Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Recreational Data topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State staff explain MRIP and why effort-bias does not translate 1:1 to catch overestimates
Summary
Division staff gave a detailed briefing on the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP): how dockside interviews, effort surveys and statistical weighting produce catch estimates, where uncertainty enters, and why a potential 30–40% effort bias would not produce the same percentage error in catch totals.
Jeff Moore, manager of the Coastal Angling Program (CAP), and Dr. Brad Johnson, CAP data analyst, presented a primer on MRIP during the Marine Fisheries Commission meeting, outlining how the federal-state survey system converts individual interviews into statewide catch estimates and what the data can — and cannot — tell managers.
Moore described MRIP’s four data components — dockside access-point intercept surveys (APIS), a mail-based fishing-effort survey (FES), the for-hire phone survey and the large-pelagic survey — and why comparable methodology across states is valuable for regional management.
Dr. Johnson walked commissioners through the three-stage weighting (site selection, time-duration and response/completion adjustments) used to correct sampling bias and then explained how the program expands interview catch data by an independently estimated fishing-effort total to compute total catch. He stressed that ‘‘bias in the fishing-effort survey does not imply a 1-to-1 bias in total catch estimates,’’ and used a 2023 spotted-sea-trout example: CAP’s intercepts yielded an estimated 5.5 million trout with a percent standard error (PSE) of roughly 14 percent.
Panelists fielded questions about whether MRIP precision differs by species and region; Johnson noted that precision (PSE) improves with sample size and replication and that some inshore species with year-round, high participation have much lower PSEs than restricted or highly seasonal fisheries.
Commissioners and stakeholders raised operational concerns: how to use preliminary waves versus final annual estimates for management, whether MRIP’s current cadence could be shortened, and how the FES pilot study’s suggested effort overestimate (30–40%) should be interpreted. Moore and Johnson said NOAA and partners are piloting improvements and that the division is participating in proposals for observer programs and catch-card pilots to improve recreational effort data.
The presentation underscored that managers must consider sampling uncertainty and potential bias when proposing harvest controls; it also reinforced the commission’s request for better, timelier recreational data to support responsive management.
