ACCURACY - of DFO Catch Stats.

[cuttlefish]

Fish Hunter, I'm back. It took me a while to read thru this thread and the Accountability thread you started earlier. Lots of chatter about whether the present system is or isn't accurate, not many thoughts about how to make it better. None the less, good to learn about where there are flaws.

I have a suggestion, offered in good faith and as an attempt to give the 'make-it-better' ball more momentum which I think you are trying to get rolling. BTW,Thanks for doing that.

Logbooks for all charters mandatory. Catch reporting could be digital or manual, delivered to a central database in a timely fashion. Database could be maintained by DFO, SFAB or independent, whichever SFAB considers appropriate. No more need for creel surveyors to target charter boats. Surveyor could concentrate on non-charters (even if there are only limited numbers to report). Creel survey data goes to the same database.

This database could be querried to learn times and areas of high and low catches, and also for amount of charter catch vs. non-charter.

Just some thoughts... for what they're worth.

 

[Fish-Hunter]

Fish Hunter, I'm back. It took me a while to read thru this thread and the Accountability thread you started earlier. Lots of chatter about whether the present system is or isn't accurate, not many thoughts about how to make it better. None the less, good to learn about where there are flaws.

I have a suggestion, offered in good faith and as an attempt to give the 'make-it-better' ball more momentum which I think you are trying to get rolling. BTW,Thanks for doing that.

Logbooks for all charters mandatory. Catch reporting could be digital or manual, delivered to a central database in a timely fashion. Database could be maintained by DFO, SFAB or independent, whichever SFAB considers appropriate. No more need for creel surveyors to target charter boats. Surveyor could concentrate on non-charters (even if there are only limited numbers to report). Creel survey data goes to the same database.

This database could be querried to learn times and areas of high and low catches, and also for amount of charter catch vs. non-charter.

Just some thoughts... for what they're worth.

Yep that is why I started this thread is to get the ball rolling to start to develop some constructive solutions to a real problem with the accuracy of how the Sport catch is accounted for. The main discussion so far has been debating the issue of whether there is a problem with the current methods. There has been input from a bunch of the guys to indicate where they have seen problems with the system, and how those problems have affected their trust in the system and their willingness to participate in the system. If there isn't trust in the way the system works, then it is hard to trust the decisions that are based on the data collected by said system.

I believe, as do many others that there is in fact lots of problems with the system being used now, and I really do think that we all can do better with very little efforts individually. Hell why wouldn't we want to do better if we can??

Thanks for your input, I hope that more people throw some ideas into the hat to collectively and constructively develop a model that could work, and be presented to the powers that be to improve what we are doing now.

Regards,
Fish-Hunter.

 

[weedeater]

Why not go to tags like we used to have for springs long ago, they had to be bought ( cant remember price was years ago), would account for numbers, but not weight. But im sure an average hali weight could br agreed upon

 

[fish4all]

Fish Hunter, I'm back. It took me a while to read thru this thread and the Accountability thread you started earlier. Lots of chatter about whether the present system is or isn't accurate, not many thoughts about how to make it better. None the less, good to learn about where there are flaws.

I have a suggestion, offered in good faith and as an attempt to give the 'make-it-better' ball more momentum which I think you are trying to get rolling. BTW,Thanks for doing that.

Logbooks for all charters mandatory. Catch reporting could be digital or manual, delivered to a central database in a timely fashion. Database could be maintained by DFO, SFAB or independent, whichever SFAB considers appropriate. No more need for creel surveyors to target charter boats. Surveyor could concentrate on non-charters (even if there are only limited numbers to report). Creel survey data goes to the same database.

This database could be querried to learn times and areas of high and low catches, and also for amount of charter catch vs. non-charter.

Just some thoughts... for what they're worth.

good idea on a mandatory logbook for lodges/guides. They are accessing the bulk of the 12%. what is needed is a true guiding licenses with a logbook as part of the license conditions.

I just had a copy of easy hails sent to my house and there are other programs out there that would make huge improvements. This program works through a sat phone and links staight into FOS. I believe there are tools out there that would definitly improve catch numbers.

Fish-hunter good to see someone pick the ball up and focus on making improvements.

 

[GLG]

Fish4all
Spoken as a true commercial fisherman.
Bait the hook.
Send the line down.
Wait for a recreational to take the bait and play him on the line.
After we go running around with a hook in our mouth for another year or two what then?
Are you going to give up your 88%?

Look at the big picture.


You recreational fishermen want to make a difference?
Contact you local politician and tell them what you want.
Done that, contact me for other steps you can do to make a difference.

GLG

 

[fish4all]

GLG

I think Charlie has done a bang up job of tearing apart the creel survey and pointing out what many on this board are saying. That there needs to be some better accounting of removals in order to strengthen the position of the rec sector. Can you enlighten me as to why you are so against trying to get decent numbers?

 

[gamechanger]

I haven't had a chance to go through this entire thread, but if you guys have some questions and want real answers let me know and I will find out for you. The general public not believing in rec fishery catch estimates was a huge issue in the halibut allocation fiasco, those commercial and political guys painted the rec sector black on that issue...and got what they wanted which was no change. You guys gotta believe in your catch mon programs, because if you don't who will...?

-millsy

 

[Business Time]

...Logbooks for all charters mandatory. Catch reporting could be digital or manual, delivered to a central database in a timely fashion. Database could be maintained by DFO, SFAB or independent, whichever SFAB considers appropriate. No more need for creel surveyors to target charter boats. Surveyor could concentrate on non-charters (even if there are only limited numbers to report). Creel survey data goes to the same database.

This database could be querried to learn times and areas of high and low catches, and also for amount of charter catch vs. non-charter....

Not to step on SFBC's toes but need to let you know that we have started an online catch recording database for Salmon, Lingcod, and Halibut. This is located on a new reports only forum that was launched last week. Reports are based on Fisheries management areas.

You can see both the forum and catch recording database at www.zurtrolures.ca/reports

The tool is there, now people just need to use it.

BT

 

[fish4all]

i was just curious why he was defending the creel survey. but as usual thanks for the intelligent response holmes.

 

[searun]

I haven't had a chance to go through this entire thread, but if you guys have some questions and want real answers let me know and I will find out for you. The general public not believing in rec fishery catch estimates was a huge issue in the halibut allocation fiasco, those commercial and political guys painted the rec sector black on that issue...and got what they wanted which was no change. You guys gotta believe in your catch mon programs, because if you don't who will...?

-millsy

I'll bite...so, it would help me to understand the monitoring methodology to know how often the catch monitoring is taking place, where and how that is used to extrapolate the data into a catch estimate. I think concerns would be that the data must be an accurate cross section of catch and not just capturing data from those areas where there is a strong concentration of really good or proficient anglers bringing in their catch. I guess where folks question the methodology is where they do not understand the process. It would be helpful to get that.

I would welcome catch monitoring off all the charter vessels so long as that data was kept utterly confidential - if we started releasing who is catching what fish and exactly where then we might as well strap a giant satellite dish to our backsides and advertise on a website..."bonkfishhere.com." So, I would warn that the data needs to be protected so it is not mis-used. Similarly, I'm concerned that having exact GPS positional data on the location of every fish caught will just end up being used to close off more sections of water. That's what happened in the SFAB process years back, resulting in using the information we shared being used to close off certain sections of water. Sorry, but the trust factor isn't there based on past abuse of information shared with DFO.

So with those cautionary notes and some form of resolution, I would welcome catch monitoring.

 

[weedeater]

I agree with searun here alot of x's on my gps are now nicely in rca's

 

[GLG]

To all those concerned with accountability (creel survey) there is a process that you should be involved with.
http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/consultation/picfi-ipcip/monrep-survdecl/index-eng.htm
They have a draft document that they are requesting public input by May 6, 2011.

Quit wasting your time here on this website and read the documents and put forth constructive ideas to the process. If you want to discuss the draft proposal here on this site fine, start a new thread and I would be more than happy to do so.

SFAB has been dealing with these issues for a long time. Since the late 80’s / early 90’s and the salmon wars when the commercial salmon fisherman used the same argument. They lost back then and I don’t foresee the commercial halibut sector wining the argument this time around. Unless we let them with there junk science argument.

Some of you new guys should get your self up to speed with the real issues in our sport by reading the minutes from SFAB. You can find them here on DFO website.
http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/consultation/fisheries-peche/smon/sfab-ccps/mtgs-rencs-eng.htm#main
Keep an eye open for the minutes from SFAB Feb 2011 when it gets posted. Read the document and note the part about the commercial halibut Processors Advisory Group (PAG) and their objection to our creel survey methods. They did a 180 in there thinking.

Personally I have no problem with our current creel system. Is there room for improvement? Sure why not. But to say we have a problem is a load of crap. Fish4all has some of you guys hooked and is reeling you in with his BS. The real issue is the halibut allocation. Fish4all will send you down any path, except that one. Fish4all perhaps if you devoted some time into changing that we would get somewhere and yes you still owe me a case of beer.

One last comment on RCA’s, you wonder why we go them? Because the commercial sector removed over 90% of the rockfish in the province and now we are paying for they’re over fishing. They are going to take a very long time to recover if they ever do.

I’m done with this thread as I have more pressing matter to attend to.

GLG

 

[searun]

Just saying, I'm all for good catch monitoring so long as we aren't sold down the river for providing that data.