Review of the Marine Recreational Information Program (2017) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
4 Sampling and Statistical Estimation for the Angler Intercept Survey
4 Sampling and Statistical Estimation for the Angler Intercept Survey
Pages 63-80
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 63... ...
The current methods used in the Access Point Angler Intercept Survey (APAIS) for the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP)
|
From page 64... ...
of anglers participating in marine recreational fishing in the study states. The two main data-collection tasks of the APAIS are counts of completed angler fishing trips and angler-intercept interviews.
|
From page 65... ...
These are referred to as "two-site assignments." Undercoverage is an important issue in the current APAIS, because the first-stage sampling frame contains almost exclusively public-access sites. Thus, private sites cannot be selected in the sample as they have zero probability of inclusion.
|
From page 66... ...
is an angler trip within each PSU. Sampling of boat fishing is based on a three-stage sampling design, where the second stage consists of selecting boat trips within a selected site-day and the third stage consists of selecting angler groups within each boat trip selected at the second stage.
|
From page 67... ...
. In the previous MRFSS design, the field sampling procedures provided survey staff with considerable flexibility.
|
From page 68... ...
For example, question 12 of the North Carolina APAIS asks anglers whether most of their fishing effort on the current trip took place mostly in the Atlantic Ocean or "other." Interviewers are expected to code "other" responses according to Department of Marine Fisheries waterbody codes, which requires both knowledge on the part of respondents and familiarity on the part of interviewers to elicit valid and reliable responses. Positive interactions between interviewers and respondents are critical not only for collecting high-quality data, but also for promoting the program and ensuring angler participation.
|
From page 69... ...
These variables may be incorporated into the estimation procedures, which may help reduce the potential bias due to missing data. WEIGHTING AND ESTIMATION Prior to 2006, the estimation procedures did not account for the features of the complex survey design.
|
From page 70... ...
is readily obtained, where the CPUE is defined as the ratio of the estimated Catch to the estimated Effort, and Effort is the total number of single-day angler trips spent saltwater fishing (see Chapter 2)
|
From page 71... ...
For recreational red snapper fisheries, estimated discard mortality rates range from 10 percent to 22 percent, meaning that mortality from discarding at sea rivals that from removals landed by recreational anglers. From a programmatic perspective, the primary elements needed for assessment and management are the number or biomass of fish that are caught and landed and the number or biomass of those that are caught and released but which
|
From page 72... ...
These estimates can be strong and influential assumptions for both stock assessment and fisheries management. The problem of unknown or highly uncertain estimates of both the quantity of discarded fish and the discard mortality rate for many species is common throughout the United States.
|
From page 73... ...
The calculation of DMRs is a broader responsibility of fisheries management. Recognizing the importance of the discard mortality issue, the NMFS undertook a national process to develop an Action Plan for fish release mortality science in 2015 (Benaka et al., 2016)
|
From page 74... ...
An estimate of Total Catch is obtained as Total Catch = Effort × CPUE, where Effort is the total number of single-day recreational angler trips spent saltwater fishing and is imported from FES, and CPUE is the estimated number of fish caught or discarded per angler on a single saltwater fishing trip. As mentioned above, the CPUE, produced by the APAIS, is computed at the state/fishing mode/ wave/fishing area level.
|
From page 75... ...
Respondents are asked to report vessel fishing activity for the prior week, and then asked to profile each for-hire fishing trip. Information obtained for each trip includes area fished, number of anglers who fished, hours of actual fishing activity, method of fishing, and target species, if any.… Effort estimates are produced from the average number of angler-trips per vessel-type per week and the number of vessels per vessel-type in the sampling frame.
|
From page 76... ...
A separate biweekly telephone survey is conducted using the FHS frame to estimate large pelagics taken by private boats with HMS permits. The FHS overlaps with other surveys on the Atlantic Coast, The Northeast Fisheries Science Center's Vessel Trip Report (VTR)
|
From page 77... ...
The proportion of unlisted boats is adjusted based on a ratio derived from APAIS intercepts of angler trips on for-hire vessels that are not on the FHS frame. Because the FHS telephone survey draws from businesses holding state and federal licenses, it should be reliable as a sampling or census frame.
|
From page 78... ...
could be used to distinguish public-access from private sites. Conclusion: Missing data in the Access Point Angler Intercept Survey occur because of refusals (or mid-interview refusals)
|
From page 79... ...
Recommendation: The MRIP should invest resources to provide organized and up-to-date documentation that describes in detail each step of the Fishing Effort Survey and Access Point Angler Intercept Survey methodologies and any changes made to them.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.