Closed John-R-Wallace-NOAA closed 2 years ago
Thanks John for looking into this. Unfortunately, FTID does not map one to one with the catch data base and should not be used going further. If the information is not in the bds table then we should not be using it going forward.
I only used FTID to verify that the PSMFC area that is stuck inside the Comprehensive BDS's PSMFC_CATCH_AREA_CODE column is legitimate. For example, in the large table, if '0471,1B' matched with anything but '1B' or
I am sorry, but I don't understand what you mean. What are you trying to do here? It seems like you are making things more complicated then they need to be.
I am extracting out the PSMFC areas from the PSMFC_CATCH_AREA_CODE column in the comprehensive BDS table. With a PSMFC only column, I can also get a INPFC column using the 'ar' (area) table. (I am creating a ARID column also.) I started yesterday and things are going well. I anticipate that the results will be more complete than PacFIN's, if they only do the equivalent of a separation of the PSMFC_CATCH_AREA_CODE column. Unless they (or all 3 states) have hidden tables that associates every state fishery block with the PSMFC and INFPC areas. I don't have such a table either, but it could be made if all the vertices for the state blocks could be obtained. Currently, when needed, I am stuck looking at maps that have state blocks on them, and hence the complication and time needed. I plan to create a Wiki so that there can be buy-in to the steps taken, and as a resource for where the state fishery block maps are on the internet.
John, this might be something that should be explored later when we aren't under the gun.
I do NOT think it is a good idea to make up new columns from PacFIN at this point in time. It makes it difficult to communicate with states or others that deal with PacFIN because they don't have access to the same data. More specifically, I believe that PacFIN is working really hard to get us what we need and if there is something that we NEED then we should be asking them to place it in one of the two tables that we extract. Otherwise how are they to know if they should update old tables. Rather than going against the grain here and thinking we can do better than PacFIN, I fully support putting more work on PacFIN and asking them to provide information to us.
I am not making up columns, this will be a comparison on what PacFIN has been asked to provide and what they will add to the comprehensive BDS. This is not against the grain at all, but will provide a check on what PacFIN provides us and will give us more confidence in what they come up with if that comparison is favorable.
The Comprehensive Biological Data Sample (BDS) Commercial Table PDF (https://pacfin.psmfc.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/PacFIN_Comprehensive_BDS_Commercial.pdf) implies that the 'BDS Sample - State fishing area block number' and the 'BDS Sample - Agency PSMFC area code' are in separate columns. However, the FISHING_AREA_BLOCK_NUMBER column (at least for Canary rockfish) is all NA's and the PSMFC_CATCH_AREA_CODE column has both the block number and the PSMFC area code together.
I matched in the Comprehensive_FT's PACFIN_CATCH_AREA_CODE column into the BDS Canary data using FTID and created the following table:
The table shows that the PSMFC_CATCH_AREA_CODE is on a finer scale than the FT's PACFIN_CATCH_AREA_CODE and confirms that, in general, they have consistent information. If PacFIN can not provide us with a PSFMC only and Dahl column in a reasonable time frame, it would be possible to get the PSFMC only column close by parsing PSMFC_CATCH_AREA_CODE and making a large re-coding table. The re-coding table is necessary since some blocks (e.g. 0526), do not have the PSMFC code included (e.g. '0518,1B')
FYI, not having a FTID (FALSE) in the BDS is more prominent in the early years: