View Single Post
Old 02-06-2010, 05:46 PM   #25
numbskull
Oblivious // Grunt, Grunt Master
iTrader: (0)
 
numbskull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: over the hill
Posts: 6,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmac View Post
apropos for above quote-
http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocument...ndings2010.pdf

also an argument from same document (Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board)
http://striped-bass.com/striper-fish...SBtcReport.pdf

Attachment 3, Figures 3, 4
(female spawning stock biomass)

...above is to keep everything in perspective....

And here is a little perspective for you since you are so fond of throwing that bogus recreational/commercial curve at us again and again.

"......... Since MRFSS recreational landings of striped bass are likely
overestimated by 45% to 70% after 1999, the current (2008) coast-wide commercial
landings composition would have increased from 31% under the original MRFSS landing
to 52% under the scenario 1 bias correction, and further to 59% following bias correction
under scenario 2. "


Am I reading it wrong or does that say the commercial catch is actually more like 52-59% of coastwide striped bass landing (excluding poaching of course since as they are quick to point out..."There is no requirement for estimating poaching
as part of the management program.") ? Add poaching in and what does that do to the numbers? Of course the ASMFC board chooses not to see things that way. The garbage numbers are obviously more suitable to their (and your) agenda.
numbskull is offline   Reply With Quote