DNR volunteer survey results

[Barefoot]

Originally Posted by 5th Tuition

I know in my mind; that quote went directly to a flyfisher/jigger who proposed not only these restrictions, but day restrictions as well.
5th (Marty)

The words may have come out of the flyfisher's mouth, but they were the MCBA's words...

Originally Posted by Hockleyneck

The restrictions on trollers and only trollers is what gets me. How did this happen? The elitists who served up the trollers may be next, welcome aboard. There is no question rockfish are not as plentiful and more restrictions are coming regardless of whether your personal choice is to participate or not.

Rich, I don't consider jiggers to be elitists? It is just another way of fishing. This is my point all along, as Recs we need to stick together and support everyone's type of fishing. Personally I troll, jig, liveline, bottom fish, flounder fish, just fish...but when we start attacking other means of fishing because trolling was singled out, then you further divide the recs. Then who wins? The people who originally proposed this issue. There are MCBA members at the forefront of this fight (at least on TF who have posted on it) who run Pre Season C&R trips...those are the guys we need to be "attacking" not other recs and their form of fishing. When you say "the elitists who served up trolling" that can be taken a lot of ways...I would rather jig year round than do anything else, don't consider myself an elitist in the least, but I also didnt serve up trollers. Trollers make up (as a conservative estimate) 95% of the trophy season anglers, hence why they were targeted. Is it fair, no, is any of this fair when there is no science behind it, no...but again, recs need to stick together or this fight will be uglier and uglier...

Originally Posted by BILL H

Any data that comes out of a voluntary survey such as this one is less than useless. There is no way that it can provide any sort of statistically relevant snapshot of fishing pressure/fishing success. If any one attempts to regulate using this type of information they don't deserve their job.

Scientific info it ain't. It is tough enough to get a valid sample even using robust statistical approaches. But this "feel good" approach doesn't even pass the laugh (or smell) test.

Bill H, I agree with you..."less than useless" what kind of idiot would admit to keeping an 11 inch rockfish, let alone the other undersized rockfish claimed to have been kept in the data? This could easily be infiltrated by people looking to shut down the fishery and they could post inaccurate data, especially with such a small sample size that is not representative of 1/100th of a percent of yearly trips that occur on the bay

[Bug Guy]

Originally Posted by BILL H

Bug Guy,
...What we have is a set of data with absolutely no controls on it, and no real way to determine the direction of bias or whether there is bias. I have many problems with the data set, and size is not the only or the greatest one....

No doubt nobody can make the kinds of conclusions that can from a replicated study with controls, experimental variables, dependent variables, etc. And making decisions about "effect" from this study would be wrong.

I guess from the data I see pattern. Really, it is a small and poorly done creel survey. This links to a page that I found on a quick google search that does a decent job describing a good survey: http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7...7829--,00.html

For example, the bias comes from the people polled - an unbiased survey would randomize where people fished, what days fished, etc. and take into account other things. In addition, the data would include skunks (as stated previously in this thread). So, this data should take into account these biases and limit any conclusions about pattern to the types of fisherman, location of fisherman, and other variables that describe the respondents. Conclusions on pattern should not be applied to the entire bay. No conclusions on effect to the fish should be made. But, properly done creel surveys (which is what I think the registry will do a better job of) has successfully helped to manage fisheries in other places.

But I will admit - I don't have the greatest confidence that this data is use in the limited form that it should be. So I'm not necessarily disagreeing with everyone here.

[BILL H]

Originally Posted by Bug Guy

No doubt nobody can make the kinds of conclusions that can from a replicated study with controls, experimental variables, dependent variables, etc. And making decisions about "effect" from this study would be wrong.

I guess from the data I see pattern. Really, it is a small and poorly done creel survey. This links to a page that I found on a quick google search that does a decent job describing a good survey: http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7...7829--,00.html

For example, the bias comes from the people polled - an unbiased survey would randomize where people fished, what days fished, etc. and take into account other things. In addition, the data would include skunks (as stated previously in this thread). So, this data should take into account these biases and limit any conclusions about pattern to the types of fisherman, location of fisherman, and other variables that describe the respondents. Conclusions on pattern should not be applied to the entire bay. No conclusions on effect to the fish should be made. But, properly done creel surveys (which is what I think the registry will do a better job of) has successfully helped to manage fisheries in other places.

But I will admit - I don't have the greatest confidence that this data is use in the limited form that it should be. So I'm not necessarily disagreeing with everyone here.

I think we are in agreement far more than any disagreement. I do think that the national registry can serve as an integral part of a pretty good system for estimating fishing effort/success if it is combined with a properly constructed creel survey (which I believe will be a separate "dockside" survey).

The missing randomization is my biggest problem with the voluntary survey. We just don't know whether the respondents fish more or less than the average angler or whether they have more or less success. And there is no way to relate their effort/success to the average effort/success.

I see the voluntary survey is a way for concerned anglers to feel good about providing information on their participation in the sport, but that the information is of extremely limited value beyond the "feel good" aspect.

I believe this cat is sufficiently flat, and I will not run over it again.

[Bug Guy]

Originally Posted by BILL H

I believe this cat is sufficiently flat, and I will not run over it again.

I can agree on that....

& one last thing - oh how nice it was to have a civil discussion without 100 A-holes chiming in to do nothing other than stir the pot and muddle the conversation. Thanks.

[BILL H]

Originally Posted by Bug Guy

I can agree on that....

& one last thing - oh how nice it was to have a civil discussion without 100 A-holes chiming in to do nothing other than stir the pot and muddle the conversation. Thanks.

Uh Oh, you may have opened the floodgates.

I agree, a civil discussion can be a rarity, nowadays.