/harvest/discussion/ -- has a few papers on the SSM and detailed minutes from previous meetings.] The general data in question are CWT recoveries for coho salmon stocks and fishing effort data, all collated on a weekly basis. Jim Norris briefly introduced the subject and a general discussion followed. From the discussion the current status of this issue can be summarized in the following statements. -- Over the past year, Rich Comstock and Carrie Cook-Tabor have provided several datasets to Ken Newman that they feel correctly respond to his data requests; -- Ken has responded with further requests for data clarification or for additional data manipulation (whether or not certain data are or can be summarized on a weekly basis seems to be an important issue); -- Rich, Carrie, and Ken do not have time to make adjustments to the datasets already prepared and/or to create new datasets that Ken will find acceptable; -- Judy Cress (CRiSP group) and Cara Campbell (NMFS) have been asked to provide some assistance in getting acceptable data, but neither feels that "starting over" is the best course of action. The general discussion raised the following concerns about gathering data to fit to the SSM, and about the utility of the SSM in general. -- The Model Committee does not have a well-defined, agreed-upon procedure for gathering and collating the data to be fit to the SSM; -- The project is falling behind schedule and will not be able to be used by Sep 98 to start planning the 1999 season. In particular, Jim Scott's concept was that Ken would have SSM techniques developed by Sep 98 so other scientists (States, Tribes, NMFS) could then apply the techniques to many more stocks; -- The problem of estimating migration parameters (with the SSM techniques) for stocks following a non-linear migration path (e.g., coho straying and wandering inside Puget Sound) has not been resolved; -- Does the SSM technique work any better than the PM or FRAM methods? -- Can the CWT and fishing effort data be accurately collated on a weekly basis for all regions? -- If CWT and effort data cannot be accurately collated on a weekly time basis for all regions, can the SSM still be fit to data collated over a longer time frame (bi-weekly? monthly?) and still provide migration parameter estimates with acceptable precision? -- What effect, if any, does collating CWT data over time strata that are not consistent with catch/area sampling data have on parameter estimates? Just prior to the Jan 20 meeting Ken Newman sent email to Tom Wainwright in which he outlined six possible MS Thesis topics (related to the SSM) he recently discussed with a new graduate student. Although this information was not presented at the Jan 20 meeting, it is included here because of its pertinence to this subject. ------ Excerpt from Ken Newman email dated Jan 19, 1998 -------- I just sat down with my new grad student working on this project to look at potential thesis topics for him and found at least 6: 1. combining multiple years of release/recovery information via Empirical Bayes and SSM- namely how to best simulate a potential fisheries mgmt plan 2. incorporating disparate time scales of effort information, and non-disjoint spatial regions of recoveries- namely how to best use effort data from commercial (wkly) and sport fisheries (mthly) and their recoveries (from catch reporting regions that often overlap) 3. modeling migration on a non-linear spatial framework- namely adding the inside spurs for Puget Sound, Georgia Straits, etc. 4. estimating maturation rates (should be sex specific, too) for chinook and determining how separable such estimates are from survival and movement rates 5. linking various parameter estimates (initial spatial distribution, survival, movement, maturation) to environmental conditions, origin of release, `nature' of release (whatever might have been done at the hatchery, say) 6. parameter estimation for a more realistic non-normal SSM (the problem I've been struggling with for 4 months now) ----- end Ken Newman email ------------- The committee agreed to form a SSM Data Group to convene ASAP to develop a strategy for resolving the SSM data issues. Proposed members of the SSM Data Group are: Jim Scott Ken Newman Jim Norris Robert Kope Cara Campbell Judy Cress Marianna Alexandersdottir Carrie Cook-Tabor Jim Norris recommended that the SSM Data Group focus on gathering data for a single Puget Sound coho stock that is known to have (1) a large number of CWT recoveries, and (2) considerable straying or wandering inside Puget Sound. He suggested that attempting to apply the SSM to such a stock should address many of the data specific concerns raised at yesterday's meeting. 9. Next meeting. The next meeting will be Monday March 16 at NMFS Montlake at 9:00 am.