Beware of that Sample

My son's shiny new pickup (new in 1965) came with a surprise. It backfires.

Backfires aren't so common these days, and this one was easily fixed. But I fear we may face another kind of backfire, in fisheries management.

The reverse pop may come along with new methods being explored for counting fish and fishermen.



With all the best intentions, some anglers and officials want the state to create an elaborate system whereby anglers would, in effect, voluntarily pro- vide their catch results, or lack of same, to fishing authorities.

The data from these anglers would then be extrapolated to the overall population and, presto, you've got great new numbers to work with to assess standing fish stocks and trends.

Seemed feasible at first blush.

But we think the fly in the data ointment is the voluntary nature of the catch reports. Instead of getting random samples at the outset, which is how all legit survey and polling works, this system would most likely be skewed toward higher catch results estimated for recreational fishermen.

I believe we can agree that anglers in general are more interested in telling about successful trips than about those skunko days we all encounter. Tis human nature. Good days count, bad days fade away.

The end result could easily come up with even higher totals and sizes estimated for recreationals. This would add to the already-inflated statistics that many say have hurt non-commercial folks for decades.

The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission is already talking about possibilities for a “registry” or quasi-license covering certain offshore fish off the west coast.

Not much of the talk, however, focuses on the absolute necessity of obtaining truly random samples if you're going to extend the data to the whole fishing community.

A solid “representative sample” has to be the number one required ingredient. Otherwise, we may well get jarred with a loud backfire.

Karl Wickstrom