Government of Alberta January Public Engagement Sessions

[PerchBuster]

Originally Posted by chuck0039

When prohibition was around everything went underground. I fear the same will happen if they force C & R only on these lakes. People will just keep anyways, they will need to hire a lot more enforcement to ensure this does not happen.
It will be nice to see more enforcement but sad to see lakes on C & R instead of keeping the Class "B" & "C" tags and getting rid of the Class "A" tags.

One of the reasons they are moving to more C&R and closing down lakes, in their logic anyways, is so they can eliminate more enforcement and surveillance altogether and not have to spend time or money doing future Lake surveys. The Provincial NDP are too busy spending billions on infrastructure and other “important things” to break a chunk off for proper fisheries management. In a world today of Governments catering to special interest groups for votes recreational fisherman are way down the list of importance and numbers. There’s not enough of us to really to move the needle on votes, yet they would have us believe there is 300 fisherman on every lake every weekend. They would rather spend nothing, close them down, eliminate retention, eliminate enforcement, sell the public tags in the handful of lakes they may or may not continue to stock with Walleye and sit back and collect the money while they play around with stocking Trout in single species Ponds and Pothole lakes. Having to manage Walleye, Pike, Whitefish, Burbs and Perch all at the same time in any given waterbody is way to taxing, ineffective and costly they believe so it’s just easier to say nobody can have any.

[Hillbilly 12]

There is a reason a person goes to saskatchewan to fish, because they actually manage fish properly. Alberta is far to intelligent to copy them, but alberta couldn't manage a tank of 5 gold fish without screwing it up. I'm afraid it's all going to be shut down, unless of course you have the right heritage will be the deciding factor for catch and release or keeping. I meen it was stupid with the size limit but now!!! Vote NDP though!!!

[Walleyedude]

Originally Posted by petecatch

33/60% is not my opinion, that particular stat can be found here: https://wildlife.utah.gov/fishing/ca...eleasetips.php
There's enough studies done on this subject, google is your friend if you want more info on cryptic mortality. You'll find different numbers in different publications, but the that's the general consensus.

And tournament anglers are even worse with delayed mortality rates as high as 52%.

I don't want to get into an argument, because I agree, Google is your friend.

Your numbers are cherry picked to suit your bias. I could do a quick search and cherry pick the same to support my bias that C&R is a VERY effective method of managing populations and minimizing mortality. It depends a great deal on species, fishing method, and water temps primarily, but there are a lot of factors, not the least of which is proper handling of the fish. This much I know for certain, 100% of fish not released do not survive.

There are many studies done on mortality rates in tournaments, and 52% would be the at the VERY extreme end of the spectrum. It would be unprecedented for a walleye tournament in western Canada. If you want some interesting reading on the subject, search the recent work done by the University of Regina on the mortality and movement of fish caught and released during the Sask Walleye Trail tournaments. Mortality is in the low single digits at it's worst, and the movements post release are pretty amazing.

I would suggest using caution in your line of reasoning in support of catch and keep fishing. It's a slippery slope that leads to the end of sport fishing as we know it, which is what several European countries have done with the ban on C&R fishing.

[petecatch]

Originally Posted by Walleyedude

I don't want to get into an argument
...
DELETED
...
There are many studies done on mortality rates in tournaments, and 52% would be the at the VERY extreme end of the spectrum
DELETED
....

A tournament angler I guess? Apologies then for striking a nerve. When you think about it, keeping fish in a live well, hook wounds, culling, weigh-ins, warm temperatures, large number of highly effective anglers, 2-3 days pre-fishing, disqualified fish and long delays to release. Completely plausible most of those fish would swim away, that there would be zero floaters at weigh-in or on release, low cryptic mortality and the tournament would have a zero effect on fisheries... Somewhere between FIN survey and Commercial in terms of impact to the population is a more realistic view.

I'll respect your view to incidentally kill a number of fish if you respect mine to keep the occasional fillet.

[Walleyedude]

Originally Posted by petecatch

A tournament angler I guess? Apologies then for striking a nerve. When you think about it, keeping fish in a live well, hook wounds, culling, weigh-ins, warm temperatures, large number of highly effective anglers, 2-3 days pre-fishing, disqualified fish and long delays to release. Completely plausible most of those fish would swim away, that there would be zero floaters at weigh-in or on release, low cryptic mortality and the tournament would have a zero effect on fisheries... Somewhere between FIN survey and Commercial in terms of impact to the population is a more realistic view.

I'll respect your view to incidentally kill a number of fish if you respect mine to keep the occasional fillet.

You can guess at the impact of tournaments and be dramatic, or you can actually experience it yourself or educate yourself on the actual impacts. Up to you I guess.

I have zero issues with catch and keep where it's sustainable. I like a good fish fry a couple times a year myself.

[slough shark]

Has anyone who went to these meetings feel for a minute that the decision makers were listening at all? Does anyone showing up feel that their voices were heard and their opinions have any bearing in what the new regs will be? Is there any point trying to bring science, fishermen’s observations (and current studies) back into the conversation or do we simply start lobbying politicians to fire these clowns if they refuse to listen?

[slough shark]

Originally Posted by PerchBuster

One of the reasons they are moving to more C&R and closing down lakes, in their logic anyways, is so they can eliminate more enforcement and surveillance altogether and not have to spend time or money doing future Lake surveys. The Provincial NDP are too busy spending billions on infrastructure and other “important things” to break a chunk off for proper fisheries management. In a world today of Governments catering to special interest groups for votes recreational fisherman are way down the list of importance and numbers. There’s not enough of us to really to move the needle on votes, yet they would have us believe there is 300 fisherman on every lake every weekend. They would rather spend nothing, close them down, eliminate retention, eliminate enforcement, sell the public tags in the handful of lakes they may or may not continue to stock with Walleye and sit back and collect the money while they play around with stocking Trout in single species Ponds and Pothole lakes. Having to manage Walleye, Pike, Whitefish, Burbs and Perch all at the same time in any given waterbody is way to taxing, ineffective and costly they believe so it’s just easier to say nobody can have any.

The moment they want there’s all sorts of money for enforcement, how many parks staff were hired in the castle the moment they turned it into a park vs how many f&w officers were patrolling the area prior?

[michaelmicallef]

Sounds like we should subcontract our fisheries management to another
Province because this one one doesn't know how. Alberta could never manage it rite they only manage the users not the resources. Was told that by a friend in another Province that worked in f&W management. And he was 100% correct.

[RavYak]

Originally Posted by slough shark

Has anyone who went to these meetings feel for a minute that the decision makers were listening at all? Does anyone showing up feel that their voices were heard and their opinions have any bearing in what the new regs will be? Is there any point trying to bring science, fishermen’s observations (and current studies) back into the conversation or do we simply start lobbying politicians to fire these clowns if they refuse to listen?

I was at the Edmonton one tonight.

Overall the presentation was decent and had a number of good points and information. Where I disagree is with some of the decisions made with that data.

The question answer session of course got slightly heated at times and I wasn't really impressed with most of the answers. I asked a question myself and I honestly can't even remember the answer given as it had next to nothing to do with my question...

The main topics brought up by anglers were walleye overrunning our lakes decimating pike, perch and whitefish populations and the trend of closing more and more lakes to retention making it harder to keep fish and also focusing fishing pressure on the few remaining open lakes. Both very reasonable questions that unfortunately we didn't get great answers too...

I did have a good chat and brought up a number of points with one of the main biologists though.

[slough shark]

Originally Posted by RavYak

I was at the Edmonton one tonight.

Overall the presentation was decent and had a number of good points and information. Where I disagree is with some of the decisions made with that data.

The question answer session of course got slightly heated at times and I wasn't really impressed with most of the answers. I asked a question myself and I honestly can't even remember the answer given as it had next to nothing to do with my question...

The main topics brought up by anglers were walleye overrunning our lakes decimating pike, perch and whitefish populations and the trend of closing more and more lakes to retention making it harder to keep fish and also focusing fishing pressure on the few remaining open lakes. Both very reasonable questions that unfortunately we didn't get great answers too...

I did have a good chat and brought up a number of points with one of the main biologists though.

Perhaps time to start talking to the ucp and Alberta party (kinda already wrote off the ndp based on a number of decisions under their rule)about what their plans for f&w would be, their answers there could help determine a few things. It sounds like they’ve already made up their minds and this “consultation is nothing more than lip service and informing us of their decisions.

[petecatch]

Originally Posted by slough shark

Has anyone who went to these meetings feel for a minute that the decision makers were listening at all? Does anyone showing up feel that their voices were heard and their opinions have any bearing in what the new regs will be? Is there any point trying to bring science, fishermen’s observations (and current studies) back into the conversation or do we simply start lobbying politicians to fire these clowns if they refuse to listen?

No-one was listening with the exception of one who was open to listening but wasn't hearing (Stephen) a generally "nice guy" who I suspect is often walked over by his colleagues.

There really is little science happening. For example lets take Sylvan:
2017 Draft Fall Index Netting (FIN) for Pike - which they won't publish till after the new regs) shows 12 pike were caught in 14 nets over 2 days/nights and represents 0.1% of the pike population.

Based on the distribution of numbers versus size they concluded there was extremely low recruitment and the population was at very high risk to sustainability, they are going to a zero catch limit on Pike there next year.
No fish were caught under 63cm and they claim a small mature Pike population.

This is data that is onesies and twosies, i.e. 1 or 2 pike in the various sizes they look for and evenly spread over the sizes with a lot of gaps, total count 12. Scientifically, it proves nothing to anyone, there's not enough data to form any decision zero evidence, any scientist or even school student with laugh at the conclusion.

Also, doesn't match catch rates, but when's the last time you've had a angler survey when exiting a lake?

What are you catching at Sylvan? I catch about 60% under 63cms (50 to just under 63) a few in the 70-80 range and a few >20lb. And it's not too hard to catch Pike at Sylvan.

So how are they screwing up their science so bad and making these decisions?

FWIN = Fall Walleye Index Netting, note the "Walleye" in there. It's generally accepted as a way to monitor walleye populations and is scientifically calibrated for walleye, it works.

AB came up with FIN (Fall Index Netting) instead. It's based on the FWIN but measures other species. However there's zero evidence to suggest this approach works on anything but the Perch family due to time of year and distribution of population through the depths, so AB has decided to calibrate for other species. The calibration is based on angler surveys (which they rarely do as we know), they won't tell us how many angler surveys and lakes it was calibrated on either.

Now consider the data itself. We survey lakes every 5 years on average (for most lakes this is not enough). They can place the nets randomly and they do, always easiest to place at depths, nearest the boat launches, less work. Add in depth, temperature, time in the fall etc., and the survey is often invalid at wrt the guidelines but they use the data anyway.

Then they need some way to interpret this data, so they invented the Fish Sustainabilty Index. Again, no scientific evidence for the FSI, it's new and created by the same people who have done such an amazing job of managing our resources to date and no other jurisdiction uses it.

Everything is built on a house of cards, BUT, most don't pay attention, don't take the time to understand or don't care.

However people do see what's happening and understand the causes (non native species with zero harvest, environmental changes and just generally bad management).

So what to do? They have an Agenda, and will support that agenda with the House of Cards they've built, they don't want to be proven wrong. I don't believe it's just the NDP government, this stupidity has been going on for a while. If they attacked the real problem, they'd need to admit they got it wrong. We are the laughing stock of other bios in provinces for our fish management (literally), I can post some quotes. Even our own bios have (off the record) said there's no science to support the actions being taken.

We can't tackle this one on the science, it's gone too far now and they will weasel their way out of anything proven to be incorrect or streamroll, they've proven that in the meetings, if they realize the science is flawed, they just answer a different question to the one asked, and there are too few scientists in the angler community to form an effective voice.

The only way to effectively tackle this is to get organized... public angler revolt, press attention, social media and mass complaints about Alberta fisheries mismanagement to influencers and policy makers, force them to listen. At some level, a critical mass can make changes and the policy makers will realize that they really do need to consider what the public think. Afterall, they're supposed to be working for us. And the time for this is now, wait any longer and everything will be solidified and virtually impossible to change.

[RavYak]

It was Stephen Spencer that I chatted with after the fact and one of the points I brought up was pike and results from netting.

My argument was that most of the nets are likely set up for walleye as can be seen by the depth most of them are set at.

He said yes and no, that was originally the case early in the walleye management that they set up the nets in walleye type areas but they knew the data was no good for pike so now they spread them around a bit more and also have a factor that they apply to the netting data(which is why the population numbers can still seem quite high even though not a ton of pike caught in their data).

I then asked do they set the nets up right in/beside weed beds where the majority of pike live? Didn't really get a response to that question but I could see the not really look in his eyes.

This is something I have commented on multiple times before as I have found the netting results to underrate the pike fisheries on many lakes. I did mention this to him about South Buck Lake(which they are closing to pike retention) because I have never had trouble catching pike there nor struggled to find keeper size pike. He said their netting data was horrible this last go around which is why it is being shut down but I assume that is just because the nets weren't in the right places.

Another one of his comments was that they now try to place the walleye nets in different areas that aren't necessarily known to be the best spots on the lake. Although I see why they are trying this as an angler I also know 90% of the fish stick to about 10% of the water so if you want to get a good idea of population you need to be checking the primary fish holding habitat in order to make a proper analysis.

Overall you can tell they are trying to back management decisions up with science but the problem is that there isn't enough funding and manpower to do enough research and there are also some minor flaws in their processes and data analysis that they need to address.

[PerchBuster]

Exactly, and as explained to me, he recognizes that in many cases the damage is already done, lots of lakes need a reset, perhaps additional stocking, time to recover and rebalance. It takes time, measured in years, for that sequence of events to be fulfilled. No quick fix but at least they recognize they have to start somewhere to fix what’s wrong. None of it will be perfect, lots of variables effecting levels of success and no guarantees of it. There are significant flaws and variances in the data, science and thus perhaps decision making. Mother Nature still has to cooperate while we try to play God to fix what’s broken.

[RavYak]

Originally Posted by PerchBuster

Exactly, and as explained to me, he recognizes that in many cases the damage is already done, lots of lakes need a reset, perhaps additional stocking, time to recover and rebalance. It takes time, measured in years, for that sequence of events to be fulfilled. No quick fix but at least they recognize they have to start somewhere to fix what’s wrong. None of it will be perfect, lots of variables effecting levels of success and no guarantees of it. There are significant flaws and variances in the data, science and thus perhaps decision making. Mother Nature still has to cooperate while we try to play God to fix what’s broken.

I commented about using stocking to recover lakes faster. Walleye stocking isn't really effective for put and take type fishery like trout(due to a few different reasons) but we have seen stocking be extremely effective at recovering lakes and building a large population quickly. Examples being Wabamun, Lac La Biche, Pigeon, Pine Coulee etc. Instead of stocking 13 million fish in one lake like Wabamun try stocking 2 million in half a dozen lakes that are closed to retention for the recovery process right now. If it makes the recovery time 4 years instead of 10-15 then that is a huge advancement in keeping more of our waterbodies open.

He pretty much admitted that walleye don't do great in a number of our lakes which is one of the problems. Walleye have specific spawning requirements which many of our lakes aren't ideal for which makes for spotty recruitment. For example Wabamun historically has been stocked 3 times now and only this most recent one seems to have worked. That to me seems to be a red flag on focusing on walleye in all these lakes. Judging by the questions and comments from people regarding the degrading fishery state for pike, perch and whitefish and the responses I think they are going to start focusing a bit more on these species(and the obvious choice of lakes to do so would be the ones that the walleye don't do well in).

Time will tell what happens. I think they are playing on a slippery slope right now with their current practice of making more and more lakes C&R(and not doing enough netting on the remaining open lakes to realize that once they finally net them they will have to be recovered too...). The goal needs to be to keep as many lakes open as possible.

[wind drift]

Originally Posted by petecatch

No-one was listening with the exception of one who was open to listening but wasn't hearing (Stephen) a generally "nice guy" who I suspect is often walked over by his colleagues.

There really is little science happening. For example lets take Sylvan:
2017 Draft Fall Index Netting (FIN) for Pike - which they won't publish till after the new regs) shows 12 pike were caught in 14 nets over 2 days/nights and represents 0.1% of the pike population.

Based on the distribution of numbers versus size they concluded there was extremely low recruitment and the population was at very high risk to sustainability, they are going to a zero catch limit on Pike there next year.
No fish were caught under 63cm and they claim a small mature Pike population.

This is data that is onesies and twosies, i.e. 1 or 2 pike in the various sizes they look for and evenly spread over the sizes with a lot of gaps, total count 12. Scientifically, it proves nothing to anyone, there's not enough data to form any decision zero evidence, any scientist or even school student with laugh at the conclusion.

Also, doesn't match catch rates, but when's the last time you've had a angler survey when exiting a lake?

What are you catching at Sylvan? I catch about 60% under 63cms (50 to just under 63) a few in the 70-80 range and a few >20lb. And it's not too hard to catch Pike at Sylvan.

So how are they screwing up their science so bad and making these decisions?

FWIN = Fall Walleye Index Netting, note the "Walleye" in there. It's generally accepted as a way to monitor walleye populations and is scientifically calibrated for walleye, it works.

AB came up with FIN (Fall Index Netting) instead. It's based on the FWIN but measures other species. However there's zero evidence to suggest this approach works on anything but the Perch family due to time of year and distribution of population through the depths, so AB has decided to calibrate for other species. The calibration is based on angler surveys (which they rarely do as we know), they won't tell us how many angler surveys and lakes it was calibrated on either.

Now consider the data itself. We survey lakes every 5 years on average (for most lakes this is not enough). They can place the nets randomly and they do, always easiest to place at depths, nearest the boat launches, less work. Add in depth, temperature, time in the fall etc., and the survey is often invalid at wrt the guidelines but they use the data anyway.

Then they need some way to interpret this data, so they invented the Fish Sustainabilty Index. Again, no scientific evidence for the FSI, it's new and created by the same people who have done such an amazing job of managing our resources to date and no other jurisdiction uses it.

Everything is built on a house of cards, BUT, most don't pay attention, don't take the time to understand or don't care.

However people do see what's happening and understand the causes (non native species with zero harvest, environmental changes and just generally bad management).

So what to do? They have an Agenda, and will support that agenda with the House of Cards they've built, they don't want to be proven wrong. I don't believe it's just the NDP government, this stupidity has been going on for a while. If they attacked the real problem, they'd need to admit they got it wrong. We are the laughing stock of other bios in provinces for our fish management (literally), I can post some quotes. Even our own bios have (off the record) said there's no science to support the actions being taken.

We can't tackle this one on the science, it's gone too far now and they will weasel their way out of anything proven to be incorrect or streamroll, they've proven that in the meetings, if they realize the science is flawed, they just answer a different question to the one asked, and there are too few scientists in the angler community to form an effective voice.

The only way to effectively tackle this is to get organized... public angler revolt, press attention, social media and mass complaints about Alberta fisheries mismanagement to influencers and policy makers, force them to listen. At some level, a critical mass can make changes and the policy makers will realize that they really do need to consider what the public think. Afterall, they're supposed to be working for us. And the time for this is now, wait any longer and everything will be solidified and virtually impossible to change.

You’re right. Standardized monitoring and reporting is just crazy. Someone better tell the education system!

So, you suggest that an entire fisheries management department is either intentionally lying to us as part of some grand scheme, or is too stupid to know better? If either was true, why would they put the information out there for the world to see? What would the motive be? Is it a conspiracy led by PETA to put an end to fishing? Given that angling licence sales are going up steadily in Alberta, it would seem to be failing. Given the choice between: a) Alberta Fisheries managers have no clue what they’re doing, or b) some of us are opinionated, have a hard time accepting new information that doesn’t fit their views or have an axe to grind, I’ll go with the latter.

[SNAPFisher]

Originally Posted by wind drift

You’re right. Standardized monitoring and reporting is just crazy. Someone better tell the education system!

So, you suggest that an entire fisheries management department is either intentionally lying to us as part of some grand scheme, or is too stupid to know better? If either was true, why would they put the information out there for the world to see? What would the motive be? Is it a conspiracy led by PETA to put an end to fishing? Given that angling licence sales are going up steadily in Alberta, it would seem to be failing. Given the choice between: a) Alberta Fisheries managers have no clue what they’re doing, or b) some of us are opinionated, have a hard time accepting new information that doesn’t fit their views or have an axe to grind, I’ll go with the latter.

[RavYak]

Originally Posted by wind drift

You’re right. Standardized monitoring and reporting is just crazy. Someone better tell the education system!

So, you suggest that an entire fisheries management department is either intentionally lying to us as part of some grand scheme, or is too stupid to know better? If either was true, why would they put the information out there for the world to see? What would the motive be? Is it a conspiracy led by PETA to put an end to fishing? Given that angling licence sales are going up steadily in Alberta, it would seem to be failing. Given the choice between: a) Alberta Fisheries managers have no clue what they’re doing, or b) some of us are opinionated, have a hard time accepting new information that doesn’t fit their views or have an axe to grind, I’ll go with the latter.

I would argue it is option c.

C) Fisheries is doing a half decent job although they have some unrealistic expectations which is leading them to be overly cautious. Lack of funding and resources makes it difficult for them to make proper decisions when trying to micro manage all these waterbodies like they are now and they rely too heavily on netting data to make their decisions which often doesn't happen regularly enough to make the proper decisions.

I could give a huge number of examples to back this up. Regarding high expectations all you have to do is go to one of these meetings. Listen to the part where they tell you our fishing is 3 times better then Montana's, 5 times better then Wisconsin. Listen to those of us that fish other areas and know our fish population numbers are high here, rather then needing recovery as fisheries keeps telling us. They have unrealistic expectations that every walleye lake needs to be a Pigeon etc where it is easy to catch 50+ fish in a day. Most people in AB would be more then happy with regs that would allow for 10 fish in a day if they could keep 1 or 2 of them. You go to these meetings and read posts on here and in the news etc and angler frustrations across AB are super easy to understand. It isn't that we have bad fishing. It is the opposite, it is that we have good fishing but are barely allowed to keep anything anymore while our regs still keep moving towards more and more C&R and tags. Just a personal example but I have now won a North America wide kayak fishing competition based on numbers of fish not once but now two years in a row... AB fishing is far from in a bad state right now...

Some examples of poor management due to lack of data are Wabamun where they still refuse to believe/accept that the pike population has declined and which they still blame fisherman C&R mortality for lack of bigger fish. The reason for their attitude is that they haven't netted the lake since 2015 at which point their data already showed a slight decline(but within statistical error), once they net it again I almost guarantee they will go oops guess the anglers were right... Another example being Cross Lake which was closed due to either summer or winter kill worries(can't remember which one) but obviously has never been look at since because if it had been then the regs would have been changed back as the fish populations are fine...

I could go on and on but there is no point. If anyone wants to make informed decisions on our fisheries process and management read the information they give you. Read the old netting reports and tests available on google. Read the new netting data results and project outlines etc that they have been sharing recently. Find the discrepancies, they are there and often obvious. Then if you also have enough fishing experience on a number of these lakes you will also know how the netting data often has to be taken with a grain of salt(especially regarding pike).

Fisheries is trying but they are doing so in a way analogous to a car manufacturer trying to design a car by only taking into account test track results and not being happy until it performs like a Ferrari. Sure they may eventually end up with amazing results but they aren't necessary and they aren't going to provide a lot of the things many fishermen want.

[Walleyedude]

Originally Posted by RavYak

Most people in AB would be more then happy with regs that would allow for 10 fish in a day if they could keep 1 or 2 of them.

I think you're off base on this assertion.

People want a quality fishery, and I think most anglers understand that without C&R or very strict retention rules and enforcement, there won't be a quality fishery in AB, southern AB for sure.

That means a range of sizes and the chance at "trophy" class fish, in more species than just walleye, but it also means they want numbers. I agree that numbers are currently skewed on some lakes and walleye are overabundant, but 8-10 fish in an 8-10 hr day is NOT most people's idea of quality fishing. It certainly isn't going to keep beginners or novice anglers interested and invested and probably doesn't do much for the average angler either. You've got to be pretty hardcore to keep going at a 1 fish per hour catch rate.

[petecatch]

Originally Posted by RavYak

Walleye stocking isn't really effective for put and take type fishery like trout(due to a few different reasons) but we have seen stocking be extremely effective at recovering lakes and building a large population quickly.

Exactly why Saskatchewan stock 5% walleye in the put and take walleye fisheries every year.

If it's a put and take fishery, then you stock, works for walleye too that's why they do it.

Stocking species in a lake where they are not native and allow harvest, then you restock. Unless of course you live in AB, in which case they expect their non-native species they introduce to be self sustaining. They need to wise up.

In 2016, SK stocked 10X more fish than AB and 9.9 million were walleye.

And their calibration numbers are off, way off for Pike on the FIN. Caught an undersized fish at Sylvan the other day, if you believe their 2017 FIN, there aren't any hence the conclusion they came to "zero recruitment". Must have caught a Ghost fish.

Good decisions aren't based on poor science, and incorrect netting.