I recently was involved with a service project through a Boy Scout Troop that I volunteer with. We made some bird houses (told the boys they were snake feeders, they got a kick out of that) and helped the local chapter of the Audubon put these Kestral bird houses up. I was surprized to find out that one of the main functions of the Audubon is to count existing bird stocks. They all wonder out to thier individual neck of the wood at a specified time and everyone counts birds and types and all that. Then they return and report the data to a central location. This is basicly what our "Scientist" are doing but on a much smaller scale. This Audubon thing can be as big as a Nation wide count. I've been studing uncertainties in school lately and it does not take a genious to know that the larger your sample the less uncertianty you have. Any way my idea would be to organize an Audubon style dive and go count some fish. And shoot a few too :smthumbup: Collect our own data, but do this in a frequency greater than that of the Gulf Council scientist. The only catch here is that this would be a volunteer type of thing just as the Audubon is. The Audubon and its history of bird counting is considered real "science", especially to those political types that we are dealing with in this whole Gag Debockle. It sounds as if the heros of the FRA have made some head way and thankful am I, In an effort to be involved I propose this idea to the SFP and await your comments.

I'm down, literally. No boat but I can count (and shoot) :D

Ever heard of REEF or The Great Annual Fish Count? that's what they do. reef environmental education foundation basically has volunteers count fish. they started in 1990 www.reef.org check out their volunteer survey project (their projects have expanded, but they're probably best known for this one). any time you do a dive, you can id all species of fish & count them. measurement estimates are not necessary.

however, it is difficult (at least for me) to spear & do these surveys because you carry a slate & are constantly marking down fish through your whole dive. if you are taking time to stalk a fish, you are missing out on other fish that you should be counting. you would need to dedicate your dive to ID work. however, if every trip you go out on, you dedicate one dive to IDing, you would fast add to their database.

their data has been used in peer reviewed papers.

From REEF's site

"Are the data accurate and useful?
Yes! From the beginning, the program was designed in conjunction with marine scientists from NOAA, the University of Miami, and The Nature Conservancy. For over two years, a team of marine ecologists and fisheries managers monitored and carefully evaluated REEF's field methods and reporting procedures. Their study, published in the Bulletin of Marine Science in 1996, confirmed that the collected data are of extreme value to the scientific community. They found that fish surveys conducted using the REEF roving diver method meet several objectives:


Ability to collect large quantities of presence/absence and relative abundance data
Indication of species distribution throughout a geographical area based on sighting frequency and abundance
Specific species presence/absence and abundance lists may be presented for any given region, subregion, zone or site
Measures of similarity in species composition may be computed between any combination of geographical areas
Today, marine ecologists from NOAA, the State of Florida, Caribbean and Bahamas government environmental protection offices, marine park management, and conservation groups are already putting informationfrom REEF's database to good use.


What are the data used for?
As the REEF Fish Survey Project has grown, several papers and products have been produced using the roving diver survey method and the REEF database. In addition, the REEF Fish Survey Project has become integrated into several projects. These collaborations have included those with management agencies and other non-profit organizations. To read more about these papers and projects and about using volunteers in data collection, visit our Monitoring and Research page."

they do have a gulf of mexico region in which to mark your surveys. check it out.

Would it be in our best interest to have a trip/fish survey posted on the FRA website that we could complete after each dive trip?

looks like there are a lot of places that haven't been counted. I bet most of these get hit alot.This is the list from Tampa to cape San Blas.

Register for an account on our new site or log in

Search
Navigation

* My Data
* My Survey Log
* Products

REEF Enews

Latest Edition:

*
REEF-in-Brief January 2008

more
News & Updates

*
REEF to hold first "For the Love of the Sea" dinner and auction to benefit coral reefs
*
REEF Launches New Reef Fish Identification Home Study Course

REEF in the News

more
Active forum topics

* Can anyone help ID this fish?
* Showing scientific names on database reports

more
Home
Zone code listing
TWA :: GULF OF MEXICO (Cape Sable to Yucatan Cabo Catoche

Zone code 22: NORTH EAST (Tampa Bay to Cape San Blas)
Zone Code Name Have Coordinates?
2201 Pasco County N/A
22010001 Pasco County Artificial Reef #2, Army Tanks Yes
22010002 Pasco County Artificial Reef #2, Barge Yes
22010003 Jason Reef (New Port Richey) No - report
22010004 RJ Davis Wreck (New Port Richey) No - report
22010005 Carrabelle 3 Mile Reef Yes
22010006 Denise's Ledge No - report
22010007 Marilyn's Hole No - report
22010008 Eugene's Lobster Rocks No - report
22010009 OAR Reef - 2 dogs off island No - report
22010010 The Cracks No - report
22010011 Jack's Ledge No - report
22010012 No Name Ledge No - report
22010013 Concrete Ledge No - report
22010014 Grey's Ledge No - report
22010015 Denmark Ledge No - report
22010016 23 Mile Reef (New Port Richey) No - report
22010017 Hog Ledge (15m off New Port Richey) No - report
22010018 Round Rocks Reef No - report
22010019 Sugar Barge (Anna Maria Isl) No - report
22010020 Green Oyster Reef Yes
22010021 Airplane Barge Wreck No - report
22010022 Hudson Sink Hole Yes
22010023 Bob's Reef (10 mi off Clearwater on 260 deg course No - report
2202 Citrus County N/A
22020001 King Spring (Crystal River) No - report
22020002 Artificial Reef 1C Yes
22020003 Old Shed Rock Pools Yes
2203 NW Florida (Levy County to Cape San Blas) N/A
22030001 Marker 24 Barge Yes

For the same area...2.4 seems to be pretty high density score. And for comparisons, listed are some of the other fish that spearos target, fish we see every day.

Gag
SF: 70% | DEN: 2.4

Gray Snapper
SF: 90% | DEN: 2.7

Hogfish
SF: 90% | DEN: 1.9

Great Barracuda
SF: 80% | DEN: 1.6

Sheepshead
SF: 50% | DEN: 1.4

Greater Amberjack
SF: 40% | DEN: 1.8

Atlantic Spadefish
SF: 40% | DEN: 2.3

Red Grouper
SF: 20% | DEN: 2

Goliath Grouper (Jewfish)
SF: 20% | DEN: 1.5

Black Grouper
SF: 20% | DEN: 1.5

Scamp
SF: 20% | DEN: 1.5

Gulf Flounder
SF: 10% | DEN: 1

Cobia
SF: 10% | DEN: 2



%SF = Sighting Frequency; DEN = Density Score?
Bar length corresponds to sighting frequency
Color saturation corresponds to density score

From the REEF.ORG web site:

Density Index (Den)
This is a measure of how many individuals of a species are observed based on a scale of 1-4. It is representative of the abundance category (1-4) which was most frequently recorded for the species when it was observed. Abundance category weights are Single=1, Few=2, Many=3, and Abundant=4.

This weighted density average is calculated as:

(S * 1) + (F * 2) + (M * 3) + (A * 4)
Den = -------------------------------------------------
(Number of surveys in which species was observed)

This number indicates which abundance category the species was most often recorded in when it was recorded. For example, Den=2.2 would be reflective of a species that was most often recorded in category 2 (Few) but because the density index is greater than 2, there were some abundances recorded for this species in the other, larger abundance categories (either category 3 or 4). The density index should be used as an abundance guide because area is not rigorously controlled in the RDT method. It should also be kept in mind that the density (Den) parameter is reflective of sighting distributions in the four different abundance categories (S, F, M, and A) and different distributions of sightings in each abundance category could potentially give similar values of Den (in other words, it does not account for non-sightings).

Sighting Frequency (%SF)
This is a measure of how often the species was observed. It indicates the percentage of times out of all surveys that the species was recorded.

The %SF parameter is calculated as:

S + F + M + A (for each species)
%SF = 100 * --------------------------------
(Number of surveys)
By simultaneously examining the sighting frequency (%SF) and density index (Den), data summaries can be interpreted for fish species. The Den and %SF scores could be multiplied to provide a measure of species abundance which includes zero observations.

The following table shows an examples of how the summary information can be interpreted at the species level.

Example of Data Interpretation
Caribbean Example
Den %SF Explanation
HIGH Den >3.0 HIGH %SF >50 Species is often observed and observed at high densities. Species is seen > 50% of the time and when it is seen the abundance category most often recorded is M or A.

Species examples: bicolor damselfish, blue chromis, brown chromis

HIGH Den >3.0 LOW %SF <50 Species is not often seen, but when it is seen, it is observed at high densities. Species is seen < 50% of the time and when it is seen the abundance category most often recorded is M or A.

Species examples: silversides/herrings, garden eel

LOW Den <3.0 HIGH %SF >50 Species is often observed, but always at low densities. Species is seen > 50% of the time and when it is seen the abundance category most often recorded is F or S.

Species examples: trumpetfish, rock beauty, foureye butterflyfish

LOW Den <3.0 LOW %SF <50 Species is not often observed and when it is observed, it is at very low densities. Species is seen < 50% of the time and when it is seen the abundance category most often recorded is F or S.

Species examples: green moray, saucereye porgy, spotted scorpionfish

I just wanted to let everyone know what REEF thinks Density (Den) and Sighting Frequency (SF%) was. So this data is saying that Gags are simularly stocked to Gray Snapper, a little bit smaller in both #s but they should be since they are farther up the food chain. I signed up for this volunteer thing, I don't think it could hurt right, I mean it will only provide more data. I just don't think I'll be looking out for the bicolor damselfish, blue chromis, brown chromis. Why not ask each diver on the boat what they saw and submit more than one report. IMHO the Spero community is doing way more diving than the sight seers. I think this is contributing to sound science or as sound as we can get. My concern is that in touring the web site I felt a little out of place, I mean I'm using the word conservation differently than they are.

I just don't think I'll be looking out for the bicolor damselfish, blue chromis, brown chromis. Why not ask each diver on the boat what they saw and submit more than one report. IMHO the Spero community is doing way more diving than the sight seers. I think this is contributing to sound science or as sound as we can get.


part of what makes this technique reliable is noting ALL the fish, not just the ones that are important to you. it skews the data otherwise.

also, like i said before, i think it will be difficult to do while spearing. i haven't tried it & i have only dove in the keys & miami so i may be wrong. if i saw less fish, or less species of fish, it might not be so hard to keep track. not sure on that one.

i didn't look at the data, but i think the areas that spearos dive is probably not as well represented in this dataset. i could be wrong, but i think you guys probably contribute a lot.