of weeks each peak season. And while I have issues with that little snapshot capturing what happens as far as catch rates for the balance of the year, it is another matter I am referring to here. The two locations I have seen them repeatedly at are the Fuel Dock, and the Boat Basin. On several occasions I have actually sat and watched those little operations (Gawd I must have been bored... )

And this is what I witnessed: Whenever a charter boat comes in, the creel kids descend like a buzzard on a two day old carcass. Can't really blame them I guess, at least they know there is a very good chance of seeing a good handful of fish. However when a non-guided rig rolls in, there simply isn't the same amount of energy directed towards including them in their "survey". In fact, at any given time when both a guide's boat and a non-guided boat land at the same time, they show obvious bias towards the guide rig, often not even glancing at the other in their hurry to get to the rig which in their assumption will likely have the larger number of fish to count. Note that this simply isn't a one-time event, rather I have personally seen this obvious bias on multiple occasions.

From their point of view, I suppose it might make some sense. They are there to count fish, and the odds of adding to their total are enhanced by targeting on the professionals in the game.

However, the census is supposed to capture an average of the landings, not just the success rates amongst the "Highliners" IMO. Biasing the data collection towards those that fish pretty well every single day does not do that. Instead it creates an artificially high number as related to success rates. Not saying that private owners do not do well out of Ukee for some do as well as any, just that on average, a professionally guided rig will generally realize an enhanced success rate over those who ply The Pond on an infrequent basis.

As a consequence of that, I have for a couple of years been refusing to answer their questions. I do inform them as to why, and make sure they write that down with a direct request to pass that information along to DFO. Does that then happen, I am completely uncertain. What I inform them is to note that their very actions BIAS the census results, and result in greater success averages for the fleet as a whole, which in turn obviously skews the overall catch numbers upwards. As a consequence of this behavior, the end results are artificially inflated, and unreliable.

I also noted that the few times I have let them check the fish, the only halibut they are interested in measuring/sampling are the largest onboard on any given day, again skewing the average up if this practice is common amongst the other boats surveyed (personal communication suggests it very much is).

Now, I am uncertain of just how to deal with this matter in the future. It is obviously apparent that we need a little more reliable data. On the other hand, I don't wish to buy in to the obvious bias towards the higher producing boats for the reasons noted above.

Thoughts?

Wondering,
Nog

 

[Fish-Hunter]

Nog, thank you for your contribution here, I have also suspected these very actions ( have not witnessed as you have, but thought it possible for sure). It does make sense that the creel people would over a certain period of time gravitate to putting more attention towards the guides just due to the fact that there is most likely more often fish to actually count on the guided boats than there is on the non guided boats, and afterall what are they there for - to count of course. Yes this would DEFINATELY skew the real numbers of fish caught on average by EVERYONE, and skew them to the high side for sure, again tying in with my question of the true accuracy of the counts. If we are not going to count for an accuracy in the higher % of real numbers then are we not wasting time counting and instead just doing lip service?

Again I really do believe that we all can do better than we are now. I have laid out a breif plan (on another thread somewhere - I will try to dig it out and throw it out on this thread) that my mind says would be easy to put into play and would most likely acheive accuracy in the 80+% range (guess), but it would no doubt be one hell of a lot more accurate than what we have now for both the number of anglers targeting any one species and also the numbers of fish actually caught. I will try put it up in the next day or so and see what other guys have for ideas that could develop a system that really works.

 

[Charlie]

Yea, I have a thought considering Creel Surveys and Ucluelet! Glad to see nothing has changed there!

I used to fish the last week of July and/or first week of August out of and actually staying in Ucluelet (Island West), so I have seen a surveyor or two over the years. There is one thing I learned quickly and still know. Agreeing with Nog, If I want to see creel surveyor everyday for the rest of the trip - all I have to do is bring in salmon limits! They become married to you real fast! As Nog noted, I never thought about the buzzard aspect; however, I can attest, it starts out almost funny when they literly (at almost a run) down the ramp passing by everyone else, directly to a boat they recognize! Then it certainly does become annoying.

FYI... in all my years, I have NEVER had a halibut measured by any creel suveyors - I guess I have never caught a halibut large or worthy enough for them to count?

 

[Rockfish]

http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/recreational/overview/overview.html

Not sure if this NOAA site has been posted before. It provides some information on how the US monitors recreational salt water fishing.

 

[drhook]

Well done Charlie!

 

[GLG]

Sorry Charlie I don’t agree with you interpretation of the area 3-4 surveys. You may be looking at the survey with your own bias. As an example here is what I mean.

1. Rushbrook boat launch and floats – the busiest sampling site, with do fish cleaning tables. At peak periods surveyor COULD NOT collect the data.

Yep, NO data collected from the busiest launch – they counted your trailers – NOT FISH!

Your quote should read:

1 Rushbrook boat launch and floats – this was the busiest sampling site, serving a variety of angling trips. Resident anglers, visitor anglers and charter operators utilized this site. The site consisted of a double width boat launch, parking lots and government floats. There were no fish dressing tables at this site. Most anglers processed their catch onboard their vessels or at home. At peak periods, surveyors could not collect biological data at this site since anglers were in a hurry to get their boats on trailers and out of the water.

Charlie you forgot to mention biological in your DFO quote. That would be in the case of halibut the fish length. In the case of salmon that would be length, meat colour, sex, scale sample and fin clip. They still get accurate data on the actual reported amounts of fish that were caught. They just could not get the biology sample. So to answer your question no they did not just use the trailer count to add up the fish.

If there were one thing I would like to see in a survey like this it would be a number as to how accurate the survey is. I am not an expert at surveys but if we had a way to quickly judge the accuracy of the data it would go a long way to the interpretation of the results.


GLG

 

[Cuba Libre]

Interesting... the west coast experience does not match what I have seen on the inside at Campbell River, Comox and Hardy. I was creeled at least 7 times last year at those ramps.

In a couple of cases, the Hardy sampler took lengths off the butts. In Comox, lengths taken off springs too. Seems that a letter from you Nog informing DFO what you saw might be in order. Worth trying.

 

[Charlie]

Sorry Charlie I don’t agree with you interpretation of the area 3-4 surveys. You may be looking at the survey with your own bias. As an example here is what I mean.

Originally Posted by Charlie/DFO?
1. Rushbrook boat launch and floats – the busiest sampling site, with do fish cleaning tables. At peak periods surveyor COULD NOT collect the data.
Originally Posted by Charlie
Yep, NO data collected from the busiest launch – they counted your trailers – NOT FISH!


Your quote should read:
Originally Posted by DFO
1 Rushbrook boat launch and floats – this was the busiest sampling site, serving a variety of angling trips. Resident anglers, visitor anglers and charter operators utilized this site. The site consisted of a double width boat launch, parking lots and government floats. There were no fish dressing tables at this site. Most anglers processed their catch onboard their vessels or at home. At peak periods, surveyors could not collect biological data at this site since anglers were in a hurry to get their boats on trailers and out of the water.

Charlie you forgot to mention biological in your DFO quote. That would be in the case of halibut the fish length. In the case of salmon that would be length, meat colour, sex, scale sample and fin clip. They still get accurate data on the actual reported amounts of fish that were caught. They just could not get the biology sample. So to answer your question no they did not just use the trailer count to add up the fish.

If there were one thing I would like to see in a survey like this it would be a number as to how accurate the survey is. I am not an expert at surveys but if we had a way to quickly judge the accuracy of the data it would go a long way to the interpretation of the results.

GLG

I am very okay with one disagreeing, people have to disagree with someone – might as well be me! However, for the lack of use of the word “biological” and to indicate that as being bias? J

3, a : bent, tendency b : an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment : prejudice c : an instance of such prejudice d (1) : deviation of the expected value of a statistical estimate from the quantity it estimates (2) : systematic error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome or answer over others

Might I ask, in which of those do you find bias? J

It can’t be leaving the word “biological” off – “NO data collected from the busiest launch” or the part, “they counted your trailers – NOT FISH!” If so, both are valid without any bias – Might want to read and study those creel comments a tad closer!

Actually I didn’t forget “biological,” at all, nor use it in any bias. The use of, or lack of, that word biological in the term "biogocial data" is not pertinent; however not getting halibut data is very pertinent! Might want to think about that a little closer, also! You, actually made and are correct in your statement, “They just could not get the biology sample.” You, also pointed out biology data include length; however, you seem to have “forgotten” biological data, in regards to halibut, also includes “width,” and “area caught.” So, only didn't collect halibut biology data, for halibut that equates to every bit of data, except this; question - "hey, did you catch any halibut'? Answer = "yep, caught two, sorry but gotta run." What meaningful data does that represent? Well on a creel survey, that just might equate to 45 pounds of the TAC! Then further stated, which is also correct, “They still get accurate data on the actual reported fish.” What meaningful data would that leave for halibut Other than number of fish caught that equates to NONE! Now, they have some number of fish caught, with any other data! I am here to tell you each and every one of those halibut recorded caught without accurate data with it, instantly became a weight of 22.5 pounds going against your TAC!

Yep, think I understand! They state no biology data could be collected during the busiest times, no visual observations completed, they do still get limited accurate catch data reported I get it! Just one question… just how many caught halibut were actually measured by length and width.to accuratly expliot the “estimated” halibut caught? Which that data, just happens to be in the formula used along with historical data, fishing effort, (you know - those overflights and trailer counts) to exploit actual catch numbers - to their estimated catch numbers! Which the estimated catch number is used to determine you average weight, which drives how they determine when the sport TAC has been reached, and your sport season is opened and closed! Yep - GOT IT, about the only thing I can say there is...DAH! J

I believe when determining accurate catch estimates for halibut, most would consider length and width, very important. I also believe when determining the opening and closing of areas, is depended on “catch area,” is it not? At least the IPHC considers that data important when they establish the harvested weights. So, as you also seem to confirmed yourself – that only that information was mostly missed. They actually state the guide cooperation was down 30% and the other sport anglers refused to show their catch and did NOT provide much of the information. I guess, we can take another look on how much accurate information they really did obtain. As far, answering my question concerning trailer counts. I didn’t mean that as a question, that was a “statement, they DID and DO use trailer counts with correlation of the overflights to establish fishing effort. Fishing effort, is then used to establish the estimate catch based on actual collected data and historical data! There was/is NO question about that! They simply have taken the limited information collected and it is a SWAG!

Specifically when it comes to this, and I very much do "quote"!

“The survey focused on catch and effort data for Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.), Pacific Halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis), Lingcod (Ophiodon elongates) and Rockfish (Sebastes spp.). Total fishing effort was estimated to be 10,529 boat trips. Total Chinook salmon catch was estimated to be 9,177 pieces, total Coho salmon catch was estimated to be 40,324 pieces and total other salmon catch was estimated to be 2,384 pieces. Total halibut, lingcod and other groundfish catch was estimated to be 12,842, 2,986 and 450 pieces respectively. Total rockfish catch was estimated to be 6,649 pieces.”

12,842 halibut divided by 10,529 total boats equals 1.22 halibut per total boats. But wait, only 1/3 of those fish for halibut? That equates to 0.22 halibut per total boats. Now is 1/3 of those boats fished for halibut that equates to 3475 boats or every boat halibut fishing brought in an average of 3.69 halibut? Well, which number do you want to use? Would you rather believe every boat fishing caught 1.22 halibut, or believe 3475 caught 3.69 each? I personally believe neither; however, again there isn’t enough halibut data collected, is there?

“Creel surveyors inspected 437 Chinook salmon for adipose fin clips, of which 31 were marked. Creel surveyors inspected 815 Coho salmon for adipose fin clips, of which 8 were marked. 1,027 halibut were measured for length and weights were estimated using the International Pacific Halibut Commission’s length-weight table. The average weight of sampled halibut was calculated to be 22.5 pounds.”

Whoa… what did that just say? “1,027 HALIBUT WERE MEASURED FOR LENGTH AND WEIGHTS WERE ESTIMATED…” for using what? Let’s see here, using 12,841 “ESTIMATED” and 1,027 “ACTUALLY MEASURED,” by the what, “Biological data.” What about the data not collect? Anyone know anything about “exploiting” catch data… the actual, is exactly 0.07997% of the estimated catch. Total boats were 10,529 which is exactly 9.75% of the total boat effort. Which one of those figures you want to use?

To be specifi... a total of 1,027 actual halibut data, combined with the "lack" of historical data, in conjusttion with those overflights and trailer counts - are being used to determine YOUR total TAC and is driving your opening/closing dates! How's that make you feel?

 

[Fish-Hunter]

Thanks again Charlie!

Well I can tell you that this all makes me feel that we are getting screwed over and over and over, and we have no way of PROVING what we catch, because we do not have an accurate account of what we REALLY do catch. This is the reason that I brought this topic up for dicussion.

If we instate a system that has real accountability and accuracy to the Sport catch, we will find out one of two things:






1. We will find out if we really are over-fishing our % of the TAC.

• If we are, then we should know reasonably accurately by how much, and then this will prove that we REALLY do not have enough of the % of the Canadian TAC allocated to the Sport Sector and it should indicate with reasonable accuracy, how much more we really need.
• It will also tell us where we are overfishing, so that the appropriate resource management decisions can be made for those regions, to either again increase the % of the TAC allocated to the Sport Sector or Cutail the efforts in the affected region. (This information I am sure would be very valuable to the IPHC so that they could offer insight on the sustainability of the harvest in the higher pressure areas while the fishing is happening, as a supplement to their current analysis system.)

2. We will find out if we really are under-fishing our % of the TAC.

• If we are, then we should know reasonably accurately by how much, and then this will prove that we REALLY do have enough of the % of the Canadian TAC allocated to the Sport Sector and it should indicate with reasonable accuracy, that we should be able to fish for full seasons.
• It will also tell us that we may be able to fish with larger daily limits.
• It will also tell us that at a given number of anglers and at a certain amount of pressure on the fishery, we will be able to estimate the amount of growing room for the Sport Sector at the given % levels of the TAC.

Any way that you cut this, without a reasonably highly acccurate method of accounting for the fish that we catch, we will always be forced to live with the ESTIMATES that DFO feeds us and live with the decisions that they make for us based on these ESTIMATES. With this current system we have absolutely no way of definativley disputing the numbers that we are given by DFO, the numbers that are ultimately defining our fishing seasons and catch limits.

Now I know that I am not happy with this and from reading this website, I know that there a lot of others that are also not happy with, at least the results from, the system that we currently have.

 

[Fish-Hunter]

Here is a copy of the rough idea that I put out there on another thread earlier, for a system that would improve our accrauacy and accountability in the Sport Sector.

This was only a rough starting Idea (much room for refinements). No time right now to add in the refinement points that I have thought about, maybe I'll fill it in later or re-write it in a clearer format. But it is a start.

It has been mentioned on this site before that it would not take a lot of effort for DFO to construct a data base that we all could voluntarily submit our catches (for whatever species that information is requested for).

We could all purchase our tags for the specific species that we would like to fish for. NOW DFO WILL KNOW HOW MANY ANGLERS ARE TARGETING EACH SPECIES OF FISH! Each of these species tags would come with a log (like the Chinook logs we use now), that log would have to be filled out at the time the specific species of fish was caught, (date, time, location, size, etc,,,). These logs are only good for fisheries officers to verify the catch that we have on hand when and if they stop us on the water or on the way home, and for us to remember what, how many, when and where we caught our fish, for (this is the part that has to change NOW!) when we enter our catch into the online data base. Make it mandatory that the data has to be entered into the data base within a set amount of time from catching the fish (3days? a week?). We would log in to our account which our license# would be attached to, and update our catch reports on a regular and current basis. NOW DFO WOULD ACTUALLY KNOW HOW MANY AND WHAT HAS BEEN CAUGHT AND COULD THEN MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON REEEEL NUMBERS.

The logs and Data base could be checked and balanced by Fisheries officers in the field, and at the end of the year by DFO by means of a mandatory turn in of the logs (or no license next year). This would also cut down on the possibility of people purchasing multiple licenses (due to "lost licenses") through the year or printing multiple pages of logs (each log would have to have an ident # that would be linked to our license). When you go to get a replacement license, it would automatically fill in the data that was entered into the database previously onto the new logs, so that the replacement license would be up to date (at least within the manadatory time frame that is set, to have the log data transfered to the database). This system could be made so that it would be very dificult for someone to cheat it, and if they get caught, make the penalties steep, to keep the few dishonest people more honest.

For those that do not have a computer, the log data could be transfered to the database at say marinas, tackle stores, libraries, friends, family, hell even from a smartphone. The guides and lodges could facilitate helping or entering the data for their guests.

I am sure a model similar to this could be put into a format that is easy and fast to use.

 

[GLG]

Charlie Lets just agree to disagree and leave it at that. You have your opinion on the precision of this survey and I have mine. PM incoming.
[FONT=&quot]GLG[/FONT]

 

[weedeater]

Same programme in hardy They hang at the charter dock , getting big numbers, I dont like giving them info either, I feel my fish are getting counted too mant times, my log book, creel , and flyovers, during peak season my fish could be counted three times. Yet out of coal harbour have never seen a creel person yet!! Just dont get it. Will not be wasting time on my log book next year.

Certainly hope none of our slipper skippers are reading all this, if we lack any confidence in how our halibut are accounted for we cant expect them to !!!