Mike:
In an earlier post you dismissed a post by bob Humphrey regarding the
residential nature of nearshore reef fish and how the MSY/OY approach DFG is
proposing does not address that characteristic. Let me try and restate the
issue. As a scientist I have some experience constructing models of natural
systems where unquantified variables were present, so I am familiar with
modeling concepts and construction. What is of utmost importance when
developing a model, whether the subject of the model are fish populations,
timber harvest, stream flow or groundwater budgets is to first built the
appropriate conceptual model. By that I mean that before any number crunching
or computer programming is done one must consider, identify and incorporate
into the model the significant variables and conditions which will influence
the outcome in a substantial way. What DFG has done with their approach to
modeling nearshore reef fish is to ignore conditions which they find
particularly troublesome. Why? Because if they include, for example, the
residential nature of reef fish they will have to either develop a new model
or substantially modify the one they have and they are uncomfortable doing
that. DFG can adjust their model (fish budget if you will) by reducing the
withdrawals to accomodate long-lived fish and slow reproduction rates. But
they do not know how to address residential fish and their tendency to become
depleted geographically. MPAs and regional management WON'T do that. Over a
year ago Patty Wolf acknowledged to me the importance of this condition and
stated that DFG would address this in the FMP. They have not done so. When I
discussed it with Tom Barnes at the Advisory meeting (you were there) he could
not respond to this concern. Now you have responded to Bob as follows:

"Somehow, you seem to believe that you are the only one who cares
about the future of this fishery, and more importantly, of this
ecosystem. Well, you are flat out wrong about that and I'm really
tired of being preached at by you."

Ok we admit it we are tireless when we are not getting answers to legitimate
questions. We know you and DFG care about this fishery. We want the DFG to
succeed. No we demand that DFG succeed, but we don't trust them to get it
right without our help, so we will continue hammering on you both until you
provide us with scientifically honest answers.

-Mike Malone

spyderweber01 wrote:

> Joe,
> I agree that the matter of which years should be used in setting the
> baseline should be revisited. The advantages and disadvantages of
> using this period or that period should be clearly articulated. The
> FMP sets up the structure for doing that, and in my book, revisiting
> the TACs, etc., is one of the most important, first steps in
> implementing the FMP.
>
> Mike W
>
> --- In CAnearshore@y..., Joe Ward <jward@v...> wrote:
> > THE RESTREPPO APPROACH IS MEANT TO PROVIDE A REASONABLE, PRECAUTIONARY
> > APPROACH TO MANAGING A FISHERY WHERE INFORMATION IS LACKING. SUCH AN
> > APPROACH, INDEED ALMOST ANY APPROACH, TO MANAGING A FISHERY WITH
> > LITTLE INFORMATION IS GOING TO BE ARBITRARY TO ONE DEGREE OR ANOTHER.
> > WHAT IS YOUR ALTERNATIVE?
> >
> > Mike,
> >
> > The Restrepo approach is NOT being followed. Restrepo states that
> historical
> > average catch may be a reasonable proxy if you use a "time period
> when there
> > is no quantitave or qualitative evidence of declining abundance.(1)"
> Yet the
> > DFG is apparently using data from a period when there is some
> quantitative
> > and plenty of qualitative evidence of decline. Maybe it is the
> "best" data
> > the DFG has, but it is specifically excluded from use under the Restrepo
> > approach. The plan fails to identify the problems and attendant risk
> with
> > using the data in this way. Instead the plan says both that there is no
> > evidence of decline, and that the fishery is collapsing. Really what I'm
> > asking for is that the plan call a spade a spade.
> >
> > I think it makes an important difference to managers deciding what
> measures
> > should be adopted, whether the plan uses a sound scientific approach
> based
> > on valid data or a qualitative judgement based on factors x, y, z.
> Instead
> > the DFG really makes a defacto and unexamined qualitative judgement that
> > stocks are healthy by selecting the catch records from the 90s as
> the basis
> > for the TAC.
> >
> > If the NFMP's contention is that a reasonable proxy is 50% of recent
> catch
> > from a period of no decline, it seems logical that if the period in
> question
> > did show quantitative or qualitative evidence of declining abundance
> then
> > the TAC calculated based on that period would likely be too high.
> The 50%
> > adjustment is intended to deal with the uncertainty in a proxy based
> on a
> > period of no decline. That uncertainty is far greater when you try
> to use a
> > period of decline as the basis for the proxy instead.
> >
> > It would seem more logical to use catch records from the 80s (or 70s, or
> > 60s, etc) to calculate a proxy for the OY, and then look at how much the
> > annual catch has exceeded that OY since then (i.e. during the 90s) as a
> > measure of how much stocks have been over-fished. Then use a factor
> based on
> > the over-fishing to adjust the 80s-based OY proxy downward.
> >
> > Joe Ward
> >
> > P.S. I would rather give up a year or two of fishing now, than lose
> it for
> > 30 years.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > (1) "Technical Guidance On the Use of Precautionary Approaches..." V.R.
> > Restrepo et. al. page 26.
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> CAnearshore-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/