KGW PIRSA's COMMERCIAL CATCH

[O2Catch1 170]

There is a "thread" on this forum titled

 KGW PIRSA's MISLEADING COMMERCIAL CATCH GRAPH

 

http://www.strikehook.com/index.php/topic/27328-kgw-pirsas-misleading-commercial-catch-graph/

 

 

It includes a graph and some catch data, but unfortunately it is in a section of the forum where no replies can be added.

 

This new thread is related to the information in that first thread.

 

I was at the meeting at Glenelg and saw the graphs relating to to the decline in the commercial catch, what was mentioned was that there had been a significant reduction in the number of licenses attributed to the KGW commercial fishery, 700 odd down to a number in the 300s I think. Tony Fowler made point that the "Fishing effort days" ( I think this is what they are called ) was also greatly reduced, almost proportionately.

 

These graphs were put up and spoken of briefly before moving on to the next part of the presentation, but from my recollection it appeared that the commercial catch was reduced to around 50% over the span of the presented data and the fishing effort days was reduced by a similar amount. 

If what I have recalled is around the mark, then to me it indicates that the return for effort has not dropped too much at all????

[seagypsy 1,182]

Their plucking old data from, trying to confuse information and inventing reasons to lower the bag limits and restrict us further. Have they had time to measure the effects of the Marine parks yet? How are they collecting recreational catch data? Have they taken into consideration that commercial fishing practices have change making it harder for them.

[nok 86]

There is a "thread" on this forum titled

 KGW PIRSA's MISLEADING COMMERCIAL CATCH GRAPH

http://www.strikehook.com/index.php/topic/27328-kgw-pirsas-misleading-commercial-catch-graph/

It includes a graph and some catch data, but unfortunately it is in a section of the forum where no replies can be added.

This new thread is related to the information in that first thread.

I was at the meeting at Glenelg and saw the graphs relating to to the decline in the commercial catch, what was mentioned was that there had been a significant reduction in the number of licenses attributed to the KGW commercial fishery, 700 odd down to a number in the 300s I think. Tony Fowler made point that the "Fishing effort days" ( I think this is what they are called ) was also greatly reduced, almost proportionately.

 

These graphs were put up and spoken of briefly before moving on to the next part of the presentation, but from my recollection it appeared that the commercial catch was reduced to around 50% over the span of the presented data and the fishing effort days was reduced by a similar amount. 

If what I have recalled is around the mark, then to me it indicates that the return for effort has not dropped too much at all????

 

Yes, you are quite correct and a good pick-up I was at the meeting also and the presenter said the CPUE (kg KGW per fisher day) had fallen recently.

If you go to the KGW 2014 publication by SARDI [p14 Fig 3.c] you'll see the graph used.  Ignore the line for gill-nets because it is based on limited data.

Well if that CPUE handline graph is not in a steady even climb between 1984 (minimum value) and 2013 (maximum value), then ?

I noted the slight inflection in the presenter's voice as he ran his pointer along the most recent years and said it had fallen.  I felt he could not really believe what he was saying, because it was so obviously incorrect.

[NoWorries 5]

How are they collecting recreational catch data?

Very poorly I think is the answer to that one. Essentially they survey a small percentage of people over a small percentage of fishing days and estimate the factors to multiply the results by. I don't think there's an easy answer to getting more reliable data than what they're getting but they shouldn't be promoting it as accurate data by any stretch of the imagination.

[snapper15.4kg 67]

" shouldn't be promoting it as accurate data "..................Hear Hear  !!!!!!!!!!

[nok 86]

 

How are they collecting recreational catch data?

Very poorly I think is the answer to that one. Essentially they survey a small percentage of people over a small percentage of fishing days and estimate the factors to multiply the results by. I don't think there's an easy answer to getting more reliable data than what they're getting but they shouldn't be promoting it as accurate data by any stretch of the imagination.

 

 

The Survey type is not designed to reliably estimate angler catch.  This is well known.  To get accurate recreational catch a survey specific for that purpose is required.  The problem is the gov is unwilling to fund it, and reduced the funding for the present 2013/14 survey which shows in the parts missing and the marked error associated with estimates.

[brenton 637]

The rec survey data is an absolute joke only 3 people out of the 150 at the glenelg meeting had ever done a survey in the last 25 years then PIRSA extrapolate this data X 236,000 anglers to reach the tonnage we catch.Now if thats not a pathetic way to quantify our catches i'll go he for chasey.......unless of course it suits them perfectly to achieve their evil plans.

cheers b

[snapper15.4kg 67]

" an absolute joke ",......" a pathetic way " ................." to achieve their evil plans "         I think you summed it up, nicely brenton.