Originally Posted by jacksalmon
Maybe someone can help me understand the logic of this statement about estimating, instead of doing an actual count. If a fish checker is on duty, then instead of extrapolating, use the fish checker to check each and every boat and get an actual count, instead of an extrapolated, or estimated one. It can't be that hard to get an actual count when the checkers are on duty. If they are not on duty, then there is no way to count boats, so there can be no estimate anyway when the checkers are not on duty.
Fish and wildlife management is dictated by statistical estimates. As stated above, the amount of funding needed to sample every boat or bank angler is far from cost effective. Way to many entry points to effectively cover them all and some have limited use. There are recreational boats launching off of Clatsop beach but it’s maybe 6-8 on a good day. Should a fish checker spend all day for those few boats or go to Hammond where multitudes more are fishing and in the same ocean? Then you have the issue of non-boat anglers. Take for instance bank anglers, a fish checker would need to be on the bank from the time the first person came to the last person left every day of the season to ensure that every fish is accounted for since you cannot predict when any individual angler gets a fish and leaves.
It all comes down to cost benefit ratio but statistically sampling and the models used can and are pretty darn accurate for a dynamic fishery such as ocean salmon or Columbia River fisheries.