Government to survey recreational fishing activity across Qld

[oldboot]

I cant remember the figures off hand that I trotted out from the government sources....The sample rates are so very low that the possible error rate is higher than the sample rate making the figures from this sort of process totaly unreliable.


It would be like Lucky Phil, quoting to paint your house bassed on what his apprectice told him, over the phone about your front gate post, bassed on observations made while driving by at 50Kmh

cheers.

[oldboot]

OK.....It's probaly time for a moderate statement.

Surveys such as this would be a valuable tool and provide useful information.

IF AND ONLT IF

All those using and quoting the figures derived, fully understand and acknowledge that it is a blunt and inaccurate tool and valuable only for giving a rough idea of trends.

In the past we have seen documents published and announcements in the media by the government that have made statements of strength and certainty based on this unreliable data

worse they have bassed fisheries management decisions and government polocy, bassed largely on this unreliable and inaccurate data, without sufficient support from better quality information.

Worse still, we have seen decisions based on politics not science justified by misuse of this unreliable and inaccurate data.

Even if we have 100% unbiased and stridently independent scientists doing the work and drawing the conclusions......at some point these figures are taken and ( as we have seen in the past) get twisted and misused in the political process.

So where is the solution............good question.

One would hope that the government would fund some real comprehensive fisheries science.........I don't see much chance of that.

If we the fishers could get together some meaningfull research of our own.....that would be great.....but it is a big undertaking.

cheers

[castlemaine]

All of the sudden we get the extension to artificial reefs (thanks to Ron Mole's, 'flea on your back approach'). Thanks Ron.
Now a fishing survey.
I reckon the government has realise the importance of the fishing community's influence and votes. It did cost them two seats in the Redlands.
IMO I believe this a 'baby-kissing' political stunt is to lead us to believe that they are going to close off areas based only on science. Ha!
Either party (Labour or Liberal) should be thinking away from political preference lines but what benefits the fisho to get his vote and also his spouse, children, mates, etc.

[scifly]

Hi All

I will make a confession, in my previous life, I was involved in running the Qld statewide survey in 2001-02 and again in 2004-05.

The first component is the telephone survey and the number of phone calls was 20,000. The phone calls are done by Roy Morgan research and the analysis is done by the Australian Bureau of Statistics - no opportunity for "govt" to cook the books.

The participation survey is vital for us as recreational fishers to sell our case to govt. On a national level, there is no reliable estimate of the numbers of recreational fishers since 2001. We therefore glibbly state that there are 3.8 million recreational fishers in Australia worth $2billion but the truth is that we dont really know what has happenend in the last 10 years.

South Australia and Tas have just completed their statewide surveys based on the 2001 model and in South Australia, recreational fishers as a percentage of the population have declined from 20 something percent in 2001 to 16 percent in 2007. I am not sure on the Tas figures. The NT is also doing the same process now.

Interestingly, in Victoria, the peak body VRFish conducted a survey using Ernest&Young and found numbers and expenditure has increased tremendously since the national survey. Of course this can also indicate the difference in methods used.

Bottom line, peak bodies representing your needs/demands/interests need these figures if we are to convince govt of our value.

Please feel free to PM me questions about how the survey has worked in the past and how the info has been used. I will be only too happy to help.

My advice is to participate and do so honestly. It is just not worth it to cock around with falsefying what little data we have for our sector. The other alternative is to cough up the $1 million + it would take to run a truly independent, comprehensive survey led by the recreational sector.

Those who have commented on the inaccuracy of the data are within their bounds to do so but the trends in the data are consistent which suggests that errors and bias is consistent. Qld is probably the only state with a long time series diary program. For common species such bream, whiting, flathead - the error estimates are low simply due to the size of the catch. For rarer species, the errors are higher and every time I reported figures to management I made sure to advise on the errors associated with the data. At least for recreational data they are calculated, The same cannot be said for commercial data which is treated as gospel with limited validation historically. The real numbers of fish caught are largely irrelevant but what is more important is whether catches are increasing or decreasing or staying about the same. That is the value of catch and effort and the surveys to date tell that story. Please have a look at the reports before you judge too harshly.

Len

[oldboot]

OK... Ive thaught about tis a lot.....I think we need this survey.....It will at least give a rough idea of what is going on.

BUT we most definitely need to jump up and down, shouting loud and long, when the statistics are used beyond what is reasonable.

The government could do much by publicly acknowledging and putting on record , the limitations and inaccuracies of such data.

At the moment the fishing community in general trust the government and their use of statistics as far as they could comfortably spit a large pilchard

cheers

[Chris Ryan]

Trust and transparency are the key requirements. We have to trust them to do the right thing in our data (like they trust us to give them the right info) but they must be transparent on the way they work with that data and share that with the users. That way I think we will build both sides trusting each other more.

[Matt_Campbell]

Hi All

I will make a confession, in my previous life, I was involved in running the Qld statewide survey in 2001-02 and again in 2004-05.

The first component is the telephone survey and the number of phone calls was 20,000. The phone calls are done by Roy Morgan research and the analysis is done by the Australian Bureau of Statistics - no opportunity for "govt" to cook the books.

The participation survey is vital for us as recreational fishers to sell our case to govt. On a national level, there is no reliable estimate of the numbers of recreational fishers since 2001. We therefore glibbly state that there are 3.8 million recreational fishers in Australia worth $2billion but the truth is that we dont really know what has happenend in the last 10 years.

South Australia and Tas have just completed their statewide surveys based on the 2001 model and in South Australia, recreational fishers as a percentage of the population have declined from 20 something percent in 2001 to 16 percent in 2007. I am not sure on the Tas figures. The NT is also doing the same process now.

Interestingly, in Victoria, the peak body VRFish conducted a survey using Ernest&Young and found numbers and expenditure has increased tremendously since the national survey. Of course this can also indicate the difference in methods used.

Bottom line, peak bodies representing your needs/demands/interests need these figures if we are to convince govt of our value.

Please feel free to PM me questions about how the survey has worked in the past and how the info has been used. I will be only too happy to help.

My advice is to participate and do so honestly. It is just not worth it to cock around with falsefying what little data we have for our sector. The other alternative is to cough up the $1 million + it would take to run a truly independent, comprehensive survey led by the recreational sector.

Those who have commented on the inaccuracy of the data are within their bounds to do so but the trends in the data are consistent which suggests that errors and bias is consistent. Qld is probably the only state with a long time series diary program. For common species such bream, whiting, flathead - the error estimates are low simply due to the size of the catch. For rarer species, the errors are higher and every time I reported figures to management I made sure to advise on the errors associated with the data. At least for recreational data they are calculated, The same cannot be said for commercial data which is treated as gospel with limited validation historically. The real numbers of fish caught are largely irrelevant but what is more important is whether catches are increasing or decreasing or staying about the same. That is the value of catch and effort and the surveys to date tell that story. Please have a look at the reports before you judge too harshly.

Len

Len
Thanks for your rational and knowledgeable reply. Hopefully this post, from a person who has an idea of what surveys are designed to do and achieve, will allay the fears and paranoia of a few site-members.
Matt

[BigE]

If anyone can put a number up (#fish / tonnes/ any other measure you care to lie about) that is the point where I as a rec-fisher can fish more area or increase my bag limit , then i will partipate, until that number is known any survey is just a tool to decrease area and bag limits. it is a one sided equation that will go against rec-fishers....... It's a scam a trick and the only way to defeat a scam that involves numbers is to not play. Until there is a number or measure which is the tipping point to reverse a decision/direction the survey answers dont count as the result will be the same.

it sux but it true.

Regards BigE

[scifly]

Hi All

The catch information from all previous diary rounds can be viewed on the DPI website http://chrisweb.dpi.qld.gov.au/CHRIS/ - select recreational catch.

A couple things to note - 1: the figures are based on where diarists LIVE not where the fish were caught. It was never the intention to provide location specific catch info - that is what the boat ramp survey does. 2: the error estimates are not presented in this table. They are however, recorded in the reports which can be downloaded here: http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/28_15902.htm

The report also describes how the information from the diary is expanded to create an estimate of total catch. This relies on the gender, age group and avidity of the fisher which are factored into the equation. This info comes from the telephone survey and ties back to the ABS population census - e.g there are 40,000 males between 35 and 40 in the Brisbane Statistical Division, from the survey there are 10% that fish, 10% x 40,000 = 4,000 male fishers in said age class in said statistical area. This is a veeeerry rough equation but hopefully you get the idea. Using this info and the catches from maybe 10 diarists that fit that category, an estimate of catch is generated. Obviously the fewer diarists in the category catching a specific species will create higher error estimates and hence reliability of the info.

Example: The Kingfish/Samsonfish/Amberjack category for 2005 has an estimate of 18,000 with an error of 6,000. The "true" catch is somewhere between 12,000 and 24,000. The error estimate is about 32% and advice from the ABS is that this is too high to be drawing any conclusions. This is why error estimates are vital. They give confidence in the data

Contrast this with Bream in 2005: A catch of just over 5 million with an error of 245,000 results in an error estimate of 4.8% which gives much more confidence in the result.

Sure its statistics and damn statistics but the idea is to use a variety of independent data sets and combine them or test them against each other to see if we come up with the same or sufficiently similar results. How similar is based on the question. If we are talking catch shares between sectors, we would like the error to be pretty bloody low but if we are interested in general trends over time, higher degrees of error may be OK.

One thing that is absolutely vital to mention is that the diary program and telephone survey were never intended to be used to develop zoning plans to prevent access to recreational fishers. If you consider the error associated with statewide catch figures, trying to determine usage of a particular area based on a handful of records is downright ridiculous and THIS is something worth mentioning to politicians.

The data are extremely useful when used for the purpose for which they were collected. Unfortunately it is extremely difficult for one govt agency not to provide data to another agency of the same govt. This is where political intervention is needed.

Its also a compelling argument for independent organisations to conduct the surveys on behalf of recreational fishers rather than the govt. Our capacity to raise the funds is our biggest challenge.

Hope this helps
Len

[TimiBoy]

Ihave been asked to post this.



Dr Mark Robinson MP
LNP Member for Cleveland

10 March 2010

New Government survey smells fishy

The Bligh Government's announcement of another recreational fishing survey has created a sense of deja vu and fear of more zone lock-outs in Moreton Bay, the LNP said today.

LNP Member for Cleveland Dr Mark Robinson said Fisheries Minister Tim Mulherin needed to come clean whether another deal had been done with the greens to lock up more areas – again before the survey had been completed.

"Anglers have not forgotten 2008 when they cooperated with a government survey,” Dr Robinson said.

“In good faith, many answered questions over the phone and at boat ramps across Moreton Bay about where they fished and what they caught, unaware of the Bligh Government’s deal with the greens.

“Favourite fishing spots in the Bay became places needing 'protection' and fishers were locked out of these fish-rich areas which made up 70 to 80 per cent of the most fishable areas of the Bay. Permanent exclusion zones, Green zones, were introduced to the Bay as part of the Marine Park plan in March 2009, amid controversy and angry scenes.

“The Premier made lightning trips to Bayside areas for staged media grabs, pretending to have support from fishing groups, but no mention was made of the behind-the-scenes deal done by her Government.”

Dr Robinson said Minister Mulherin’s February 25 announcement of another phone/boat ramp survey, of more than 4000 fishers for later this year to gauge recreational catch size and value, “smelt fishy”.

"Last time recreational fishers trusted the Bligh government to do the right thing with the data they willingly provided, but did not suspect the sell-out of the Bay for Labor’s election-winning green preferences.

"Anglers have again been asked to cooperate and to trust the same government with the outcome … they could be forgiven for thinking there’s something fishy about this new survey."

Dr Robinson said the results would be available presumably in late 2011, which could be on the eve of the next State election.

"With the Greens being determined to stop fishing all over Australia, and Bligh more desperate for Green preferences to hold on to power, it takes little imagination to wonder what might be coming to the Bay at the end of this study.”

[PinHead]

Matt..you can call it paranoia or anything else you want. I, for one, will tell them nothing. If they want data then let them show us they are serious and not doing what they have done in the past. Engage an outside business to conduct the surveys and ALL results..every last form and piece of information is openly available from the business upon request. Until that happens...I would not trust that mob to go down the road and buy me a packet of smokes.

[TimiBoy]

Matt..you can call it paranoia or anything else you want. I, for one, will tell them nothing. If they want data then let them show us they are serious and not doing what they have done in the past. Engage an outside business to conduct the surveys and ALL results..every last form and piece of information is openly available from the business upon request. Until that happens...I would not trust that mob to go down the road and buy me a packet of smokes.

As much as I am keen to see good data collected, I must agree with you Greg. This lot have form. They cannot be trusted. Period.

If they allow us to be a part of the process in designing the questionnaire, and make the results freely available once the survey is complete, fine.

But we will not achieve that objective by trusting them. We have to fight for that right.

Cheers,

Tim

[Far side]

I cant understand in this modern age why they cant set up a web site to do the survey. That way you only get the people who fish logging in and supplying the data surely this would take the random component of telephone polls out of the scenario.

[TheRealAndy]

Matt..you can call it paranoia or anything else you want. I, for one, will tell them nothing. If they want data then let them show us they are serious and not doing what they have done in the past. Engage an outside business to conduct the surveys and ALL results..every last form and piece of information is openly available from the business upon request. Until that happens...I would not trust that mob to go down the road and buy me a packet of smokes.

I am going to have to disagree with you there. I have personally met the scientists undertaking this survey and they really want to get it right. They have engaged ECOFishers to provide feedback on the study BEFORE its undertaken, and we will be going out and asking people like yourself for feedback.

Fact. Science has to be published to be valid. If fisheries do a study and publish, there is no way in hell that anyone can be stopped from using the data they publish. In the case of the EPA and green zones in moreton bay, they used the data provided, just as we will use the data to counter the argument. That is why its important to have it.

[oldboot]

Scifly, has clearly and I believe reasonably accurately detailed what these surveys can yeild and what the data and statistics should be used for.
And in short they are unreliable figures with very large error content, no argument still usefull.

However.
The government and certain fisheries scientists have shown themselves clearly that they are happy to use these statistics beyond their capaicty.

When a fisheries scientist stands up and IN DETAIL tells public meetings ( if you were at the rocky reef meetings or the green zone meetings you will know) that the fisheries management decisions and the catch share profiles AND the viability of the fishery is judged to a very large proportion in the basis of this survey.
Then when publicly challenged with the obvious vaguries of these figures.....stands up and plainly states that the figures are very accurate and the errors are very small.

And at another time a labour government spin doctor admits publicly..that they made a decision and then proceeded to "find" science to support their decision

No wonder we are very suspicious.

Now as to the requirements for a survey.... the federal act ( forget the correct name) clearly states and requires that the states MUST do certain work to assess the viability of the fishery AND they must report this back to the feds on a specific time scale.
In short they MUST justify their fisheries managment decisions to the feds on a regular basis.

This survey will be very much looked at as the only way that can account for the recreational sector with out spending some serious cash to the job properly.

So of the survey used in the south is being refeered to as " sucessfull", I take that to mean it was well recieved as part of an adequate justification of their fisheries management.

Now all these " fisheries reviews", make no mistake, these are required by federal law, and they will just keep comming one after the other...so we need to expect them......the pro fishermen and the grenies will be well up with the time table and they will have their responses well worked out long before the reviews are announced.
I cant remember the time scale....... but it is in the federal act.....

For those that are realy interested, the fedreal and state fisheries acts are very much worth reading.

cheers