LJ Conditions has it all wrong, Clipboarders are good

[Tman]

Personally, I had my doubts from the beginning. When we were asked to pinpoint the areas we fish the most, I pinpointed other areas...I just felt at that time it could be used against us, that an area with the majority of kayakers claiming said area as the area we most often fish would be termed 'overfishing'.

The same reason I never brought up Cardiff, Leucadia, or S Cbad in any of the meetings...

I felt it would be construed as an area that needed to be protected, not based on scientific data, but the simpleton mentality of "since so many fish that area, they must be depleting that area".

As Clay once told me back in his Pokeman days that still sticks in my head...

"Confusion is good, it does the most damage"

I could be wrong, but after asking many questions during this whole fiasco, watching the lower echelons squirm at my questions only to defer to their superiors, I have come upon the conclusion that shit not only rolls downhill, but uphill as well.

The clipboarders respond to the data inputs (the ones at the meetings that were always glued to their laptops). The data inputs respond to the advisory team, who then responded to the BRTF.

What left a very bitter taste was watching these so called 'advisory' members speak on behalf of closures, going completely against us and in my opinion, completely misrepresenting themselves.

As far as DFG goes, I still cannot fathom the need for 8+ officers at the meetings, nor can I fathom the need for the BRTF members to enlist them as bodyguards, especially since we were not consulted...after all, we are the ones who pay their salary.

I can go get a Boy Scout hat and patch, but would that make me a Boy Scout?

Hell, let's make it a new fashion trend for kayakers...let's all wear DFG hats...

Respect is earned, not given.

[Rusty]

If they want to research the fish population, they should be swimming in the water counting the fish. Its not my job to report how many fish are in the ocean based on how much I catch, nor is most of yours. Until we are getting paid to do their research for them I will continue to ignore their existence when they drill me for information.

I hope I don't get abducted

[dos ballenas]

Originally Posted by Rusty

If they want to research the fish population, they should be swimming in the water counting the fish. Its not my job to report how many fish are in the ocean based on how much I catch, nor is most of yours. Until we are getting paid to do their research for them I will continue to ignore their existence when they drill me for information.

I hope I don't get abducted

You're right, it's not your job.

And for that matter fisheries biology is not an easy job.

Information from the general public is only one aspect of how data is gathered.

Remember that as fishermen we are the only ones that see what is really going on with our local fisheries which makes the data we can provide very valuable.

Once again, if you don't contribute, don't complain. For that matter you shouldn't bother reading anything scientific about fisheries or fish behavior.

It is important that we understand that recording your catch has been an important part of fisheries data collection for years. Recreational catch is an important component to understanding fluctuations in the marine ecosystem. It has led to lots of important fisheries managment practices. You're all benefiting from a lot of hard work done by people who have devoted their lives to study the things they love. Fisheries biologists are low payed but passionate people. Most like to catch, kill, and eat fish. Its not too much to ask to try and make their jobs a little bit easier is it?

Reporting your catch can be extremely helpful and benefit fish, fisheries, and in turn, fishermen.

Do you want GOOD data or BAD data.

In the end, do what makes you feel good. Thats all that matters.

Everyone has made good points here. None of my statements are meant to be personal. It's just that I feel strongly about this topic and I think that it is often misunderstood.

Extremest environmentalists successfully swayed Ca to enact the MLPA while simultaneously discrediting fishermen and painting fisheries biology as the enemy.

-Owyn

[kurtfish]

If the data collectors see no fish than they report we must be overfishing it is that simple. We need to report all our landings including the baitfish we release. Owyn is a scientist, a fisherman, and a very concerned outdoorsmen. I just gave him some Yt filets for his Homeguard study.

All this abduction discussion and negative sentiments for the DFG and scientists that are just trying to do their job and accurately report what we catch is really not helpful. My original motivation to start this Clipboard Post was a call from a commercial fishermen attending meetings at Southwest Fisheries last week. The lack of Mackerel landings data was being used as an argument to shut down fishing further. A question came up during the week long discussions on the state of the Mackerel fishery as to how many hours of fishing effort would it take a rod and reel fisher to land a Mackerel off La Jolla. My buddy called me during the meeting to ask if 8 hours of fishing effort should result in at least one landing of a Mackerel off La Jolla any day of the year. My response was Hell Yes. I told my friend that not once in the past three years have a not caught Macs with just an hour or at the most two of effort.

It may seem ridiculous to us but if we do not report our numerous Mackerel landings than the logical deduction for the scientists is that might take 8 hours of effort to get one Mac. Most scientist are not fishermen like Owyn. If you take the time to look at his BWE profile you will see he has some awesome filet techniques. If you can't even take the time to talk to the cute young ladies they typically try to assign to the tough task of data gathering than you really are shooting us all in the foot.

[Zed]

So if I'm sitting in an acre of mixed pac mack, jack mack, and sardines, and they just don't want to take a sabiki, I technically didn't catch any. It's happened. So that would be zero mackerel. I saw 10,000 +/-10%.

Also I'm sure 48hrs otw off LJ (6 trips) w/o a yellowtail isn't uncommon. Must not be any yellowtail there either. Too many flaws in that type of data collection. Good bad data versus bad bad data.


"Just because they're not biting, doesn't mean they're not there."

[The Great Blumpkin]

Now that Kurtfish has spelled it out in a bold large font it all makes sense to me

[dos ballenas]

Originally Posted by Zed

So if I'm sitting in an acre of mixed pac mack, jack mack, and sardines, and they just don't want to take a sabiki, I technically didn't catch any. It's happened. So that would be zero mackerel. I saw 10,000 +/-10%.

Actually the "clipboarder" would record your observations and they would be taken into consideration. Anecdotal evidence is used all the time in fisheries research, and other sciences.

Also I'm sure 48hrs otw off LJ (6 trips) w/o a yellowtail isn't uncommon. Must not be any yellowtail there either. Too many flaws in that type of data collection. Good bad data versus bad bad data.

There are many things that come into consideration when they model the fish stock populations. This is one of those things. Fish age, fish length, the number of years it takes to for a fish reach sexual maturity, number of fish caught in commercial fisheries, number of fish caught in recreational fisheries, water temperature, location, egg biomass, larvae biomass, etc.... There are many different places they gather data from. The equation is pretty complex.

"Just because they're not biting, doesn't mean they're not there."

You make very good points.

But you do realize that regardless of whether or not it is bad bad data or good bad data, they are going to collect the data no matter what. And they will use the data.

So, if they are going to continue to collect data, and the data says there are no fish in the sea, what do you think the environmentalists are going to think?

Its not entirely their fault that they think the oceans aren't what they used to be. The easiest thing is to do is to blame fishermen (fishing is the only thing they have a chance of controlling). They don't have the same crazy addiction that fishermen get, spending all their free time on the water looking for that trophy fish. All the signs say there are not as many fish in the sea as there used to be.

You can't blame them for not knowing that our fisheries are alive and well. They don't witness it firsthand. One way to change their attitudes is to show them. Prove them wrong! Make them feel guilty for buying their imported fish from unknown sources and locations.

Data will be collected. That is a fact. One of the main reasons why the data is only good bad data is because most of us don't participate. The difference between good good data and good bad data is in your hands.

[Zed]

Anecdotal evidence is used all the time in fisheries research, and other sciences.


Its not entirely their fault that they think the oceans aren't what they used to be. The easiest thing is to do is to blame fishermen (fishing is the only thing they have a chance of controlling). They don't have the same crazy addiction that fishermen get, spending all their free time on the water looking for that trophy fish. All the signs say there are not as many fish in the sea as there used to be.

My contention then would be that places like this would be helpful rather than hurtful. Reports like, "YES, after X trips to LJ I finally got a yt!" or "Bait was easy to make just outside the reserve with both jack and pac mack plentiful" would be useful. I realize lack of timely reports are a selfish consequence of crowding and I'm guilty, but wouldn't actual reports help fill the gap left by folks snubbing the surveys?

PS I have some NMFs history, doing age/size/weight (volunteer) studies on pacific sardines. You think a wsb otolith is tricky to get, try a sardine or a thousand. Ha.

EDIT: Post 420!

[dos ballenas]

Originally Posted by Zed

My contention then would be that places like this would be helpful rather than hurtful. Reports like, "YES, after X trips to LJ I finally got a yt!" or "Bait was easy to make just outside the reserve with both jack and pac mack plentiful" would be useful. I realize lack of timely reports are a selfish consequence of crowding and I'm guilty, but wouldn't actual reports help fill the gap left by folks snubbing the surveys?

yes, actual reports could help. but its more complicated than that, which you probably know.

PS I have some NMFs history, doing age/size/weight (volunteer) studies on pacific sardines. You think a wsb otolith is tricky to get, try a sardine or a thousand. Ha.

EDIT: Post 420!

The real solution is to try and change the way fishermen are surveyed. This is difficult and very complicated due to the fact that it could be extremely biased (sound familiar?).

Anybody got any idea? This is a serious question.

The only way I see it working is if there was more cooperation (trust) between fishermen and fisheries biologists.

[Tman]

Originally Posted by dos ballenas

The real solution is to try and change the way fishermen are surveyed. This is difficult and very complicated due to the fact that it could be extremely biased (sound familiar?).

Sounds very familiar...

My concern is how the data will be twisted by the enviro-nazis.

Not bashing anybody, nor am I trying to be argumentative or sway anyone, just stating my opinion.

Either way you look at it, we are damned if we do, damned if we don't.

We tell them we caught nothing, then according to their agenda, said area should be protected since we have depleted that area.

We tell them that, wow, fish were on the chew, then according to their agenda, we are potentially going to deplete the fish population and therefore said area should be protected.

Reminds me of when that kook claiming he was a diver said that he had dove the LJ reserve and saw no fish...obviously he was telling the truth, regardless of whether he actually dove that area, re-phooking-gardless if he actually knew what he was doing, according to him, no fish to be seen.

He then suggested extending the reserve.

Wait a minute...my thoughts, if he saw no fish, and based on his statement of how experienced he was, would that not justify that the reserve was a lesson in futility and we should seek other methods to increase the fish population, instead of extending the reserve, or implementing more reserves?

Unfortunately, they do have their agenda, regardless of how we respond.

[Rusty]

Owyn -

First of all, I think your job is rad, and would be stoked to do something like that. You are lucky!

Hear me out.... I AM ALL FOR BIOLOGY AND THE RESEARCH OF OUR LOCAL FISHERIES. I TEACH LIFE SCIENCE, and I love studying animals and their behaviors and habitats. Personally, I've heard that several biologists with the clipboards are also found on the "other side" of the meetings. Here's how I feel - if we report too many fish, we're depleting the fishery, too little - and we've already depleted it.... lose-lose.

Now, if they asked what the water conditions were like, what species I saw both visually and on the meter, and how many of them I saw, I would be more than happy to share, and by God I'd love to read a scientific journal jam packed with that information. I just think that sampling a small population of anglers solely based on their catch is just not enough to get any decent information from, so I don't contribute, nor would I waste my time reading a "scientific" publication on it.

Owyn, you've told me (and I've heard) about your work and what you do is outstanding. Therefore, you have to admit the clipboard work is complete crap, and just about any other method is better. There are too many ignored variables and it is bad science. I don't take part in bad science.

If EVERYONE refused to talk to clipboarders, they'd have to find a real way to their research, and garbage surveys COULD'NT be part of the decision making process because they wouldn't exist. ....feel me?

[Margarita Mike]

A wise man once said: Its not about closures, its about proper management.
__________________
____________________________________________
Than why is there a gill net 1/4 mile long at the south island? And I heard that another one is going in at the north island. I know its Mexico, but proper management is for all man kind.
These nets are raking everything.

[PAL]

I think many people here are mis-stating the purpose of most of the clip-boarders, whether assigning them nefarious motives or inflating the purpose of the data.

Unless the scheme has changed in the past few months, this cheap labor (mostly college students) collects catch data for the state California Recreational Fish Survey (CRFS) program.

The state data is used by the federal Pacific Fisheries Management Council. The PFMC is focused on management, not no-touchy BS. The MLPA is an end-run around the PFMC. The enviro groups hate it.

The PFMC sets species catch quotas. When the quotas are hit, it can trigger an early closure. For examples, the rockfish and lingcod shut-downs in the 2000s. INACCURATE (overestimated) CATCH DATA CAN CAUSE EARLY CLOSURES, AS HAPPENED SEVERAL TIMES UNDER THE PRIOR MRFS PHONE SURVEY! We don't want to return to those days.

It's to our advantage if the PFMC has accurate information so management truly works.

As I've said before, my opinion is your should do whatever feels right. Some of the survey takers ARE misinformed, like the one someone ran into at Shelter Island a few months back that thought La Jolla was closed. Others are enthusiastic kids with an interest in the ocean because they actually get out and enjoy the resource, the kind of people we want to stay in the marine biology business.

Some aspects of kurtfish's original post sound odd to me, as if it is only part of the full story. By this logic, the newish Channel Islands MPAs must be overfished, because no one is reporting any catch from them. Recreational mackerel take is minuscule. The PFMC allocation must be enormous. As I understand it, only the damn enviro groups tout declining catch numbers as evidence of overfishing. The equations are much more complex for fisheries *management* scientists.

Whatever, go fish!

[Billy V]

Thanks Paul.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by PAL

I think many people here are mis-stating the purpose of most of the clip-boarders, whether assigning them nefarious motives or inflating the purpose of the data.

Unless the scheme has changed in the past few months, this cheap labor (mostly college students) collects catch data for the state California Recreational Fish Survey (CRFS) program.

The state data is used by the federal Pacific Fisheries Management Council. The PFMC is focused on management, not no-touchy BS. The MLPA is an end-run around the PFMC. The enviro groups hate it.

The PFMC sets species catch quotas. When the quotas are hit, it can trigger an early closure. For examples, the rockfish and lingcod shut-downs in the 2000s. INACCURATE CATCH DATA CAN CAUSE EARLY CLOSURES, AS HAPPENED SEVERAL TIMES UNDER THE PRIOR MRFS PHONE SURVEY! We don't want to return to those days.

It's to our advantage if the PFMC has accurate information so management truly works.

As I've said before, my opinion is your should do whatever feels right. Some of the survey takers ARE misinformed, like the one someone ran into at Shelter Island a few months back that thought La Jolla was closed. Others are enthusiastic kids with an interest in the ocean because they actually get out and enjoy the resource, the kind of people we want to stay in the marine biology business.

Some aspects of kurtfish's original post sound odd to me, as if it is only part of the full story. By this logic, the newish Channel Islands MPAs must be overfished, because no one is reporting any catch from them. Recreational mackerel take is minuscule. The PFMC allocation must be enormous. As I understand it, only the damn enviro groups tout declining catch numbers as evidence of overfishing. The equations are much more complex for fisheries *management* scientists.

Whatever, go fish!

So the info the clipboarders get is only used for managing open / closed season, and limits? It doesn't get to the MLPA closure process?

,,,, I feel stupid.

[PAL]

^That's it's main purpose, management. I can't say whether the data works its way into other studies. It's collected via state money, so it's probably public and finds other uses.

The science behind the MLPA is is predominantly about habitat, which fishes benefit from it, and the theories behind larval dispersement, and gross manipulation of said theories to fit a predetermined outcome (you didn't think I'd miss a chance to mention the MLPA's agenda-driven "science," did you?).

So far as I've observed, there's a philosophical gulf between the biologists who favor the MLPA and those who work in fisheries management. Maybe Owyn can weigh in on the different methodologies.

[Rusty]

So I was launching on Saturday and saw DFG Clipboarder that I have seen on the sporties a lot. I asked him what their information is used for and he basically said the same thing as Paul. They use it for rockfish quota, determining seasons' lengths, and limits. He said it is also a "general way to keep track of, and manage fisheries." I asked him about MPLA closures and how this information relates, and his answer was that "they get information from many sources." On the way back in I shared my Cuda, Checker, bait and other catches with him. My new philosophy on sharing with them (now that I know why they're there): I will share with the clipboarders I like.

[kurtfish]

DFG and NOAA are agencies that do impact the development of and implimentation of local fishing regualtions. More and accurate data will help us all battle the environmentalists that just want to close us down.

Let's keep open minds to our friendly data collectors and Rusty's questions prior to sharing his results are a good way to get comfortable with the process and the people behind the research.RecFishYearinReview2010.pdf

[Matt]

Well I will continue with my "no talking" policy towards the clipboarders, as I fought the mlpa from the beginning I noticed a lot of data seeming to come from out of nowhere....for instance north of the pier was never on the agenda and then after the "where do you fish" and "clipboard" questioning suddenly that are is gone.....not sure if my mistrust is well placed but just as a standard policy "loose lips sink ships"


Fuck the MLPA!

[FISHIONADO]

Can't let Matt have the last word! After a long day on the water and only seeing you gnarly smelly fishermen out there I'm a sucker for a girl with a smile. I'll tell her my favorite fishing spot and where I was born and SSN and astrological sign. It would all be bullshit anyway, I might even do it with a New Zealand accent.

Seriously though, I always chat with them and share what I know and I get good info from them about current conditions and what they have seen the last couple days etc.