Mark, I filled out the volunteer survey for 2008. At that time if you didn’t complete the fields for fish data entry it wouldn’t allow you to proceed to complete the entry. You are correct a skunk day could not be entered into the data base. That may have changed for 2009. I did complete the recreational crab survey last year all 2 days I crabbed.


With this data I am moving over to jigging the flats for C&R I should be able to eliminate all of those skunks on the boat.

Hey all - while you may not like the DNR's recent decisions (I know I don't), simply put, without data on catch they will only have their opinions to make decisions with. I'm pretty sure that is not what we want.

How about this perspective...

If no flats people participate, won't that be a reason to close the flats - no data, no idea of impact so some might assume the worst (goes along with the "play it safe" mentality we've seen recently). And trust me, the "studies" used to justify the flats season aren't strong at all and eventually someone will point that out. :rolleyes:

Why would the DNR do anything other than "play it safe" with recreational fishing regs if we aren't willing to cooperate. Do we really want to feed the fire used to restrict C&R trolling which stated rec's weren't about the best interest of the fish? I don't want to see recreational anglers be identified as the group unwilling to play the game.

And yes, the data is small but I'd bet a buffalo nickle that decisions aren't being made with this single report in front of them. Some data is better than none, and more is better than a little. Even mediocre scientists/managers know how, when, and if to even use data of this type to make decisions.

I won't judge what you do...it's up to you. I've not participated so far (though I only fish a few days a year total lately). But from my perspective, contributing to this is a good thing, and I'm going to participate from now on.

Bug Guy; you have a point, however, it's this first sentence of your statement that I have trouble with. What totally drove me up the wall about the DNR decision on PSCR is that DNR did NOT use their own opinions to make restrictions on C/R. DNR used the opinions of the MCBA to impose restrictions. To impose restrictions on one user group based on the "concerns we have heard" from another user group is cowardly and incompetant.
5th (Marty)

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.

I wouldn't consider MCBA to be elitist

Barefoot; I'm not speaking for Rich, but I don't think his elitistist quote was directed at the MCBA.
I know in my mind; that quote went directly to a flyfisher/jigger who proposed not only these restrictions, but day restrictions as well. Perhaps, if you think hard enough, you can come up with the name of someone who flys all around the world fishing, yet wanted to confine us to three days a week during PSCR:D
5th (Marty)

Marty,
I will concede the impetus was external. I would also guess though, that the public statement by the DNR attributing it to other organizations was a public relations move. Having worked in the field, I've seen groups attribute their own opinions to other groups in order to deflect criticism (in this case, it didn't work so well). However, I admit I have no firsthand knowledge that this really was the issue.

While I have the floor, let me tell you a potentially hypothetical story...

Let's say PA's Dept. of Transportation (PennDOT) wanted to build a bypass around a back country town that was located on a road between major cities (Allentown-Philly) and northern attractions (Poconos). The road has to be built somewhere and land has to be taken. Option 1: build it along a stream, make 5 bridge crossings, and impact 2 endangered (one thought to be extirpated) minnow species. OR option 2) build it along a mountain side and displace 200 people living in a mobile home park. What do you do? Maybe the agency leaks it out that they are going to impact this stream and the poor minnow...maybe then the local watershed group run by a nice lady in her 50's who is a nature lover but not a scientist organizes and gets locals in an uproar...maybe then PennDOT decides to "graciously" allow the watershed group a seat at the table as a stakeholder...and then maybe PennDOT says, the lady is right and they'll have to go with the lesser discussed "plan B" and concedes the lady was the reason for their decision. In the end, 200 residents of a mobile home park are pissed at a 50 yo woman who runs a local watershed group and not so much at PennDOT, while PennDOT avoided the costs of 5 bridges and mitigation/conservation of 2 endangered species.

The point - gov't agencies are often better at deflecting blame than making sound scientific decisions.

Will DNR always make the right call - probably not. Was the C&R process BS - definitely. But without scientific info, what option would the DNR have other than to be biased and capricious?

Oh, and if you hadn't figured it out...Brandon is the 50yo woman in the more recent story. ;)

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 have to respectfully disagree - in my opinion, while the data is not very robust to say the least, it is data and it does have some use. It is biased and the low reporting limits the scope of inference (that is bad) - but some trends can be identified as long as the bias is understood and the conclusions made are limited. Those trends can be used not for decision making about regs, but for decisions about where to focus further studies and surveys. In otherwords, where to spend the limited money they have for more robust, focused studies since surveying the entire MD Chesapeake is out of the DNR's budget (and likely out of their ability).

While, it can easily be misinterpreted or misused on accident or on purpose, data is data, even if small and biased, it is still data. But I think everyone has a legitimate concern about how this data is being used...who knows.

Bug Guy,
I guess we will have to disagree on this. I am a great believer in the principle of GIGO. And that is exactly what I see here. 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.

Whether you have no data or poor data, you are only at the level of a WAG, and don't even begin to approach even a SWAG. And even though a blind pig can sometimes find an acorn, I don't think we should base natural resource management on that philosophy.