LJ Conditions has it all wrong, Clipboarders are good - Kayak Fishing Adventures on Big Water’s Edge

dos ballenas · 05-09-2011, 12:31 PM

Very very very good points Kurt. Thank you.

NOT talking to the survey people only HURTS fishermen.

It's important to realize that "science" is going to go on, regardless of whether or not you talk to them.

With or without you, fish populations ARE being scrutinized, studied, researched, counted, analysed, etc...

You can choose to keep your mouth shut and let the science happen without your input, or you can choose to contribute and help shape the face of fisheries research.

Either way, the science will go on.

Do you want the guys doing the science to have bad data, or good data?

The data they are compiling is used to determine the stock status of given species.

Without your help all they have is bad data.

Its easy to assume that there are NO fish in the sea when all the fishermen are reporting NO fish.

When you DON'T talk to the survey people it's pretty easy for them to assume that you didn't catch anything.

This can be easily interpreted that there are NO fish in the sea to catch.

YES, it's easy for data to be used against fishermen. Especially when all the data says that there are NO fish in the sea.

That is why it is important to have GOOD data. If we had data that could have shown how healthy our fishery actually is, things may have have been different during the MLPA process. Fishermen would have been able to back themselves up better.

Unfortunately, the lack of data told a different story.

The point is, you are only hurting yourself by keeping your mouth shut.

There is an old saying that 10% of the fishermen catch 90% of the fish. Unfortunately that saying is more or less true. And if the environmentalists base their "opinions" on the reports they get from the 90% of fishermen that never catch any fish, then its easy to see how people tend to think that the oceans are over fished and we need to close areas and make reserve...

Most of you should be able see how this is NOT helpful to fishermen.

Environmental extremists DON'T have a clue as to whats really going on with our fisheries. Which is mainly our fault.

kurtfish · 05-09-2011, 01:07 PM

Awsome job spelling it out for us non-science guys. The MLPA process was so one sided that our good showings of black shirts to try to counter balance the baby blue shirts was not very effective. My son was able to get a few good words in at the meetings and we left the following photos on the BRTF memeber tables but the faulty science fuled the day.

Bob Fletcher and United Anglers continue their tireless work against the MLPA porcess on our behave. One lawsuit vistory so far that focused on the "closed door meetings" that were part of the review process and now the ongoing lawsuit focusing on the Environmental Quality Act which had the audacity to project no economic impact on the Southern California economy if the most restrictive MPAs were imposed. Talk about science without any real data to back it up. If we report no fish landed than cutting down our fishing areas and making us all fish on top of each other really should not impact our lack of sucess. Since we must all be idiots to spend so much time on the water not catching anything than restricting our fishing areas really should not impact our results or the commerical business associated with our fruitless efforts. This is the way the tree huggers think about what we love to do and this is what the scientsts reports allow them to justify with the inaccurate data they have collected.

I am guilty as well as I have reported landings or lack there of many times but never once did I mention how many Macs I released after a cozy afternoon in my bait tank.
Name: MLPA2red.jpg
Views: 3857
Size: 87.5 KB

Name: MLPA2red.jpg
Views: 3857
Size: 87.5 KB

dos ballenas · 05-09-2011, 01:34 PM

The Sportfishing Association of Ca, its current president Ken Franke, and its past president Bob Fletcher all support the research being done by the CADFG, NMFS, NOAA, port samplers, etc.

There are many ways fishermen can become involved in helping fisheries biologists get better data.

One way or another, they will always be data.

YES, environmentalists will try to use any and all data to promote their agenda. But that doesn't mean fishermen can't use it to promote their agenda as well.

Amish Ed · 05-09-2011, 07:55 PM

It's funny, but whenever I talk to the clipboard ladies they seem surprised when I report that I release all my fish. Never the less I've always figured it couldn't hurt to talk to them. Thanks to Kurt I now know why.

dorado50 · 05-09-2011, 09:12 PM

If I catch fish Im more than willing to talk to these people

when I don't they seem to irratate me!! That's just the way it is.. Great info guys. Hopefully someday I can move past the irratation phase..

radastaff · 05-09-2011, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dorado50

If I catch fish Im more than willing to talk to these people

when I don't they seem to irratate me!! That's just the way it is.. Great info guys. Hopefully someday I can move past the irratation phase..

good point too

when i dont catch fish
i get irratated easily
specially when someone comes up to me after the long hard windy day
and askes me if i did
grrr

dos ballenas · 05-09-2011, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dorado50

If I catch fish Im more than willing to talk to these people

when I don't they seem to irratate me!! That's just the way it is.. Great info guys. Hopefully someday I can move past the irratation phase..

agreed! I hate talking to anyone when I smell skunky!

GregAndrew · 05-10-2011, 01:59 PM

While I don't believe in general that the clip board crew have an agenda, the data they gather is not scientific and will create statistics that will be used inacurately against us. Surveying is much less effective in creating useful statistics when there is a low responce rate. From what I have seen at the launches, that is the case.

If the catch rates are relatively high, then we are going to be blamed for overfishing. If they are low then there are no more fish in the ocean. If 80% of anglers catch their target fish, then the other 20% will be the point of the other sides argument. In a protectionist political environment, it is better for us to provide less ammo for the other side. So the question is " Does my response provide more or less ammo to those who would close fishing?".

I don't know what the best thing for us to do is, but I am pretty sure that information obtained from these surveys will not help us catch fish. Nor will it accurately determine fish populations. I am inclined to cooperate when I catch fish and decline when I don't.

05-09-2011, 12:31 PM	#1
dos ballenas Vampyroteuthis infernalis Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 585	Very very very good points Kurt. Thank you. NOT talking to the survey people only HURTS fishermen. It's important to realize that "science" is going to go on, regardless of whether or not you talk to them. With or without you, fish populations ARE being scrutinized, studied, researched, counted, analysed, etc... You can choose to keep your mouth shut and let the science happen without your input, or you can choose to contribute and help shape the face of fisheries research. Either way, the science will go on. Do you want the guys doing the science to have bad data, or good data? The data they are compiling is used to determine the stock status of given species. Without your help all they have is bad data. Its easy to assume that there are NO fish in the sea when all the fishermen are reporting NO fish. When you DON'T talk to the survey people it's pretty easy for them to assume that you didn't catch anything. This can be easily interpreted that there are NO fish in the sea to catch. YES, it's easy for data to be used against fishermen. Especially when all the data says that there are NO fish in the sea. That is why it is important to have GOOD data. If we had data that could have shown how healthy our fishery actually is, things may have have been different during the MLPA process. Fishermen would have been able to back themselves up better. Unfortunately, the lack of data told a different story. The point is, you are only hurting yourself by keeping your mouth shut. There is an old saying that 10% of the fishermen catch 90% of the fish. Unfortunately that saying is more or less true. And if the environmentalists base their "opinions" on the reports they get from the 90% of fishermen that never catch any fish, then its easy to see how people tend to think that the oceans are over fished and we need to close areas and make reserve... Most of you should be able see how this is NOT helpful to fishermen. Environmental extremists DON'T have a clue as to whats really going on with our fisheries. Which is mainly our fault. __________________ ____________________________________________ Last edited by dos ballenas; 05-09-2011 at 02:11 PM.

05-09-2011, 01:07 PM	#2
kurtfish Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: I work in the little Village of La Jolla Posts: 139	Thanks for the real world back-up Awsome job spelling it out for us non-science guys. The MLPA process was so one sided that our good showings of black shirts to try to counter balance the baby blue shirts was not very effective. My son was able to get a few good words in at the meetings and we left the following photos on the BRTF memeber tables but the faulty science fuled the day. Bob Fletcher and United Anglers continue their tireless work against the MLPA porcess on our behave. One lawsuit vistory so far that focused on the "closed door meetings" that were part of the review process and now the ongoing lawsuit focusing on the Environmental Quality Act which had the audacity to project no economic impact on the Southern California economy if the most restrictive MPAs were imposed. Talk about science without any real data to back it up. If we report no fish landed than cutting down our fishing areas and making us all fish on top of each other really should not impact our lack of sucess. Since we must all be idiots to spend so much time on the water not catching anything than restricting our fishing areas really should not impact our results or the commerical business associated with our fruitless efforts. This is the way the tree huggers think about what we love to do and this is what the scientsts reports allow them to justify with the inaccurate data they have collected. I am guilty as well as I have reported landings or lack there of many times but never once did I mention how many Macs I released after a cozy afternoon in my bait tank.

05-09-2011, 01:34 PM	#3
dos ballenas Vampyroteuthis infernalis Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 585	The Sportfishing Association of Ca, its current president Ken Franke, and its past president Bob Fletcher all support the research being done by the CADFG, NMFS, NOAA, port samplers, etc. There are many ways fishermen can become involved in helping fisheries biologists get better data. One way or another, they will always be data. YES, environmentalists will try to use any and all data to promote their agenda. But that doesn't mean fishermen can't use it to promote their agenda as well. __________________ ____________________________________________ Last edited by dos ballenas; 05-09-2011 at 02:37 PM.

05-09-2011, 07:55 PM	#4
Amish Ed Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Grants Pass, OR Posts: 1,906	It's funny, but whenever I talk to the clipboard ladies they seem surprised when I report that I release all my fish. Never the less I've always figured it couldn't hurt to talk to them. Thanks to Kurt I now know why. __________________ Amish Ed You can't catch it again if it's dead!

05-09-2011, 09:12 PM	#5
dorado50 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: La Jolla Shores Posts: 1,626	If I catch fish Im more than willing to talk to these people when I don't they seem to irratate me!! That's just the way it is.. Great info guys. Hopefully someday I can move past the irratation phase..

05-10-2011, 01:59 PM	#8
GregAndrew Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 2,384	While I don't believe in general that the clip board crew have an agenda, the data they gather is not scientific and will create statistics that will be used inacurately against us. Surveying is much less effective in creating useful statistics when there is a low responce rate. From what I have seen at the launches, that is the case. If the catch rates are relatively high, then we are going to be blamed for overfishing. If they are low then there are no more fish in the ocean. If 80% of anglers catch their target fish, then the other 20% will be the point of the other sides argument. In a protectionist political environment, it is better for us to provide less ammo for the other side. So the question is " Does my response provide more or less ammo to those who would close fishing?". I don't know what the best thing for us to do is, but I am pretty sure that information obtained from these surveys will not help us catch fish. Nor will it accurately determine fish populations. I am inclined to cooperate when I catch fish and decline when I don't.