Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kensdock
I am sure you think the scientist were clueless when they presented their numbers for seas bass.
Commission’s Interstate Fisheries Management Program Policy Board had unanimously directed the Board to take action prior to September 1. The Board was presented with recreational harvest projections for black sea bass that indicated the harvest target could be exceeded by 86% to 165%.
Where do you get your numbers? What studies or research can you quote that proves that the MRFSS harvest numbers are wrong?
How many keeper fluke did you catch?
|
maybe you could start by READING something other than your own posts such as:
http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/crd/crd0916/
To save you some time I pasted their conclusion below:
CONCLUSION
The conclusion of the assessment update is that black sea bass are not overfished and overfishing is not occurring. Projections through 2011 suggest that an increase in fishing mortality up to FMSY will not result in a decrease in biomass below BMSY. However, underlying these conclusions is the uncertainty associated with an assessment of a data poor stock as noted in the Northeast Data Poor Stocks Working Group report (NEFSC 2009),
“These new reference points and stock status determinations should be used with caution due to the uncertainty in the natural mortality estimate, the model input parameters, residuals patterns in model fit, and significant uncertainty associated with managing a protogynous species (i.e., individuals change sex from female to male).”
In addition, tagging results suggest spatial partitioning along the coast that is not yet accounted for in the assessment model. Consequently the results may not reflect the stock condition in all local groups of black sea bass.
Please take notice of the "admittedly FLAWED DATA" quotes and inconsistent data statements by this report as a whole.
I have seen more REAL numbers posted here by OTHERS than YOU while also the people/ groups you are attacking in your posts are simply challenging the existing data, helping produce real scientific data, get the FACTS out to the public and clarify the admittedly flawed data which you seem deftly afraid of for some reason and overly defensive about.
Since you are so "in touch" and discount anything but your own opinion I look forward to meeting you Tuesday night at the end of the SSFFF meeting to see how you can twist that into something else.
