Repository navigation
Replies: 2 comments 2 replies
|
@gertsevv, thanks for adding all these figures.
Here's the perspective of the 2021 assessment model (which is a combination of assumed structure and estimated parameters):
It's possible that if we allowed more flexibility in the retention for the early period then the selectivity wouldn't have had to shift away from the small fish because the model could attribute the lack of samples in those bins to discards.
|
2 replies
|
This topic is relevant to #197 too and worthwhile to determine whether the bio data suggests net should not go with trawl as it was in 2021. |
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment


Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
LANDINGS
Plotted PacFIN landings by major gear group, by state:
Majority of landings are in TW and HKL (FG), which are fleets in 2021 assessments.
TW landings by state:

FG landings by state:

Bycatch within At-sea hake fishery is negligible:

DISCARD

2021 estimate of discard fraction for N model.
Pikitch study show that the historical discard of lingcod was negligible
From Rogers dissertation, based om Pikitch data:

Discard rate from EDCP (mid-1990s) is about 10%.

TW landings vs TW discard length comps:

Recent years:
All years:

Questions:
Where were those small discarded fish before 2002?
Do discard comps include shrimp trawl by any chance?
I ran 2021 model treating TW discard as a separate fleet.
All reactions