Loading…
Attending this event?
Welcome to the interactive web schedule for the 2019 Midwest Fish & Wildlife Conference! The schedule is subject to change (as of January 22, 2019). Please check back for updates. To return to the main Conference website, go to: www.midwestfw.org.

For tips on navigating this schedule, click HELPFUL INFO below.

CONFERENCE SCHEDULE UPDATES & CHANGES:
As a result of the prolonged government shutdown, we’re expecting some presentation cancellations and will continue to update the schedule with changes as they occur.  Otherwise the conference will proceed as planned.  Current cancellations and changes are listed here.

View analytic
Monday, January 28 • 11:00am - 11:20am
(SYMPOSIA-01) Using “Standard” vs. “Standardized” Sampling Methods to Evaluate Sport Fish Regulations

Sign up or log in to save this to your schedule and see who's attending!

AUTHORS: Jeremy J. Pritt, Joseph D. Conroy – Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife

ABSTRACT: In 2009, the American Fisheries Society (AFS) published a recommended set of Standard Methods, which sought to provide comparable fisheries data across North America. Since then, many agencies and researchers have adopted these standard methods. However, to evaluate regulations agencies often use long-term data produced by “standardized” methods—consistently used, long-term approaches that may have been shared among multiple agencies but that also differ from the North American Standard Methods (NASM). Significant barriers may exist for fisheries managers and researchers who consider transitioning from “standardized” methods to the NASM. Here, we illustrate important differences between “standard” and “standardized” methods in the context of evaluating sport fish regulations. To make informed decisions regarding regulation effectiveness, fisheries managers require population-specific data such as abundance, age and size structures, growth, and mortality measured before the regulation was implemented and for some period after. In some cases, the NASM may fail to provide these crucial data. To illustrate, we contrast two case studies: (1) using the NASM to evaluate reservoir crappie harvest regulations; as compared to, (2) retaining a multi-agency, non-NASM, but “standardized” method to assess the efficacy of Ohio River Sauger regulations. We conclude by recommending the following for future standard method development work: (1) explicitly consider and detail the sport fish population data needs of fisheries managers; (2) develop a mechanism to formally capture emerging assessment techniques as standard methods; and, (3) create a structure, through AFS, tasked with identifying, evaluating, and communicating accepted standard methods and their use.

Monday January 28, 2019 11:00am - 11:20am
HOPE BALLROOM A

Attendees (11)