PDA

View Full Version : Recreational Fishing Study


biggsy
08-27-2004, 04:14 PM
Your comments would be appreciated. I think this is complete BS and I have highlighted something that just does not compute. This study seems to void of data (I guess since this is an article about the study, all data would not be shared).


Study finds recreational fishing takes big toll on declining species
By David Fleshler
Staff Writer

August 27, 2004

Recreational fishing enthusiasts like to think of themselves as conservationists, participants in an ancient and sustainable tradition that leaves the oceans unharmed.

But a study released Thursday says recreational fishing has a much bigger effect on saltwater fish than previously thought. Published in the journal Science, the study found that recreational fishing accounts for nearly one-fourth of the catch of overfished populations such as red snapper, bocaccio and red drum.

It found that recreational fishing took a particularly heavy toll on declining fish species in the southeastern United States. And it said current methods of regulating fishing couldn't keep up with a growing fleet of sophisticated sportfishing boats that deploy sonar, global positioning systems and other devices to find fish.

"The conventional wisdom has been for quite some time that the commercial fishery has the greatest influence in terms of overfishing," said Felicia Coleman, of Florida State University, the lead author of the study. "And I think this study demonstrates clearly that that's not the case."

The study, which claims to be the first comprehensive examination of the effect of recreational fishing on marine species, is certain to be cited by advocates of tougher fishing restrictions, such as no-fishing zones. It is likely to cause considerable debate in Florida, by far the leading sportfishing state, where saltwater fishing alone has an economic impact of $4.5 billion, according to a four-year-old study by the state wildlife commission.

John Jolley, president of the West Palm Beach Fishing Club, who has been fishing for 50 years, said the study sounded credible and should force the sportfishing community to stop denying its role in the decline of marine species.

"A lot of younger people tend to have been biased by the rhetoric you get from the sportfishing publications that it's all commercial fishing's fault," said Jolley, whose club has 1,400 members and a reputation for environmental awareness. "In many cases, we're the cause of the decline in southeast Florida. We need to conserve the resource, that's the most important thing. We're beginning to get new evidence of the impact man is having on the sea, and hopefully it's not too late."

David White, southeast regional director of the Ocean Conservancy, which advocates no-fishing zones, said, "This gives some good hard facts that demonstrate the recreational fishing industry does have significant impact on fisheries. They've been saying all along they don't have an impact, and I think that's been laid to rest with this information."

But Ted Forsgren, executive director of Coastal Conservation Association Florida, a sport-fishing group, said the study understated the role of commercial fishing by ignoring the effect of by-catch, unwanted fish that are caught and discarded, dead or alive. The by-catch from the shrimp industry alone outweighs the recreational landings, he said. And he said species that attract only recreational fishermen, such as tarpon, snook and redfish, are thriving -- casting doubt on the suggestion that recreational fishing is the problem.

"I don't think she really understands what's going on," he said. "We've got tremendously healthy fisheries in Florida."

The peer-reviewed study was conducted by scientists from Florida State University, Ohio University and Duke University. To gather the information, they went through 22 years of fishery data from the federal and state governments.

The researchers found that recreational fishing accounts for about 4 percent of the total saltwater landings in the United States. But when they removed menhaden and pollock, which account for half the commercial take, the recreational portion rose to 10 percent. And when they focused on species known to be experiencing over-fishing, the recreational take rose to 23 percent.

Recreational numbers were higher in the southeastern United States. In the Atlantic Ocean off the southeastern United States, the recreational fleet took 38 percent of over-fished species, such as snapper and grouper. And in the Gulf of Mexico, the recreational fleet took 64 percent, according to the study.

While many people practice catch-and-release fishing, that still kills fish. About 20 percent of fish that are caught and released end up dying, largely from the change in pressure as they're hauled from the deep, Coleman said. And the trauma of being caught weakens many fish. Coleman saw one goliath grouper still alive with 20 hooks in its mouth.

Particularly hard hit were top predators, such as gag grouper, shark and red grouper. The study said current fishing regulations, which focus on size and bag limits, are insufficient to control recreational fishing. Coleman said the state and federal governments should consider limits on the total number of fish caught.

"There are no restrictions at all on the number of recreational fishermen that can enter the fishery, except in a very limited number of fisheries," she said. "So even if every single individual is fishing in a conservation-minded way, when you put more than 10 million individuals together, each doing their little bit, there's a significant cumulative effect."

Robert Jones, executive director of Southeastern Fisheries Association, which represents the commercial fishing industry, said he was glad to see a study blame someone other than commercial fishing boats for the decline of fish. But he doubted whether a single study could influence the state or federal governments to crack down on recreational fishing, because sport-fishing groups have considerable political power.

David Fleshler can be reached at dfleshler@sun-sentinel.com or 954-356-4535.

fizisition
08-27-2004, 04:59 PM
There was a similiar article today in the tampon tribune on page 6 or 7( not sure which)of the nation/world section.The junk science is running rampant latly,for instance they say that the red snapper populations are at an all time low when I have seen shot and caught more now than ever.What does someone who lives in washington know about red snapper anyway.

Speargun
08-27-2004, 06:52 PM
the study found that recreational fishing accounts for nearly one-fourth of the catch of overfished populations such as red snapper, bocaccio and red drum...
... In the Atlantic Ocean off the southeastern United States, the recreational fleet took 38 percent of over-fished species, such as snapper and grouper. And in the Gulf of Mexico, the recreational fleet took 64 percent, according to the study. Hmmmm? So just how many snapper & grouper get caught north of, say, N.C.?

..."The conventional wisdom has been for quite some time that the commercial fishery has the greatest influence in terms of overfishing," .... "And I think this study demonstrates clearly that that's not the case." OoooooK. So if rec fishermen count for 25%, I guess that means commercial counts for 75%. Uh, last time I checked, 75% was bigger than 25%. Right?

Sounds like a bunch of garbage to me.

Stodelle
08-27-2004, 07:42 PM
I think this is a "backdoor study", meaning they put the report out to try and scare officials into backdooring new rules. Here in Hawaii, they have been pushing for mandatory recreational catch reports, much like the commercial buys are supposed to do. It has met alot of resistence here among spearos and pole-boys, but we all know how the enviro hippies will take any chance they can, no matter how ridiculous the report, to further their efforts.

Think about it. Of all the fish taken, 25% is from recreational/sport take. As speargun above says, 75% is more. Of course they are using this to say "these are only the reported catches, think what it must really be like." I don't buy it. We have a group here on Maui (who's name I won't mention) but they run snorkel trips around the island. Their safety officers/babysitters paddle around in kayaks and will purposely follow spearos and will bang their paddles against the kayaks to scare the fish. When confronted, they'll become hostile and start spouting off about killing all the fish, disturbing the fish, etc. This one female even paddled off right over a sea turtle once (which is protected). In the naturalist class I took (strictly for fish ID and behavior) they even mentioned spearfishermen and to immediately report them if it even "seems as if they are going to threaten you by pointing their guns in your directions."

Meanwhile, they'll go paddle over people (watched them hit a tourist once with their kayak) on their way back to their big diesel boat, pull the hundred plus tourists out of the water, and motor off to the next site.

Environ"mental"ists really crack me up sometimes. Sorry for spouting up, and griping, but these reports make me mad and so many poeple, who don't have a clue, will read that and say, "Wow, if the study says it, it must be true", and go and support future closures, etc. AAAARGH:mad:

Teufel-Hundin
08-27-2004, 08:42 PM
These idiots are talking out of the back of their necks. AND I QUOTE "The conventional wisdom has been for quite some time that the commercial fishery has the greatest influence in terms of overfishing," said Felicia Coleman, of Florida State University, the lead author of the study. "And I think this study demonstrates clearly that that's not the case."

THEY said that our 10 MILLION strong group of fishermen take less than 25% of the total catch. How does 25... little number 75...bigger number elude their deductive skills. If these brilliant scientist cant tell that a 75% influence over something is greater than a 25% influence how can anyone even consider their data. Unless some group wich has control over 75% of the 4.5 billion dollar industry and wants an even larger share has paid them to blatently misrepresent themselves and their data.

So to conclude--If we took these numbers at face value and decide that all of the bycatch which is a conservative 3 to 1 dosen't really effect the fishery then......They are still iddiots that point to numbers and then read them incorrectly. Apparently assuming that we as NON scientist aren't able to decipher the -squiggly lines what makes words and numbers- and will just take their word for it.

I guess to do that you have to be blinded by the bark falling from the tree you are hugging.

Spearchucker
08-27-2004, 08:47 PM
Stodelle

Oh, how true!!! Crap science abounds. That is why we should all support the FRA and insist that if new rules are going to be put into place, that they at least be based upon sound science and not mumbo jumbo.

richhermes
08-27-2004, 10:40 PM
Moving this to the Regs section.

NoobDiver
08-29-2004, 12:36 AM
I wonder if it was the pacific whale foundation?

Stodelle
08-29-2004, 12:45 AM
Noob, have u been to Hawaii before? While I can't really say (hmmmmm), this group is VERY anti-anything-in-the-ocean, despite their own "recreational instructive" tours. They actually send out emails for their various studies (which always seem to be anti-ocean)

*Original comment edited by me*

Denny
09-20-2004, 07:32 AM
Originally posted by biggsy
"The conventional wisdom has been for quite some time that the commercial fishery has the greatest influence in terms of overfishing," said Felicia Coleman, of Florida State University, the lead author of the study. "And I think this study demonstrates clearly that that's not the case."


David White, southeast regional director of the Ocean Conservancy, which advocates no-fishing zones, said, "This gives some good hard facts that demonstrate the recreational fishing industry does have significant impact on fisheries. They've been saying all along they don't have an impact, and I think that's been laid to rest with this information."

But Ted Forsgren, executive director of Coastal Conservation Association Florida, a sport-fishing group, said the study understated the role of commercial fishing by ignoring the effect of by-catch, unwanted fish that are caught and discarded, dead or alive. The by-catch from the shrimp industry alone outweighs the recreational landings, he said. And he said species that attract only recreational fishermen, such as tarpon, snook and redfish, are thriving -- casting doubt on the suggestion that recreational fishing is the problem.

Recreational numbers were higher in the southeastern United States. In the Atlantic Ocean off the southeastern United States, the recreational fleet took 38 percent of over-fished species, such as snapper and grouper. And in the Gulf of Mexico, the recreational fleet took 64 percent, according to the study.

While many people practice catch-and-release fishing, that still kills fish. About 20 percent of fish that are caught and released end up dying, largely from the change in pressure as they're hauled from the deep, Coleman said. And the trauma of being caught weakens many fish. Coleman saw one goliath grouper still alive with 20 hooks in its mouth.

Coleman said the state and federal governments should consider limits on the total number of fish caught.


Robert Jones, executive director of Southeastern Fisheries Association, which represents the commercial fishing industry, said he was glad to see a study blame someone other than commercial fishing boats for the decline of fish. But he doubted whether a single study could influence the state or federal governments to crack down on recreational fishing, because sport-fishing groups have considerable political power.



Felicia Coleman will do ANYTHING to furhter her agenda of Marine Protected Areas. I sat in an audience and listened to her LIE to us about the Pew commission report. David White told the same LIES, them proceeded to stuff his face with jumbo shrimp.

Robert Jones is the biggest dog in the political arena. He is a shrimp and long line advocate, through and through.

Recreational fishing is under attack now because of the impotence experienced by the fisheries management agencies when trying to control the commercial sector.

Limiting the amount of fish taken by the recreational sector is just plain insane. Felicia Coleman lives in a scientific fog of disjointed reality, a fog which she attempts to perpetuate by sucking up research grant money. Oh yeah, the jewfish with 20 hooks in its mouth... sounds like BS to me.

Remember folks, the best defense is a good offense. This is truly offensive in nature and we must act to stop this in its tracks. The Gulf Council meeting has been postponed and may be cancelled, making November the next time when the Council members can be engaged in face to face conversations.

We're not going to stand for this mistreatment.

Spear One
09-20-2004, 08:07 AM
You guys need to consider the source of this letter (F. Coleman) and see it for what it really is......Left Wing Propaganda! The Ocean Conservatory folks have now set their sights on Florida to push their "MPA agenda". They likely cannot produce one shred of "credible" scientific or statistical data to back it up either. However, lack of sound data has never stopped them from spewing this crap all over the liberal media.

stainlessdeath
09-27-2004, 12:58 PM
I don't like the phrase "no fishing zones". Did PETA write that article or was it NOAA?

Denny
10-16-2004, 06:32 PM
Neither- it was Felicia coleman and some other research scientists. Funding provided by the Pew Charitable Trusts, the folks who just KNOW how you should live your life. Because they are rich.

stainlessdeath
10-25-2004, 07:49 PM
I don't think that anyone at ohio state univ. or duke for that matter should have any business researching something they are so distant from. I don't trust anyone that lives amore than an hour away from the coast to make ANY kind of assumption on something they know NOTHING about. Also, I have studied statistics, and the awful truth is you can make a set of data say anything you want it to. Peolpe who are experts in statistics can call BS on EVERY poll or collection of data that exists. Meanwhile the general public swallows it like it is the word of God! SUX that we have this working against us!

Denny
10-26-2004, 07:29 AM
Originally posted by stainlessdeath
Peolpe who are experts in statistics can call BS on EVERY poll or collection of data that exists. Meanwhile the general public swallows it like it is the word of God! SUX that we have this working against us!

My Granddad always said "Figures don't lie, but LIARS sure can figure". I keep this saying in mind whenever I review statistical data. Manipulation of the numbers is a science in itself.

WreckHunter
10-26-2004, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by stainlessdeath
I have studied statistics, and the awful truth is you can make a set of data say anything you want it to. Peolpe who are experts in statistics can call BS on EVERY poll or collection of data that exists.

That is so true! Even the best research and most extensive set of data can be skewed to make it appear to say almost anything depending on how you statistically analize the data. Especially if you start with a biased point of view or even a subconcious preconcieved conclusion.

That and the impossibility of conclusively disproving anything (proving a negative) make it real hard to refute and fight against research that is flawed. Especially if it has strong political backing. People want to believe the research that supports their beliefs. And as we all know when someone believes something on faith it is damn near impossible to change their minds (like in religion and politics).