Cape cod canal C&R only question

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by bloocrab

Always been curious to how they truly measure the Rec. harvest?

"Hi #^&#^&#^&#^& Little, I understand you target Striped-Bass during the season.. how many stripers did you catch last year?"
"To tell you the truth mam', I killed em'....probly couple hundred!"

How many did #^&#^&#^&#^& really catch?
How are the reported numbers justified?
Honor system?? ....I can tell you this, 90% of fishermen that I've come across in my life stretch the truth...whether it's with their hands or their mouth.

The Canal is an anomoly.
When a big push of fish move in, so should a big push of law enforcement.
Regulations should be the same regardless the area....I'm still confused why size limits change for scup depending on the location?

Here is an synopsis of how the rec catch is estimated, for more detail go to countmyfish.com.

There are trained state employees deployed throughout the fishing season (except for Jan. & Feb.) at point where they are likely to encounter anglers returning from a fishing trip. Those locations are NOT random, they are statistically selected to produce a statistically valid random sample. When the encounter and angler who agrees to be interviewed, they count and measure the fish in the anglers possession. They also ask about how many fish f each species were released. Those interviews are used to produce an estimates of the catch per unit of effort (CPUE) for that area.

Then there is a mail survey, which is sent to statistically valid random sample of addresses listed in the postal service database for the coastal states. That survey is used to produce an estimate of the total recreational effort.

Then the two are combined to produce the estimated catch. For released fish, and a huge amount of striped bass are released, the estimated mortality is derived from several scientific studies (one of which was conducted by Diodati of MA DEP) and is estimated at 9%.

That, in a nutshell, is how they get the recreational numbers. Basically the only thing they are taking someone's word for is how many times they went fishing and what they were fishing for.

[bloocrab]

Originally Posted by MakoMike

.... trained state employees deployed throughout the fishing season.....encounter an angler who agrees to be interviewed, they count and measure the fish in the anglers possession. They also ask about how many fish of each species were released. Those interviews are used to produce an estimates of the catch per unit of effort (CPUE) for that area.

Then there is a mail survey??, which is sent to statistically valid random sample of addresses listed in the postal service database for the coastal states. That survey?? is used to produce an estimate of the total recreational effort.

Then the two are combined to produce the estimated catch. For released fish, and a huge amount of striped bass are released, the estimated mortality is derived from several scientific studies (one of which was conducted by Diodati of MA DEP) and is estimated at 9%.

Basically the only thing they are taking someone's word for is how many times they went fishing and what they were fishing for.

I'm not being a flamer here *my font changes are only emphasizing my areas of further confusion*, but I fail to see where the science is in asking people who agree to be interviewed? Sure, if they have a fish in their possession, there's an actual count, but "how many did you release"? Really? How many guys walked away from that interview laughing about the tales told? Not that any agency could ever be accurate enough when it comes to "asking" people, but there are so many flaws in this system. I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but how can you say that the only thing they're taking someone's word for is how many times they fish, when you state that they clearly "ask" people,,??? Isn't believing what they tell you, taking their word? The ONLY justifiable number is the fish they had in their possession...or perhaps I'm still missing something?? I surely don't have the answers to getting a factual number...it doesn't exist in the rec. realm...too many variables to consider. So to use these estimated numbers as scientific data is quite bogus in my opinion....but again, I don't have the answers, just opinions...and we know how those go.

[bloocrab]

WAIT!!!...maybe I do have the answer...shut it down for 6 - 8 years.
During that time, people can talk about WHY it was shut down and perhaps that'll drive us to be more responsible...again.
I mean, we did get a little smarter since the last moratorium, I thought ....let's just keep reliving the cycle, There's definitely science to prove that...

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by bloocrab

I'm not being a flamer here *my font changes are only emphasizing my areas of further confusion*, but I fail to see where the science is in asking people who agree to be interviewed? Sure, if they have a fish in their possession, there's an actual count, but "how many did you release"? Really? How many guys walked away from that interview laughing about the tales told? Not that any agency could ever be accurate enough when it comes to "asking" people, but there are so many flaws in this system. I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but how can you say that the only thing they're taking someone's word for is how many times they fish, when you state that they clearly "ask" people,,??? Isn't believing what they tell you, taking their word? The ONLY justifiable number is the fish they had in their possession...or perhaps I'm still missing something?? I surely don't have the answers to getting a factual number...it doesn't exist in the rec. realm...too many variables to consider. So to use these estimated numbers as scientific data is quite bogus in my opinion....but again, I don't have the answers, just opinions...and we know how those go.

You can believe what you like, but those are the figures that rule recreational fishing. It's been reviewed several times by the National Science center and has been subject to some criticisms which were implemented, their last review gave the MRIP program an unqualified thumbs up. I too have some more specific concerns over how its done and how things are computed, but the MRIP numbers are what rules the recreational world. Not just for striped bass but for every species we target.

[bloocrab]

Understood....and I'm glad you didn't take my post personally...no one's at fault here, we're just sharing opinions. That system may just be the closest assessment process possible for the Rec. sector.
However, it's severely flawed (IMO) and when I read about %'s on the rec. side, I always shake my head. It just makes matters worse when I see people standing behind those numbers like they're actually scientific facts/data. They're not...they're estimates based on peoples' "reportings"

Interview a "yahoo" who wants attention to begin with, and what do you think he's going to report, that he got skunked or that was the only fish he caught? I doubt it.
Seems like a lot more people are looking for a soap-box nowadays and that leads to false information
___________________________

I can just hear them now, during a moratorium at the Canal...."I wasn't trying to catch a striped-bass, I was after that one bluefish that I saw jump in the middle of that mass of Bass"...

The CCC must rank high for locales with the highest mortality rates in the NE for SB. But it's easy to forgive yourself when you toss or even carefully release that striped-bass back in the water...he's out of sight and out of mind. You don't realize the damage done because he's only going to wash up further down in an eddy, or simply float out into one of the Bays. As much as it pains me to say this, because I too am guilty (if I can call it that) of fishing the CCC, but they should probably shut down fishing altogether in that place. Some will say, the CCC is but a grain of sand along the entire E-coast, but the impact caused to large schools (of the perfect mating class) at one given time is pretty impressive.

For every conservative advocate, there are 1K who don't give a dam.

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by bloocrab

Understood....and I'm glad you didn't take my post personally...no one's at fault here, we're just sharing opinions. That system may just be the closest assessment process possible for the Rec. sector.
However, it's severely flawed (IMO) and when I read about %'s on the rec. side, I always shake my head. It just makes matters worse when I see people standing behind those numbers like they're actually scientific facts/data. They're not...they're estimates based on peoples' "reportings"

Like it or not its our best and only estimate of the recreational sector and the NSC says its a good estimate. We will never be able to get a count of the fish in the recreational sector as a whole, thought we do get a very good estimate of the catch in the charter/party fleet. There we have a specific survey aimed at the customers of that sector which is backed up by the VTR reporting of the vessels themselves. Kind of a double check on what's being reported. On the commercial side we have an actual counting of fish, required by the dealers. Backdoor sales by poachers (both recreational and commercial) are almost impossible to quantify.