Can anyone tell us how to get information from SAFMC that is understandable to the average guy as to how they determine what is an acceptable catch limit on any given fish and how they determine when that limit has been reached?
Just do what they said they do to get catch numbers, “We make random phone calls to coastal residents and ask about thier trips and catches”
All seriousness, thats what David Cupka said at a meeting when asked.
Russ B.
www.joinrfa.org
God is great, Beer is good, People are crazy
Am I being ignored, not being taken seriously,or does nobody know the answer to my question? Surely, RussB’s response can’t be the only answer. Are there no marine biologists who can respond?
Realfin, I wasn’t being sarcastic at all, but that has been the question we all have been trying to get a answer out of the SAMFC for quite some time now. Thier “logic” and “science” is so flawed that it makes no sense whatsoever to anybody who actually goes out and fishes.
Take the whole black sea bass closure, if one goes out to any sort of live bottom or reef you cannot even get a piece of bait or jig past the hordes of sea bass, folks who dive the reefs witness it first hand. Yet in thier “wisdom” and “science” the SAMFC continues to tell us they are extremely overfished and the stocks are at a all time low.
Russ B.
www.joinrfa.org
God is great, Beer is good, People are crazy
Much of it is driven from computer modeling. You know, computer modeling that someone dreamed up that has no real track record of success. The kind of math problem, with guesstimated inputs, that nobody has every solved before and has no way to check your answer without waiting 20 years. Essentially, if they don’t get the answer that they are looking for, they can adjust the inputs any way that they see fit. At least, that is my understanding of how things work…
They publish assessments called SEDAR reports. They aren’t in laymans, and are sometimes very long, but that is where the stock assessment is documented. Now, from the state of the stock, they can supposedly determine how “overfished” (current state) a stock is, or if “overfishing” (rate of harvest) is currently happening. These are based on other variables that they have interpolated from other data. In the end, they come up with a percentage of how much fishing has to be “reduced” either through catch limits, quotas, seasons, etc. So let’s say that they determine that a stock needs to be reduced by 50% to prevent “overfishing” and put it back on track to rebuild to some target, then you can expect some measure that is attempt to reduce fishing harvest for that species by that percentage. Of course, they read Charleston fishing and see that people don’t normally comply with the law (see: Taking sailfish out of the water, pages 1-2,056) and they build in some sort of buffer to account for that as well. So, typically they will reduce much more than they have to since they expect only a certain percentage of people to follow the law.
So, let’s say that they determine that swedish fish (http://www.swedishfish.com/), which is probably the only species that can really be managed by their science fiction, has been overfished at 1 million lbs each year for the past several years. The SAFMC determines that fishing effort needs to reduced by 50% to stop overfishing. That means that they need to set the “Total Allowable Catch” (TAC) to someth
Oh, I almost forgot the most fun part… Many of these thresholds are set, based upon “virgin stocks”. You know, fisheries that have been un-tapped by humans, that we have never seen before and can only “calculate”. Take red snapper for instance. We have never seen the virgin stock and have no way to estimated it. So, in that case, they fall back onto another formula which is based on what a “virgin stock” should look like based on the maximum age of a fish species, which of course, is based on different species altogether. Since they discovered a few snapper that lived to be 50+ years old, they have determined that there should be a lot more 30 year old, 40 year old, etc fish around. It’s because of these handful of fish that the red snapper fishing has been shut down…
And to put the nail in fisherman’s coffins, I believe that the Magnusson Stevens Act states that all overfishing must be stopped (I think that the deadline was 2011 or something like that if I recall) and that all stocks must be “re-built” with a plan not to extend more than 10 years.
But my apologies… You asked for a definition that is “understandable for the average guy”. Well, here it goes:
Instead of using common sense, best practices, and proven techniques, with the assistance of basic fish biology like our state guys do, our federal fisheries are managed using the following formula:
guess on top of a guess, on top of a guess, on top of a guess, on top of a guess, add in a few arbitrary thresholds based on some other guesses, and an arbitrary timeline dictated by the federal government and have it backed up by funding and propaganda from environmentalists, and start restrictions… Voila!!! A “managed” fishery…
Oh yeah, I don’t want to forget that there are 13 members on the council and that the vote to have the emergency shutdown rule for red snapper (for example) was split 7-6… So, they are definitely not all bad apples, but I find it amazing that such a big decision, based on such lame data, can be split by such a small margin and still be passed!!! Maybe we should write into law that they need a 2/3rds majority…
Skinny, thanks for your attempt.The frustration you feel comes through loudly and clearly. It’s kind of like trying to figure out what a turkey is going to do when he doesn’t kwow himself what he’s going to do. But, still, people are not turkeys, and it is reasonable, it seems to me, that if people (administrators) have used any “science”, no matter how in-adequate, to make decisions that affect so many other people, they have an obligation to tell said people what they know/ surmise/ guess in language that a reasonably literate, interested person can understand. Doing so would make this whole issue more peaceful. So, will someone who KNOWS the information I’ve asked for please respond.
quote:
Originally posted by RealfinAm I being ignored, not being taken seriously,or does nobody know the answer to my question? Surely, RussB’s response can’t be the only answer. Are there no marine biologists who can respond?
RussB’s response is not the only answer, but a true one none the less.
Somehow my wife, son and myself have been part of these phone calls. You just can’t make the operator understand that you live in Colleton county but fish in Hampton and Jasper county on the same fishing trip. And when you ask them how far out a county goes into the ocean they are blown away. I’ve also given GPS numbers and ask, “You tell me what county, I don’t know.” Also don’t tell them you have fished inshore and offshore in the same day, I was told that wasn’t possible. You would think in a survey of this scope they would have someone with at least a smidgen of fishing knowledge… nope.
Also questioned about numbers taken and they wanted me to give them an average. I just replied that the average varies from trip to trip, moon cycle, tide, and how hungry the fish are.
working hard and playing harder
Here is a great resource for learning the basics of stock assessments:
http://www.seagrant.unh.edu/stockassessmentguide.pdf
Read through it slowly and with an open mind. The basics behind it are really common sense. Yes, as other have pointed out, it isn’t perfect and final decisions are sometimes swayed by politics, but it’s pretty cool stuff.
Note that the source is NOAA Sea Grant at U of New Hampshire. This is a solid reference.
quote:Yes, that is the one that I read as well... Of course this makes "common sense" if you think that the only bottleneck in a fish population is hook and line fishing pressure, but in the real world it is NOT the case. Fishermen and fish don't live in a vacuum together with no external influences. The fact remains that there are MANY species in which fishermen are NOT the bottleneck, thus applying this management technique is equivalent to trying to make a dollar out of 50 cents.
Originally posted by smoothdogHere is a great resource for learning the basics of stock assessments:
http://www.seagrant.unh.edu/stockassessmentguide.pdfRead through it slowly and with an open mind. The basics behind it are really common sense. Yes, as other have pointed out, it isn’t perfect and final decisions are sometimes swayed by politics, but it’s pretty cool stuff.
Note that the source is NOAA Sea Grant at U of New Hampshire. This is a solid reference.
In addition, there are many other ways to manage a fishery. Look at what SCDNR has done for our inshore fisheries: Wadell center fish stocking, creation of new habitat through oyster rebuilding programs, adequate tagging studies, slot limits, etc, etc…
These are best practices that have PROVEN results and have been used to manage fisheries for a LONG time. These demonstrate a multi-faceted approach to managing a fishery, and have been very effective. Why don’t the feds do this?
So, if you are going to suggest “keeping an open mind”, maybe we should keep an open mind that:
- There are other ways to manage a fishery
- This is a “performance” problem in which fisherman are not always the bottleneck (i.e. root cause).
Seeing as he is the chairman, and earning a very nice salary keeping us from fishing. Why don’t you call this fool and ask him to explain it to you. He is always so interested to talk to the public…
David Cupka - Chairman At-Large Seat P.O. Box 12753. Charleston, SC 29422 843/795-8591 (ph) 843/870-5495 (cell) palmettobooks@bellsouth.net …
.
NMFS = No More Fishing Season
“Back home we got a taxidermy man. He gonna have a heart attack when he see what I brung him”
quote:
Originally posted by sellsfishSeeing as he is the chairman, and earning a very nice salary keeping us from fishing. Why don’t you call this fool and ask him to explain it to you. He is always so interested to talk to the public…
David Cupka - Chairman At-Large Seat P.O. Box 12753. Charleston, SC 29422 843/795-8591 (ph) 843/870-5495 (cell) palmettobooks@bellsouth.net …
This is very usefull. It is our duty to voice our opinions to government officials… often.
.NMFS = No More Fishing Season
“Back home we got a taxidermy man. He gonna have a heart attack when he see what I brung him”
I’ll probably regret falling into this trap, but here it goes…
Check out pages 22-24 for other sources of mortality besides fishing mortality. Fishing isn’t the only “bottleneck” considered. Again, this is a basic guide, offered in response to Realfin’s request for some basic info.
Skinneej, I absolutely agree that fishing doesn’t exist in a vacuum and we need to employ ecosystem based management. We also need to find a way to consider multiple species in stock assessments, rather than assess each species individually. To do that, however, we need new methods and a lot more data, and I don’t foresee the money for that coming anytime soon.
Okay, commence the flaming.
Smoothdog, I’m not out to “flame” you or anyone else. Last year, when DNR asked that we not keep trout,I (and many of the people who use this site ) stopped keeping trout. We’re looking at a good late fall now, but if DNR says to hold off, a lot of conscientious fishermen will do that because DNR gave us a logical reason to do so. That’s not too much to ask, is it?
DNR and the SAMFC are two totally different animals. Most folks who work for the SCDNR are as outraged as we are over the closures, but unfortunantly it is thier job to enforce all fishery laws, right or wrong. Ask just about and SCDNR officer what they think about the sea bass closure and watch thier eyes just about roll back in thier head!
The SAMFC is a VERY political orginization.
Russ B.
www.joinrfa.org
God is great, Beer is good, People are crazy
quote:Ummmm... Pages 22-24 do not talk about other bottlenecks. This model relies heavily on fishing being THE bottleneck, with the upper maximum defined as "Carrying Capacity" (which is actually just another bottleneck that can be adjusted) of the fish stock. It's pretty obvious that the only knob to turn in this formula is the "fishing pressure" knob... There is a brief mention of "natural mortality", but nowhere in this document does it assume that the "natural mortality" could be greater than the "fishing mortality" for a fish stock. Show me the part in the equation that talks about small gag groupers being dependent on our inshore fisheries and oyster beds and how we factor in the decline of SC's oysterbeds over the past 100 years and the inputs in the formula due to rebuilding and how that effects the maximum carrying capacity of the stock. Oh, you mean it doesn't? That's what I am talking about. It's pretty obvious that the only bottleneck CONSIDERED (that keeps us from reaching the habitat\environmental bottleneck known as "carrying capacity) is fishing pressure. In this document "natural
Originally posted by smoothdogI’ll probably regret falling into this trap, but here it goes…
Check out pages 22-24 for other sources of mortality besides fishing mortality. Fishing isn’t the only “bottleneck” considered. Again, this is a basic guide, offered in response to Realfin’s request for some basic info.
Skinneej, I absolutely agree that fishing doesn’t exist in a vacuum and we need to employ ecosystem based management. We also need to find a way to consider multiple species in stock assessments, rather than assess each species individually. To do that, however, we need new methods and a lot more data, and I don’t foresee the money for that coming anytime soon.
Okay, commence the flaming.
Honestly, this model is just a neat toy. It explains fish stocks about to the degree that scientists explained the world being flat before it was discovered otherwise. While I will agree that the concepts are “interesting”, in NO WAY should they be used to actually DRIVE management decisions for fish stocks. Sure, take the output into consideration, but it should not be the main decision point. Also, I won’t argue that it might not actually work for SOME fish stocks. Sometimes the “world is flat” is a “good enough” working theory to explain certain things even though it is incorrect at the core and does not fit all applications. It would however explain small phenomenon around me, like why don’t I fall off the Earth when I am in China (because the world is flat and not round, right)? In that case, use the rule that the “world is flat” works for me and explains why I don’t fall off, just like this formula may work for SOME fish stocks that are not heavily tied to environmental changes, however it doesn’t explain how I can sail around the world and return to my original destination, just like this theory cannnot apply to all fisheries, because it is broken at it’s core.