Ssfff To Challenge Mrfss Landings Data

[Kensdock]

Originally Posted by Life's A Beach

you're clueless. the ONLY real number in your equation is the number of fish you CLAIM you can prove you caught. Every single other number was pulled from a hat. Then you end in conclusion that WE overfished OUR quota??? Numbers like YOURS is why SSFFF is fighting an uphill battle against BAD SCIENCE/NUMBERS.

I fished for fluke often. From opening day through the end of the season. I caught a lot of fluke. I caught many quality fluke. I did NOT catch 100 fluke! That would be 16.5 days of full limits. I don't know many people that did.

Please do us a favor. Go fishing, catch your fish, post them in your personal blog and stop trying to be the voice of reason unless/until you engage your mind before you open your mouth. It's not helping us.

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?

[dales529]

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.

[CaptTB]

Originally Posted by Kensdock

Where do you get your numbers? What studies or research can you quote that proves that the MRFSS harvest numbers are wrong?

And the point of this thread was, that the numbers are being challenged SCIENTIFICALLY!

Had you bothered to read the original post you'd know that.

Originally Posted by Kensdock

I am sorry you were unable to assimilate the information or my point.

Right back at ya!

I notice you still have not commented on the numbers posted. So Ken, how realistic are your numbers? Not what you caught personally, but your "estimates" that were derived from your "research" as you put it?

Is it realistic to think that Fluke fishermen in NJ caught the equivalent of the entire Fluke biomass in one season? Is it realistic to assume, as you did, that NJ recreational fishermen landed more fish (your 10% at 250lbs) than the entire coastal quota for both recreational and commercial combined?
Is it realistic to think that NJ recreational fishermen caught more fish (cutting your numbers in HALF) than the entire recreational sector on the eastern seaboard?

Originally Posted by Kensdock

At a later date I am sure you will catch on.

I wish I could say the same for you.

[Capt. Jerry P]

Originally Posted by CaptTB

I notice you still have not commented on the numbers posted. So Ken, how realistic are your numbers? Not what you caught personally, but your "estimates" that were derived from your "research" as you put it?

Is it realistic to think that Fluke fishermen in NJ caught the equivalent of the entire Fluke biomass in one season? Is it realistic to assume, as you did, that NJ recreational fishermen landed more fish (your 10% at 250lbs) than the entire coastal quota for both recreational and commercial combined?
Is it realistic to think that NJ recreational fishermen caught more fish (cutting your numbers in HALF) than the entire recreational sector on the eastern seaboard?

That say it all!!!

Ken

where do you come up with 10%

so frustrated with people like you...only a crackpot could think that

1 in 10 caught 100 keepers??? Because you did???

[CaptTB]

Originally Posted by CaptTB

I notice you still have not commented on the numbers posted. So Ken, how realistic are your numbers? Not what you caught personally, but your "estimates" that were derived from your "research" as you put it?

Is it realistic to think that Fluke fishermen in NJ caught the equivalent of the entire Fluke biomass in one season? Is it realistic to assume, as you did, that NJ recreational fishermen landed more fish (your 10% at 250lbs) than the entire coastal quota for both recreational and commercial combined?
Is it realistic to think that NJ recreational fishermen caught more fish (cutting your numbers in HALF) than the entire recreational sector on the eastern seaboard?

I believe it is important for people reading this thread to get the facts and not just some wild a$$ opinion based on nothing more than "fishermen's weblogs".

I bring these questions back up because I would like to see a response from you Ken. Your logic and your "research" as you call it does not hold up in the face of reality and I feel it is important for people to see that. In most cases far more people will read things without actually commenting on them, and I have found from experience that it is important for those people to have some actual, and factual, responses to the spin and personal opinions of the uninformed.

Certain people will yell louder than everyone else, but as evidenced in this thread they typically have nothing of value or substance to say.

[Kensdock]

Challenging the MRFSS landing data was a business decision for you and the RFA . Once you made the decision you knew it would be necessary to pay for your own survey so the end result could be manipulated, I surmise. Short term economic gain is usually followed by a bust and this is just what you have ordered.You do this in complete disregard of the condition of flounder and sea bass stocks. Most of recreational anglers agree if there is to be a mistake with the quota/survey they would like it to fall on the conservation side. I would also like to have a longer flounder season,bigger bag limit and a shorter size limit.
I have learned from past mistakes that have been made by regulators pressured by commercial interest. Increasing the flounder quota based on surveys that have been paid for by those that stand to benefit financially is never going to be a good idea.

[CaptTB]

Let's see if I have the time to deal with all the mistakes and false information you just posted.

Originally Posted by Kensdock

Challenging the MRFSS landing data was a business decision for you and the RFA .

False. The decision to challenge the MRFSS landings data from 2009 was made by Save The Summer Flounder Fishery Fund. RFA was not involved in the process, and if you bothered to actually read the original post in here you would have known that they were not even mentioned. Not to mention, there is no "business decision" involved, since it is a reaction to first hand knowledge by anglers, businesses and individuals who fish for Fluke that some of the assertions being made by MRFSS fly in the face of first hand observations made by people up and down the coast of the US (not just cape may fishermen's blogs by the way)

Since the data from MRFSS has already been declared "fatally flawed" the the National Resource Council of the National Academy of Sciences after conducting a review mandated by Congress, and since the newly reauthorized MSA demanded that NMFS make certain changes to MRFSS by a specific date, and since NMFS has yet to do what it is required by Federal law to do, SSFFF took it upon itself to hire an independent company to see if they could find out where the screwy numbers were coming from and if any outside information and analysis could help refine those numbers.

Once you made the decision you knew it would be necessary to pay for your own survey so the end result could be manipulated, I surmise.

False. IF you had bothered to read the original post you would know there is not our "own survey" being conducted. As a matter of fact, there is no survey whatsoever being conducted. But in order for you to know that you would have had to actually learn something, which you have seemed adverse to doing to date. Additionally, since there is no such survey being done, it would be impossible for me or anyone else to "manipulate the results." An accusation (or a supposition on your part that is based on nothing, other than your continued attempts to attack the integrity of people and organizations of which and whom you know nothing.

I find it typical of your cowardly attitude of taking pot shots at people and groups on the internet but not in person, knowing full well you would be laughed out of the room were you to make such wild ass and unsupportable accusations and insinuations to mine or anyone else's faces.

You do this in complete disregard of the condition of flounder and sea bass stocks.

Really? Since you obviously know nothing about the condition of those stocks I will gladly educate you. According to the most recent MAFMC Stock Status Report it states, according to the Office of Sustainable Fisheries - 3rd Quarter 2009 Status Report of U.S. Fisheries, that Summer Flounder are currently not overfished, not experiencing overfishing and are at 77% of the rebuilt size, still rebuilding and scheduled to be rebuilt by 2013.

Black Sea Bass are currently at 103% of their rebuilt size, are not overfished and are not experiencing overfishing.

So, according to the best available science both stocks are extremely healthy and still growing.

Increasing the flounder quota based on surveys that have been paid for by those that stand to benefit financially is never going to be a good idea.

That would be accurate if it were true, but since there are no surveys paid for by anyone that stands to benefit financially, and seeing as how there is no survey that would increase the quota (that is not how quotas are set and the quotas for 2010 have already been set) I would say it is safe to say you honestly do not know a blessed thing about the topic.

It is perhaps possible you could be more incorrect, but I highly doubt it. Perhaps in the future a little research outside of someone's weblog on your part would be in order. You would stand to be at least a little closer to the truth and perhaps a bit less inaccurate in your comments.

[CaptTB]

Sorry, I accidentally copied over part of my response.

Originally Posted by Kensdock

Most of recreational anglers agree if there is to be a mistake with the quota/survey they would like it to fall on the conservation side.

As pertains to the quota I would agree with you. And, if you knew anything about how the quotas are set you would know that there are already several levels of conservatism built into the quota setting process.

As to the survey (do you even know the difference? Do you even know what MRFSS is?) there is no such thing as a survey mistake that is conservative or liberal. There is only accurate or inaccurate. If a survey is biased on the high side it is not conservative. On the contrary, it has the opposite effect and creates a picture of both landings and the stock that is negative.

Most people I know, when faced with a question or issue pertaining to a topic they do not understand or of which they have little or no knowledge would first seek to better understand the issue or educate themselves on the topic before suggesting a course of action, response or assuming to know the answer.

You, however, have taken the opposite approach. You make statements of supposed fact when in reality you have none (facts that is) and have clearly little or no knowledge of the topic.

While I'm sure it is nice and cozy under that blanket of ignorance, sooner or later you'll need to come up for air.

I also noticed that you STILL did not answer my questions, despite posting them twice. You responded to the original topic (which you obviously did not fully comprehend) but you completely avoided responding to the questions based on your ridiculous assertions about landings.
So, I will ask yet again and await your response.

Originally Posted by CaptTB

I notice you still have not commented on the numbers posted. So Ken, how realistic are your numbers? Not what you caught personally, but your "estimates" that were derived from your "research" as you put it?

Is it realistic to think that Fluke fishermen in NJ caught the equivalent of the entire Fluke biomass in one season? Is it realistic to assume, as you did, that NJ recreational fishermen landed more fish (your 10% at 250lbs) than the entire coastal quota for both recreational and commercial combined?
Is it realistic to think that NJ recreational fishermen caught more fish (cutting your numbers in HALF) than the entire recreational sector on the eastern seaboard?

Well?

[CaptTB]

By the way, here is the link to the most recent Current Stock Status of MAFMC-Managed Species

[Kensdock]

Challenging the MRFSS landing data was a business decision for you and the RFA . Once you made the decision you knew it would be necessary to pay for your own survey so the end result could be manipulated, I surmise. Short term economic gain is usually followed by a bust and this is just what you have ordered.You do this in complete disregard of the condition of flounder and sea bass stocks. Most of recreational anglers agree if there is to be a mistake with the quota/survey they would like it to fall on the conservation side. I would also like to have a longer flounder season,bigger bag limit and a shorter size limit.
I have learned from past mistakes that have been made by regulators pressured by commercial interest. Increasing the flounder quota based on surveys that have been paid for by those that stand to benefit financially is never going to be a good idea.

Capt.TB, When I mentioned the RFA I was referring to the law suit over the sea bass season.


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%.

Obviously, some processionals think the sea bass are over fished!


In the past you laughed at my when I started a thread calling for a moratorium on weakfish.
You also belittled my over a post about a NJ salt water license. If you take a look at the comments sent to the ASMFC calling for a moratorium and the active polls on the NJ salt water license topic, It should become glaringly apparent that I am not the only one that disagrees with you on some topics. NJ anglers are big on forming their own opinions!

I see the MRFSS data and stock observations made by anglers is only good if it fits your argument