Fisheries data #4
Replies: 14 comments 21 replies
This comment has been hidden.
This comment has been hidden.
This comment has been hidden.
This comment has been hidden.
This comment has been hidden.
This comment has been hidden.
-
@pyhernvann @Ovec8hkin @shipmadison - I put in a request for the longspine thornyhead landings data. Based on the shortspine data request it looks like it doesn't matter who puts it in because Kiva will get it. Just sharing it here as an FYI. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Fishery LandingsSo I took a look at the ratio of shortspine to total thornyheads (WIP code here). It looks like the ratio differs by state depending on year (see this figure in the slides). The 2013 assessment didn't give any justification about why they took the coastwide ratio, but I'm sure they had some reason.. maybe worth asking... Anyway, wanted to get all of your thoughts on which method we should use, if anyone has any. Seems like based on that figure we should use the state-specific ratio, but there could be a problem with that I haven't yet thought through. And of course, we can always throw in both as another sensitivity analysis! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Hi fisheries data team - especially @haleyoleynik and @Ovec8hkin who are not part of the discards team Just checking your opinion about this. So far, the discard team and I quickly talked about it and found that it may not be useful as (i) we don't have sex info in WCGOP data [we didn't considering requesting it and I don't know if it is possible to access it; question for tomorrow..?] (ii) Pikitch = only three old years (1985-1987) and one fleet (N Trawl) (iii) fitting the model selectivity for these 3 years and 2 sex may be not parsimonious and last (iv) it was not identified at all as a need/priority in the previous assessment and I don't remember from our data exploration that a substantial difference between sex was observed in the landings compo Let me know - potentially a question to ask tomorrow PY |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Fishery length compsJust wanted to post the status of fishery length comps here so we're all on the same page (and can give it some thought/ discuss in today's meeting) - our issue was that in WA in 2021 and 2022, the expansion factor for a bunch of samples was being capped at 1 (see this diagnostic). Upon further digging, it looks like a 209 samples (fish) from 19 trips are missing total weights ( The instructors said not to worry so much about the 2022 trips - sometimes fish ticket info takes a while to get into PacFIN. Theresa from WDFW said to cross reference the fish ticket ID (
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Historical landingsFrom the 2013 assessment:
@adamlhayes, forgive me if I totally missed a discussion on this - but do we have this problem with the new reconstructions for OR and WA? Did anyone mention how they handled unidentified thornyheads? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Now that I've received WA and OR data, I summarized catch by fleet for the time series data. For OR these data go through 2022, and for WA through 2014. Isolating the pre-2010 to make sure all the state data is there, there are some considerable differences in landings totals for the 1981-1986 period for the northern trawl fleet across the data sources we have: state, PacFIN, and 2013 assessment. Looks like this is mostly because the OR time series in PacFIN doesn't begin until 1987. The WA state data is a little higher than the values from PacFIN as well, though not the same magnitude. Do we want to use state-level data for WA and OR until 1987, then switch to PacFIN, @haleyoleynik , @JaneSullivan-NOAA , @Ovec8hkin , @shipmadison ? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Yes, I like to provide the whole times series all at once- partly from habit (in the past, some assessments have missed including nominal species landings, though that is really no longer an issue) but also because one of our historical reconstructions replaces some of the data in certain market categories in PacFIN during some years in the 80s and 90s, and it is much easier to have me combine those properly. With regards to the differences in 1980 - 1986 above, the past assessment did not have the Karnowski et al. 2014 (Oregon's historical commercial reconstruction) available. PacFIN has some strange expansions during that time period, at least for OR, so once that reconstruction was complete, we have always recommended using the Karnowski through 1986 and then PacFIN from 1987 forward. So that may explain some of the differences between the last assessment and the current time series. I'm not sure why PacFIN would be so low during this time period though. Are you including the nominal species as well? We would LOVE to update PacFIN with our reconstructions and have a true one stop shop there but it's been a slow process... |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
If you want to check, the last sablefish benchmark assessment is here and the associated model files are here. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Fishery landings length compsHi all! Another discussion thread I wanted to start about something I noticed when I was doing the data write up - the 2013 assessment combined sexes for fishery length comps. From the 2013 assessment:
There obviously isn't a ton of justification here... So I'm wondering what you all think. @JaneSullivan-NOAA are thornyheads particularly hard to sex? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Fisheries landings & length/age compo discussion!
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions