Quote:
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.
