Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Bias and Confidence Interval Coverage of Creel Survey Estimators Evaluated by Simulation

1998; Wiley; Volume: 127; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1577/1548-8659(1998)127 2.0.co;2

1548-8659

Paul W. Rasmussen, Michael D. Staggs, T. Douglas Beard, Steven P. Newman,

Survey Methodology and Nonresponse

Transactions of the American Fisheries SocietyVolume 127, Issue 3 p. 469-480 Article Bias and Confidence Interval Coverage of Creel Survey Estimators Evaluated by Simulation Paul W. Rasmussen, Corresponding Author Paul W. Rasmussen [email protected] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 1350 Femrite Drive, Monona, Wisconsin, 53716 USA[email protected]Search for more papers by this authorMichael D. Staggs, Michael D. Staggs Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Post Office Box 7921, Madison, Wisconsin, 53707 USASearch for more papers by this authorT. Douglas Beard Jr., T. Douglas Beard Jr. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Post Office Box 7921, Madison, Wisconsin, 53707 USASearch for more papers by this authorSteven P. Newman, Steven P. Newman Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 8770 County Highway J, Woodruff, Wisconsin, 54568 USASearch for more papers by this author Paul W. Rasmussen, Corresponding Author Paul W. Rasmussen [email protected] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 1350 Femrite Drive, Monona, Wisconsin, 53716 USA[email protected]Search for more papers by this authorMichael D. Staggs, Michael D. Staggs Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Post Office Box 7921, Madison, Wisconsin, 53707 USASearch for more papers by this authorT. Douglas Beard Jr., T. Douglas Beard Jr. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Post Office Box 7921, Madison, Wisconsin, 53707 USASearch for more papers by this authorSteven P. Newman, Steven P. Newman Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 8770 County Highway J, Woodruff, Wisconsin, 54568 USASearch for more papers by this author First published: 09 January 2011 https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8659(1998)127 2.0.CO;2Citations: 40Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Abstract The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has carried out a complete creel census on Escanaba Lake, Wisconsin for more than 40 years. We used this creel census data set as the basis for simulations of a stratified random three-stage creel survey (stages were days, shifts, and count times) in which harvest was estimated as the product of effort and harvest rate. Effort was estimated from instantaneous counts of anglers, and harvest rate was estimated from completed-trip interviews. We evaluated the bias and precision of estimators of annual angler effort and harvest with creel census data from 3 years of varying angler effort and harvest. This creel survey method resulted in excellent estimates of annual effort. There was no evidence of bias, and coefficients of variation were less than 0.10 even though the standard errors of estimates were somewhat too large, resulting in conservative 95% confidence intervals (97–99% coverage). We found no evidence of bias for a stratum estimator of harvest in which harvest rate was estimated across all interviews in a stratum before multiplying by effort to estimate harvest. Coefficients of variation were less than 0.20, and confidence interval coverage was close to the targeted 95% level. An advantage of estimating harvest rate across all interviews in a stratum is that the sample size on which harvest rate estimates are based is then relatively large. We did find evidence for bias in a daily estimator of harvest in which harvest rate estimates were based only on interviews obtained each day. References P. B. Bayley, S. T. Sobaski, M. J. Halter and D. J. Austen, 1991, Pages 206–211. In Comparisons of Illinois creel surveys and the precision of their estimates, Guthrie et al. (1991). Google Scholar W. G. Cochran, 1977. In Sampling techniques, 3rd edition, Wiley, New York. Google Scholar L. A. Goodman, 1960 On the exact variance of products, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 55, Pages 708–713. 10.1080/01621459.1960.10483369 Web of Science®Google Scholar D. Guthrie and Seven Coeditors, 1991. In Creel and angler surveys in fisheries management, American Fisheries Society, Symposium 12, Bethesda, Maryland. Google Scholar D. W. Hayne, 1991, Pages 123–138. In The access point creel survey: procedures and comparison with the roving-clerk creel survey, Guthrie et al. (1991). Google Scholar C. M. Jones, D. S. Robson, H. D. Lakkis and J. Kressel, 1995 Properties of catch rates used in analysis of angler surveys, Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 124, Pages 911–928. 10.1577/1548-8659(1995)124 2.3.CO;2 Web of Science®Google Scholar H. Jonrup, 1974 Estimation of variances in multistage sampling, Statistisk Tidskrift, 12, Pages 431–436. Google Scholar J. J. Kempinger and R. F. Carline, 1977 Dynamics of the walleye (Stizostedion vitreum vitreum) population in Escanaba Lake, Wisconsin, 1955–1972, Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 34, Pages 1800–1811. 10.1139/f77-246 Web of Science®Google Scholar J. J. Kempinger, W. S. Churchill, G. R. Priegel and L. M. Christenson, 1975. In Estimates of abundance, harvest, and exploitation of the fish population of Escanaba Lake, Wisconsin, 1946–1969, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Technical Bulletin 84. Google Scholar N. P. Lester, M. M. Petzold and W. I. Dunlop, 1991, Pages 25–39. In Sample size determination in roving creel surveys, Guthrie et al. (1991). Google Scholar S. P. Newman, P. W. Rasmussen and L. M. Andrews, 1997 Comparison of a stratified instantaneous count creel survey with a complete mandatory creel census on Escanaba Lake, Wisconsin, North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 17, Pages 321–330. 10.1577/1548-8675(1997)017 2.3.CO;2 Google Scholar K. W. Phippen and E. P. Bergersen, 1991, Pages 51–60. In Accuracy of a roving creel survey's harvest estimate and evaluation of possible sources of bias, Guthrie et al. (1991). Google Scholar K. H. Pollock, J. M. Hoenig, C. M. Jones, D. S. Robson and C. J. Greene, 1997 Catch rate estimation for roving and access point angler surveys, North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 17, Pages 11–19. 10.1577/1548-8675(1997)017 2.3.CO;2 Google Scholar K. H. Pollock, C. M. Jones and T. L. Brown, 1994. In Angler survey methods and their applications in fisheries management, American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 25, Bethesda, Maryland. Google Scholar D. Raj, 1968. In Sampling theory, McGraw-Hill, New York. Google Scholar C. E. Sarndal, B. Swensson and J. H. Wretman, 1992. In Model assisted survey sampling, Springer-Verlag, New York. 10.1007/978-1-4612-4378-6 Web of Science®Google Scholar SAS Institute, 1990. In SAS language: reference, version 6, 1st edition, SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina. Google Scholar M. D. Staggs, R. C. Moody, M. J. Hansen and M. H. Hoff, 1990. In Spearing and sport angling for walleye in Wisconsin's ceded territory, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Fisheries Management, Administrative Report 31, Madison. Google Scholar Citing Literature Volume127, Issue3May 1998Pages 469-480 ReferencesRelatedInformation