Sampling Fish Populations

The following piece is an abridged version of the queries flagged by my teacher Dr M. Srinath:

(i) How does one go about with the random selection leading to a sample while studying a particular resource especially when the frame is impossible to construct?

(ii)Are we justified in terming fish samples taken from time to time as random samples?

(iii)Can we consider catches from various gears as independent random samples?

The answers would be serving better if they satisfy both a statistician and a biologist.

Marine Biodiversity valuation

As any other natural resource marine resources too have immense value and utility even on encashable terms. In a way the valuation and budgeting of the marine resources is very much a priority for any avid policy watcher. But unlike its superterranean counterparts the marine ecosystem has lot of things waiting to be unshrouded. Practically none of the pivotal factors worth its utility in budgeting them can be assessed in the mathematical sense. Unlike forests and other animal resources marine resources have unique set of dynamics at every part of their biology. At times quite a few species have shown extreme sense of resilience especially against adversity so much so that post threat certain species have over dominated unusually. Further most of these resources are in a state of flux. So this topic needs careful intellectual assuaging before being unleashed in zones hitherto bereft of such studies.

Stock and Statistics

It has always been fascinating to mix two seemingly immiscible concepts with a firm objective in mind. Statistical ogling of fish biological dynamics happens to be the best suited case under this category. One of the immediate moot points in this line is the stock based inference arrived through quasi-linear or non-linear modeling. Statistics being inductive in nature is bound to blow up the results to some universe and "stock" fits the bill perfectly. But there are non-statistical issues on the very definition of an unit stock. The wikipedia throws up a dozen such definitions and points to the most acceptable one which unfortunately happens to be the latest. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_stock) this has the potential danger of the query- "what happened to previous inferences". In the sampling concept a sample and population are uniquely, indisputably defined and the methodology sticks on that perfect framework. But it seems to be not the case in Stock assessment. Further stocks by definition vary with the part of the globe in which the study is being conducted. Another issue is the collation of various stock based inferences- are the additive? or some interaction is to be accounted for? Are the pelagic and demersal assessments even footed in terms of setting?

Who is a "Fisherman"

The term fisherman has now been perceived in more ways than what the lexicon would interpret. From the innocuous poor rod wielding person to a multimillionaire entrepreneur all in a way come under the gamut of the meaning conveyed by the term "fisher". The arguments targeting this issue always end up inconclusive. But they always throw up defining assumptions and purposes which brings some finiteness to the whole exercise. It would always be helpful if we could initiate healthy debate on who all should be labelled as a fisherman if the information seeker happens to be a state/ government which has welfare motive as its primary focus.

Welcome

Dear all,

This is an infinitesimally small effort towards collating creative inputs and improving the overall understanding of world fisheries in the strictly broadest sense of the word. This platform is an earnest effort to reach out to all those who have things to contribute towards the above stated endeavour.