><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
If you reply to this message, it will go to all FISH-SCI members.
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>

 
In a message dated 7/11/2006 1:14:24 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,  
[log in to unmask] writes:

You are  correct that there are other models available, and we did consider 
other  approaches.  Going forward we may or may not stick with Ecosim.   
However, we are in the early stages of developing an ecosystem approach to  fishery 
management in the Gulf of Mexico, and the primary purpose of our  workshop is 
to demonstrate to the Gulf Council whether ecosystem modeling is a  feasible 
way to approach some real world fishery  issues.


Spending money developing an ecosystem approach to fishery management is  
fine if the Council decides it should support basic research rather than use its  
money getting better data for some problem fisheries. The web page  does to 
indicate how much the Council is considering devoting to this project -  I 
guess it is the low six figures? Less? 
 
From my slight experience with Ecosim and such models at IWC, these  models 
are information sensitive. They are interesting toys at this stage, but  have a 
way to go the begin to provide useful management advice. I suggest that  
Council may be disappointed with the short term benefit of looking at ecosystem  
models instead of getting reliable catch and effort data specific to the  GOM. 
If NMFS really takes a 28% hit next year, you may want to reconsider  the 
expenditure.
 
Frank

><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
       To leave the Fish-Sci list, Send blank message to:
        mailto:[log in to unmask]
 For information send INFO FISH-SCI to [log in to unmask]
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>