Recreational Data #2
Replies: 6 comments 8 replies
-
|
@JohnBudrick, @AshokCDFW
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
All existing CRFS catch estimates should be available from RecFIN (with observed kept and unobserved kept catch lumped together). CDFW can additionally provide Excel files of annual estimates for each mode and year that CDFW produced the estimates (2015 through 2022) with observed kept catch and unobserved kept catch separated. The file “California Estimates and Data Source 2003-2022 (11-18-2022).xlsx” shows which months/modes are missing estimates. These months/modes will be missing regardless of whether the data are pulled from RecFIN or obtained from CDFW. CDFW’s Groundfish Project can provide proxy estimates for the April through June 2020 period where catch estimates are missing due to COVID sampling restrictions. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
The CPFV entries are for individuals observed while sampling onboard and correspond to discarded fish that are measured prior to release on each drift for a subset of anglers, while BIO data is for observed fish whose lengths were recorded at the end of a fishing trip on the way back to the dock onboard for the PC mode or dockside for PC or PR. Canary rockfish retention has been prohibited since 2001 and the onboard CPFV samples have been collected since 2003 providing a random sampling of discarded fish of all sizes in the PC mode. Given that retention was prohibited until 2016, and there is limited data available otherwise to represent the composition of the catch apart from fish retained in the PR mode illegally, the combined composition of retained and discarded fish from the CPFV entries may provide a representative sample, though sampled at a different rate than the BIO fish that are retained and recorded. Further consideration of the utility of the CPFV fish to represent the fishery or use of estimated discards vs. retained fish by numbers could be used to weight contributions in forming a composite composition including both retained and discarded fish in the PC mode. The PR composition before prohibition can be compared to the PC to examine whether they were fishing on fish of the same size etc. to decide whether the PC compositions might be a representative proxy for PR. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@andreCDFW You mentioned about new ageing samples yesterday. The notes say they are from 2022. Are these aged already or are there plans to age them? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@brianlangseth-NOAA None of our CDFW collected otoliths have been aged. For previous cycles and this cycle, we send our otoliths up to Patrick in Newport to be read. I mentioned our 2022 collections from the rec fishery yesterday (n=179) and wanted to mention we also have samples collected from our 2019 Commercial Pilot Project where we collected 147 and 47 from hook-and-line and trawl landings, respectively. I am happy to discuss these collections in further detail with you and the STAT, though it would likely be best to do so during a side meeting. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Background: CRFS catch estimates for 2004 are not currently available on the RecFIN website, and we are planning a call to discuss use of the 2004 CRFS catch estimates that were stored in the MRFSS legacy tables. However, CRFS length data for 2004 (and even earlier) are on the RecFIN website. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
From the downloads I did for canary rockfish, I can see length data for as far back as 2003 in the CRFS era download (SD501) for discarded fish measured onboard CPFVs and for 2004 both retained and discarded fish lengths are present. The lengths for retained observed fish from the MRFSS download are only provided up to 2003. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@JohnBudrick and others: Is there a MRFSS metadata table where I can understand the values within a field (e.g. understand what the values 1, 2, 6, and 7 are for MODE_FX)? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
1 is man made Ill try to dig up the documentation of codes, but they are not included in the corresponding metadata for MRFSS |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@brianlangseth-NOAA and @JohnBudrick Here is a pdf I downloaded in December of 2008 with metadata from the old RecFIN website. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Conversation with @JohnBudrick today about MRFSS lengths. Sampling prior to 1993 used total length (T_LEN) followed by a period of both total and fork to generate conversions, and ending with fork length (LNGTH). Can mostly determine whether lengths were measured or converted using a regression based on decimals |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@JohnBudrick In the opening post above, I don't understand the answer to the last question about MRFSS discard data. Does the MRFSS catch dataset include any discard information, either as a estimate of the magnitude or as an estimate of the rate? If so, what field(s) do I use to calculate discards? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
It includes retained fish (A fish), as well as discarded dead and discarded live and otherwise unavailable dead fish with various dispositions that are all rolled up in the b1 fish. Thus we use the sum of A and B1 to obtain total mortality for 1980-2003 when the discards in B1 were not broken out. We called them all dead at that point, which likely overestimated mortality, but the relative contribution has prevented anyone to trying to parse them out. You can look at the proportion A vs B1 to get an idea of potential effects of assuming the B1 are all dead vs. the current day practice of applying discard mortality rates accounting for depth of release etc since 2009. From around 2005 or so to 2008 they applied a 42% mortality rate to discards if memory serves. Point is, we dont have the data in the historical period 1980-2004 to parse the discards and apply discard mortality rates. We usually take the MRFSS estimates for AB1 to be representative of mortality either way. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Thanks @JohnBudrick. I will move forward with WGT_AB1_mt as total mortality. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Migrated from the GDrive:
Q (MHM-SWFSC): How to separate out catches landed in the U.S. but caught in Mexican waters for PR and PC modes?
A (AS-CDFW): CDFW does not send catch estimates from Mexican waters to RecFIN, therefore the CTE001 report (for the most part) contains no catch estimates from Mexican waters. Note that CRFS does not sample CPFV trips that fished Mexican waters. CTE001 contains some catch estimates from Mexican waters for years 2005 - 2013 when PSMFC produced the CRFS estimates. These estimates can be identified by RecFIN Water_Area Name = Mexico in the CTE001 report.
Q (CRW-NWFSC) While CDFW may not report catch estimates that occurred in Mexican waters, it is my understanding that there are biological samples that can be from Mexican waters. In the past I have used the AGENCY_WATER_AREA_NAME to filter out these records, is this correct? Should other filters be also applied to remove records that should not be used (e..g., samples from AGENCY_WATER_AREA_NAME = NOT KNOWN or/and INLAND)?
A (AS-CDFW): Correct, AGENCY_WATER_AREA_NAME can be used to filter by water area, including Mexico, in the RecFIN SD001 Biological Detail report.
Q (MHM-SWFSC): What data are available from the southern CA Vickie Wine PR and dive survey from the 1970s? Are these considered confidential?
A (JEP-CDFW): I have been trying to find out if this data is entered anywhere. It is really old and was done using computer punch cards. It was pre-excel and all the analysis and reports were already completed. I have found links to a number of the reports but I don’t know if the data contained is useful for stock assessments. I made an excel document summarizing the available reports and where to find them. The document has been uploaded into the Rec folder. We spoke with Vicki Wine and she believes that the original punch cards and data were disposed of sometime in the late 80’s or early 90’s. The project had ended, MRFSS essentially took its place, and no one was using the data from the Vickie Wine Survey. I have asked some other CDFW staff if they have copies of the raw data, but I am not hopeful I will find anything other than the summarized reports. I believe all that remains of that project is the info found in the quarterly/annual reports.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JT4_VvKeFJahkAOd3_NYGFxcLo6lYooX/edit#gid=863832667
Q (JEP-CDFW) these reports were done in conjunction with a federal grant. I am guessing the reports are the only products NMFS would have. Is there a possibility NMFS would have a copy of the raw data if that was a requirement of the funding?
Q (BJL-NWFSC): How do we determine discard quantities within MRFSS data? Ive heard MRFSS data has B4 data but in the past have not found that field. Thus, Ive calculated mortality rate using the proportion of AB1 catches that are B1. Using the fields I had at the time, the formula was (TSP_HARV) / (TSP_HARV + TSPCLAIM). Is there a better way to do this?
A: (JB- CDFW): In some cases, they are treated as all dead. There is no proportion of catch by depth to apply discard mortality rates by in most years since depth data was not collected until 1999. We do have data from 1999 and 2000 to base proportions on prior to closures in 2001. We can use the proportion of catch by depth for the RecFISH model north and south of Conception based on those proportions and multiply by the percent mortality in each bin for surface release, then sum for an average mortality rate for discards. Problem is the B1 contains otherwise unavailable dead fish ie buddy drove off with the cooler, eaten by seagull, etc. that are not subject to discard mortality. Historical onboard data could be used to ferret that out a bit, but it might be polishing peanuts. Alternatively, they may be very low irrespective and be considered negligible, but maybe not. The other rate that was used up until about 2008 was 42% discard mortality applied to all rockfish species under early CRFS based on some back of the envelope calculations by PSMFC.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions