Ok Folks here is the "Content Analysis" written by a couple of NOP PSA'ers that were in attendance (sent this to AuntyM last night). I have only changed the document by deleting the individual names of of those folks who attended:

Review of WDFW Handouts from the Crab Compliance Presentation on 12/11/10

NOP PSA members reviewed an Excel spreadsheet titled “Size Distribution of Creeled Crabs” that was supposed to tally the carapace width of all crabs taken in Areas 6, 7E, 7S, 7N, 8-1, 8-2, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 as measured by the creel checkers using micrometers. Undersized crabs were those crabs measuring 158mm or less. We sampled the first 27 lines of the spreadsheet, the 132 – 158mm segment, for arithmetical errors and discovered that WDFW’s data is incorrect. There were numerous addition errors, with the Department showing a total of 371 undersized crabs when in fact the correct figure totals 322 undersized crabs. (See exhibit A)
The presentation on crab compliance given by the Rich Childers and staff at the PSA State Board meeting on 12/11/10 included a section in which the presenter stated that the creel checkers used micrometers to determine the carapace width of a crab and classified all crab measuring less than 159mm as undersized. He further opinioned that he doubted that WDFW enforcement officers, using the plastic gauges (sold in retail stores to recreational crabbers) could accurately measure the carapace width to within 3 to 4mm of the 159mm legal size standard. Deputy Chief Mike Cenci, who was in attendance during the presentation, said his officers use the same plastic gauge to measure crab for compliance as the recreational crabber.

If one looks at the Size Distribution of Creeled Crab spreadsheet you will see that over 50% of the undersized crabs are recorded on the 155mm to 158mm lines. It doesn’t matter whether you use the incorrect figures from WDFW or the corrected figures that we’ve entered on exhibit A, the results remain the same. The question for WDFW should be why they require their creel checkers to record crab as undersized when their own officers (or the recreational crabber) can’t accurately measure the carapace width to within 1-4mm of the legal standard with a plastic gauge.

Its fine if biologists need data broken down to 1mm of carapace width for scientific purposes, but have the creel checkers use a plastic gauges if they are going to record undersized crab and that data is used to determine recreational compliance.

Using the “corrected figures” there are 198 crabs in the 155-158mm range. For the purpose of establishing recreational crabbing compliance these 198 crabs should not used in establishing compliance rates because it is impossible for someone using a plastic gauge to measure that accurately. They skew the compliance rate and make it appear that there is a bigger problem with the taking of undersized crab than there is.1mm = approximately 5/127ths or 0.093 inches. (See the attached conversion chart.)

Additionally, we received a memo titled “Results of the Recreational Crab Creeling Effort, Summer 2010” authored by Donald Velasquez on 12/14/10. It reads in paragraph 1, line 5 that “3,556 crabs were measured.” (See exhibit B). However, a handout obtained at the 12/11/10 crab compliance presentation, titled “Table 2. Summary by Marine Area of compliance with CRC recording regulations and minimum size regulations (counts).” show that a total of 3,659 crabs were “kept” and a total of 1,067 crabbers were interviewed. (See exhibit C) One would think that the number of crabs measured and the number of crabs kept would be the same. Inconsistencies such as this cause the recreational community to question the validity of all of WDFW’s statistics.

It should be noted that we closely securitized at the “Size Distribution of Creeled Crabs” spreadsheet but only looked briefly at the 12/14/10 memo from D. Velasquez and the miscellaneous handouts from 12/11/10. There could possibly be additional inconsistencies in these or other documents.


That spreadsheet mentioned above is about 15 to 20 columns wide & I cannot figure out how to display it without serious distortion. If anybody wants a copy of it (Excel Spreadsheet), PM me your email address & I will send it to you. And the Metric Conversion attachment, please use google to get that basic info.

Thx -- Q

Posted above is the Content. Now my question to folks who are still in the workforce. If you presented something that screwed up and that bias an agenda, that would effect you most important client/customer base, would you as a Manager;

1. Say Great Job & Give you a Performance Raise pat on the back?

or

2. Or think and act that just maybe he has a problem with the competence level of your ability to perform your job.

I would vote for number 2 in a NYC minute. Further I would put that person on notice that noting goes out to the public if and until it is reviewed personnally. This is NOT the first time the shellfish program has performed at this level folks. My heartburn is that WDFW Director expects me to dig deeper (which I am on the record to say yes sir I will!!!!) into my wallet without an expectation that at least requires a 3rd grade common sense math skill set. Shame on me then for that level of expectation.

Just to be sure M, are you saying that the "Boss" (Phil Andersen) is "Pro Commercial?"

i think he is about as pro commercial as you can get.