Just in: recent perch harvest numberes

[jbritch]

So Shawn Good finally got the most recent harvest numbers to me and I have included them in this new chart.  The data for 2017 doesn't include the last three months as fish mongers are not required to submit their numbers until they apply for a new permit.  Also each year's total is only for 4 quarters and not necessarily the 4 quarters of a particular year but I don't think that matters because all quarters are accounted for eventually.

It's important to realize that these totals are for all yellow perch sold through the fish mongers registered with the state.  Some fish may come from inland waters or even out of state numbers; of course, not all are caught through the ice either. We talked about indicators last time and these numbers are still a good indicator of our situation.  I have numbers for other species as well and will try to look at them soon.

For those with a good memory, you will notice I predicted the harvest would go down significantly after 2015  But you can see that the 2016 numbers were slightly higher than 2015.  And even the partial total for 2017 is higher despite missing 3 months of data.  So it looks like our perch are holding their own but still nowhere near the amount for 1999 when it was nearly double so we can't let up our guard.

The one trend I identified that does ring true is obvious.  In only one period, 1999 to 2002, did the perch harvest not change directions; during that time the harvest declined each year.  In all the rest, there is a rise following a decline.  I think there will be lots of different interpretations of that and I hope this info sparks a good discussion.

Oh, and to Woodyvt, I'll be going out again, maybe Wednesday or Thursday, depends on the wind.  It'll be my last chance, going back to work next week.

[Light liner]

With netting legal now in some of the great lakes is the reason the price dropped on yellow perch.
Im assuming that should make a difference.

[Honest_John]

The one trend I identified that does ring true is obvious.  In only one period, 1999 to 2002, did the perch harvest not change directions; during that time the harvest declined each year.  In all the rest, there is a rise following a decline.  I think there will be lots of different interpretations of that and I hope this info sparks a good discussion.

Looks to me that the following 3 years after the decline were on the opposite unchanging trajectory. 2002-2005

Curious about different hypothoses for the apparent cycle of up/down?

[lowaccord66]

It would be cool to compare that graph to another graph that depicts the average ice coverage each year vs. Harvest rates.  This obviously ignores the open water season but would be neat to see if the harvests were greater in years with good ice.

Thanks for sharing jbritch.

[woodyvt]

Interesting info.....thanks for sharing!

Stay in touch.....I am watching the wind too.

Wdy

[Lord_of_the_Perch]

The harvest numbers submitted to the state by the fish buyers are what the buyers (mongers) want the state to see. Trends from year to year may be real; but true the numbers are a fraction of the total harvest.... sad; but true.

[Lavman]

It would be cool to compare that graph to another graph that depicts the average ice coverage each year vs. Harvest rates.  This obviously ignores the open water season but would be neat to see if the harvests were greater in years with good ice.

Thanks for sharing jbritch.

Another line on the graph would be license sales. I believe the hunting and fishing population is in decline, which will have an impact.

[Panfish hauler]

  This graph really means nothing because it does not compare Weather, Ice conditions , Prices being paid each year and if buyers in NY where paying more. 

[troutcrazy]

I think it's very interesting in itself!
I also find myself wishing we could plot it in a graph with other factors like temperature and ice conditions!
Thanks for compiling this.

[jbritch]

Panfish: it's really interesting for anyone to think this graph "means nothing".  I'd be interested to see any other indicator of the health of our fish.  Got one you want to post?

We all went through this last time.  I remember saying with tongue in cheek that tackle sales would also be an indicator and I took some abuse from some and sympathy from others for that abuse.  Doesn't matter; all indicators are valid to a certain degree even though they don't tell the whole story, they're only indicators.  Remember the fable of the 7 blind men describing an elephant; each had a different description of the same animal but in the end each man's description was valid and contributed to the overall understanding of the elephant, didn't it?  All the other variables like weather, temperature and the resulting ice conditions don't tend to vary significantly over the long haul (it's called longitudinally) or even begin to tell the story better than the number of pounds of fish harvested, period.  If NY fish mongers jack their price up, does that tend to make them hide their true sales to avoid more taxes?  That would cancel out the effect, 

When you look at the raw data, just the numbers of fish reportedly caught through the ice versus non-ice, (no one verifies that number and it's not even mandatory to report at all) there is a marked difference but the ratio stays pretty steady over the 20 years.  A warmer winter only translates to more open water harvest numbers; it all evens out in the end.  So the best indicator we have is the total harvest with no caveats.  Besides, we learned this week that some fish mongers don't always report accurately or in a timely fashion.  So you're right; if the graph is meaningless then the data and those who generate it are, too.

[troutcrazy]

It's not meaningless, but it is also not enough to draw meaningful conclusions from by itself.

[smelllikefish]

Another line on the graph could be how much state tax was paid as income tax from the harvest. hahaha yeah I know zero!

[Hess]

Another way to look interpret the graph is that the 1999 peak was an unusually high anomaly (we don't have any trending at that high level prior to that), and that the ongoing 'average' harvest is +/- 200,000 range which seems to have held pretty steady-state for the last 15 years or so, which is positive to me -- the graph definitely does not show, on average, a continued decline in harvest since 1999 which is encouraging...!

[Crayfish2]

Agreed, Hess ... that's what I got out of it.  If there was a steady decline, I would be worried about what commercial fishing is doing to our fishery.  That does not seem to be the case, at least from what can be gleaned from this graph.

[Panfish hauler]

  One thing I can tell you for sure there are way less Perch fishermen now than there was 20 years ago and I think way less Fishermen all together. In 1999 there where lots of Canadian fishermen fishing VT. Now there are very few. Mallets bay had at least 75 to 150 fishermen on it every weekend 20 years ago now very few. Fishermen use to spread out all over the Lake years ago Now most of them all go where someone told them they where biting and many places hardly get fished.

 JBritch  just so you know the reported catch numbers will be way down for Yellow perch this year and not because they where not there to be caught by fish Mongers but because the price's where  way down and most choose to fish for something else or fillet them there selves.
 
 The Graph I would like to see is the one that shows how many MILLIONS OF POUNDS of Yellow Perch , Sunfish ,Blue gills , Smelts and small game fish are consumed by Double Crested Cormorants every year on Lake Champlain for the past 30 years that graph would show you what you should be working on getting controlled. Instead of worrying about fishermen that go out and use the same fishing gear you do and catch fish and choose to sell them.
   

[bootstrap]

Another line on the graph could be how much state tax was paid as income tax from the harvest. hahaha yeah I know zero!

about the same number that made a profit after expenses.

[Champlain Islander]

Panfish hauler has it right.

[lowaccord66]

about the same number that made a profit after expenses.

Expenses?  Those are a write off at least for a year or two before the tax man gets you.  I know a couple of commerical striper guys learned that the hard way...operating at a loss year over year. 

Its surprising the Vermont doesn't make people buy commercial licenses just for that reason.  On mass's application they warn you to report income!

[Champlain Islander]

Show a profit one out of 3 or 2 out of 5 years and then define profit. There isn't a commercial fisherman in Vermont that makes the kind of money the tax man would be concerned with. Most don't even cover their gas and fishing equipment not to mention depreciation deductions on boats and trucks. The reality is the bureaucracy involved with even issuing and maintaining records from commercial licenses would no way be paid for with what they took in from taxes. I don't know about anyone else but I don't think the state needs anymore control through additional regulations and taxation. Government is too big and expensive already. Just my opinion.

[Lord_of_the_Perch]

Show a profit one out of 3 or 2 out of 5 years and then define profit. There isn't a commercial fisherman in Vermont that makes the kind of money the tax man would be concerned with. Most don't even cover their gas and fishing equipment not to mention depreciation deductions on boats and trucks. The reality is the bureaucracy involved with even issuing and maintaining records from commercial licenses would no way be paid for with what they took in from taxes. I don't know about anyone else but I don't think the state needs anymore control through additional regulations and taxation. Government is too big and expensive already. Just my opinion.

That is so true. I keep a spread sheet showing my daily catches and earnings. One year I did a P&L; just including mileage and gas consumed. Although I still made a profit; factoring in just travel knocked the heck out of my bottom line.

[jbritch]

Are we talking here about one man's catches or an income earned from fish mongering (the brokering of another man's catch)?  'Cause if the fish mongering industry can't show a profit after handling a quarter million pounds of perch each year that's interesting.  I understand that some fish mongers also run convenience stores and bait shops and probably sell some tackle and licenses, etc.  Does the added revenue from these collaterals get figured in?

I'd still like to know what happened to my previous post...

[lowaccord66]

For the record I don't think they should force guys to get comm licenses. It seems like the fishery regulates itself nicely and I too am not a fan of the idea of more government oversight.

[Light liner]

For the record I don't think they should force guys to get comm licenses. It seems like the fishery regulates itself nicely and I too am not a fan of the idea of more government oversight.

I agree.
Another kind of off subject is move crappie to game fish so they cant be sold.

[Lord_of_the_Perch]

I agree.
Another kind of off subject is move crappie to game fish so they cant be sold.

AMEN!!!!

[lowaccord66]

I agree.
Another kind of off subject is move crappie to game fish so they cant be sold.

I'm with that too!

[mudchuck]

Since 1999, 9/11 happened and not as many come down from across the northern border to fish, loads of people that used to fish either moved away/retired/expired, and the fish mongers do make profit on the sale of peoples catches, but the sale of tackle & bait is pretty much break even/sell at cost.
Not as many youngster take up fishing as a lifetime hobby or interest with electronics in front of them...getting harder & harder to get some to stick with it...the sport in general has gotten more & more expensive over the years, which has a bearing on why some youth don't bother.

The brokering of fish sales is greatest in the winter and dramatically falls off as it gets warmer, so it's not like they make money on this year round...bet if you ask one of them how it rounds out for a full year they probably are just better than break even on that too.

IMO I think the decline in yellows and the incline on whites is directly proportional to the increase in zebra mussels, spiny fleas, alewives & other invasive's that are wreaking havoc on an ecosystem that is struggling to adapt, not to mention the things like the flood in 2011 and other natural weather phenomenon that affects fish year to year.
The change in forage has got to be impacting the native panfish, and the decline in fishing pressure coupled with increase in all the above should be factored into any equation.

[Hess]

I agree with the comments regarding the cormorant problem on Lake Champlain -- years ago they were only in the northern part of the lake -- now you see them regularly down below Chipman's Point -- they continue to spread and they consume a tremendous amount of small fish...!!  Also agree with the comment that Crappie should be classified as game fish, not allowing them to be commercially sold...!

[Champlain Islander]

The crappie issue reminds me of the anti's targeting gun control. Those that want to end selling panfish in Vermont will try to win on one issue then work forward. Most of the crappie pros I know don't sell they either catch and release or fillet for personal consumption. Most commercial fishermen catch a few but are mainly targeting gills and seeds. I have plenty of fishing friends that are commercial fishermen and others who aren't. Some of those friends oppose selling of fish and that is their right and I can respect that opinion. If crappie were to be designated as a game fish making them ineligible for sale, I would simply fillet and consume them since they are one of the best eating panfish in the lake. The end result is the fish are still dead. I think any decision with any of our our fisheries should come as a result of our paid biologists making a solid scientific decision not people pushing a social agenda.  From what I understand crappie are very prolific and are doing well all throughout our state. My opinion is that the existing rules and regulations on both black and white crappie should stand.

[bootstrap]

the mongers earn their profit, tons of work, overhead and commitment. although i wish the price paid to fishermen was higher. the current price is due to many  variables outside of local control.

 i use to sell lots of fish. now i am self employed another much more profitable way. i do more trading of fish now. i have people clean them for a share. trade for other game meat , local produce and maple products. i have traded for services such as snow plowing hair cutting etc etc.. I did not sell one fish this year. i froze close to 100 bags and traded probably 3 times that.
 
crappie should remain salable. though it happens infrequently i like the possibility of recovering some of the money that I spend on gear, gas etc. although for the year i do not think I ever came out ahead. changing the min to 10 inches and then 50 fish would be a good move, for champlain anyway. not much meat on a 8 inch fish. if i am going to deal with fish i want there to be lots of them. i dont want to trade, cut or go to sell for just a few. when i get less then 10 i usually throw them back or give them away to someone there or a neighbor on the way home. most of these neighbors are elderly and can not get out to fish anymore. many ways to skin a fish.

[ice fiend]

As someone who commercial fished from time to time I wouldn’t t mind seeing crappie taken off the buy list