Surveys

[Captain Rich]

When I chartered out of NJ, I had to fill out a State trip log about every trip. I also could be interviewed at the dock, which would automatically trigger a confirming phone call. If I was really unlucky, I would also get a form in the mail from a company based out of Mississippi called "For Hire Survey" which would ask some very basic questions, how many anglers, where did we fish, what were the target species. Nothing of substance such as what did we keep, what did we release, nothing that might help fishery management, paid of course by your tax dollars. Bottom line, that one trip could have four reports written about it. You ever wonder how recreation catch is over estimated ??

Fast forward, I move the boat to Florida. Here I have to carry Federal permits to charter and each trip has to be logged in by computer. These reports are very detailed, very invasive. How many fish kept, how many released, what types, what did the charter cost, how much fuel did I burn, cost of fuel ? I want to fish so I play the game. All of a sudden, For Hire Survey pops up, calling me when I'm fishing, calling at night. It came to a head when a young lady with a Connecticut phone number working for a Mississippi company, told me she was from FWC (Florida Wildlife Commission). I didn't call her a liar but I did tell her that because I fill out Federal forms that are much more detailed and accurate, I'm not filling out their form. Where is DOGE when you need it ? Last trip a young lady wearing a FWC t-shirt skipped down my dock with a measuring board in her hand while I was settling up the finances with the charter. My most excellent mate told her I was having a bad day and she probably shouldn't bother me. She slunk off before we started unloading the catch and I didn't have to deal with her. The level of over reporting of recreational catches is mind blowing and we the tax payers fund the organizations that keep us from fishing. My rant is over.

[Gerry Zagorski]

Oh yeah, not surprising. Just trying to do their job, but how many times is the same job being done by different people and entities that don’t talk to each other? Typical well intended programs but poorly executed…

[NoLimit]

Why don’t they survey the by catch on every commercial trawler

[AndyS]

Better yet, survey the by-catch shoveled over the side on every commercial trawler.

[Captain Rich]

Originally Posted by AndyS

Better yet, survey the by-catch shoveled over the side on every commercial trawler.

Did you know that bycatch shoveled over the side is considered "released alive " ??!!

[Broad Bill]

Originally Posted by Captain Rich

Did you know that bycatch shoveled over the side is considered "released alive " ??!!

In the case of fluke, don't think they are. Believe they assign a 90% discard mortality rate. The problem is the amount of discards is hugely under reported by operators on their VTR's. Honor system, fox guarding the hen house type situation.

In the below chart, the black lines are discards reported by federal observers, blue lines are discards reported on same trips by operators. The differences are in some cases over 100% which means the commercial quota is essentially being doubled but not reported and reduced from their harvest quotas. Believe this was from the 2017 stock assessment and when I brought it to the attention of NMFS, ASMFC and MAFMC, they removed the chart from all subsequent stock assessments.

[Gerry Zagorski]

Originally Posted by NoLimit

Why don’t they survey the by catch on every commercial trawler

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+...pjR5NoP7MSNqA4

[Broad Bill]

Originally Posted by NoLimit

Why don’t they survey the by catch on every commercial trawler

They do, most have federal observers on board which I believe are paid for by our tax dollars. They just don't use their numbers when harvest numbers are tallied and there are huge discrepancies between on board federal reporters and what operators report on vessel trip reports which makes no sense whatsoever. What's the point of hiring federal observers if you're not going to use their numbers. NMFS use to report the differences in the stock assessments but the differences were so significant they stopped reporting it since it was self incriminating and didn't support the narrative they wanted.

[hammer4reel]

Originally Posted by Broad Bill

They do, most have federal observers on board which I believe are paid for by our tax dollars. They just don't use their numbers when harvest numbers are tallied and there are huge discrepancies between on board federal reporters and what operators report on vessel trip reports which makes no sense whatsoever. What's the point of hiring federal observers if you're not going to use their numbers. NMFS use to report the differences in the stock assessments but the differences were so significant they stopped reporting it since it was self incriminating and didn't support the narrative they wanted.

The boat pays for the observer to be on board .
Big bone of contention with them having to pay them , and most times I’m told they are laying sick in the cabin

[Broad Bill]

Originally Posted by hammer4reel

The boat pays for the observer to be on board .
Big bone of contention with them having to pay them , and most times I’m told they are laying sick in the cabin

The cost of federal onboard commercial fishing boat observers is shared between NOAA Fisheries (funded through congressional appropriations) and the fishing industry, with the specific arrangement varying depending on the fishery.

Here's a breakdown of the funding structure:

Federal Funding (NOAA Fisheries): NOAA Fisheries receives funding through congressional appropriations that cover a significant portion of observer program costs, including regional observer program expenses.

Industry Funding: The fishing industry contributes to observer costs through various mechanisms:

Direct Payments: In some fisheries, particularly those with 100% observer coverage, the industry directly pays for observer salaries, travel costs, and insurance by contracting with private observer provider companies.

Observer Fees: In other fisheries, like the partial coverage ground fish fleet in Alaska, an ex-vessel fee is established in federal regulations to help fund the program.

Set-Aside Programs: The sea scallop fishery uses a set-aside program where a portion of the annual catch limit is dedicated to compensating vessels that carry an observer.

In essence, NOAA Fisheries bears a significant portion of the cost, particularly for program infrastructure and administration, while the fishing industry contributes through a combination of direct payments and fees, depending on the specific fishery and its management plan. It's important to note that the exact cost-sharing arrangements can be subject to change and may be influenced by factors like federal funding availability and discussions with fishery management councils.

And for what it's worth, it's not mandated to have an observer on evert trip:

According to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), commercial summer flounder (fluke) fisheries do not have specific, mandated federal observer requirements,. However, any commercial vessel with a federal permit, including those fishing for summer flounder, is obligated to carry an observer if randomly selected by the National Observer Program. This means there isn't a fixed percentage of the entire commercial fluke fleet that always carries observers, but rather a chance of being selected for observer coverage on a trip-by-trip basis.

The chart I posted earlier reflects the difference between actual discard and reported on trips WITH federal observers, you can only imagine the discrepancy on trips without them. The waste in selective commercial fishing is enormous and a major problem not being addressed.