'Illusion of plenty' masking collapse of 2 key Southern California fisheries

[Croaker Dave]

I have no comment on the quality of this bass study.

It's interesting that they mention the atlantic cod fishery. IIRC, it was the continual advancing of commercial fishing technology that enabled the fishery to maintain good fish counts even as they decimated the cod population to almost nothing.

[mazilla]

Sounds like junk science tailored to fit their agenda...the world is full of these types of "studies".

[Ed]

Originally Posted by mazilla

Sounds like junk science tailored to fit their agenda...the world is full of these types of "studies".

All they did was compare historical catch rates since 1980. It is more history than science. Pretty good study by Scripps.

[blitzburgh]

I work for a company that supplies product to THE major home improvement chain in the U.S.. We conduct and/or pay for, study, after study after survey, after survey for various sales purposes. The results we receive from any one of these are always mixed at best. I find it hard to believe they can come to such a assertive conclusion with the massive amount of variables that would come into play in something like this.

[Phatford]

I doubt Scripps would risk their reputation on shaky science... The mention Environment in the beginning article. You can't get a good feel for what all they measured in a few short paragraphs and certainly can't fit 30 years of data on one page.

There is no doubt changes need to be made in my mind, but what kind of fair changes can we help make? Calling every study bad science is not going to help our cause. Pretending we are catching the same quality of fish we used to catch is also bad science or poor memory... ha ha

But it's a damn good thing we have people out there saving the seals... oh wait!

[maui jim]

Surprising no mention of the "Goreacle" .....You think Al would have chimmed in..

[robmandel]

like every "study", there are many variables. I would tend to agree that yes, the fishing has declined over the course of the last thirty years I've been fishing. but then again, that's relative to a few things. certainly I've seen some fishing rebound and improve dramatically, for instance the channel islands in ventura/SB counties.

The authors acknowledge that both bass species began declining in the early 1980s, a drop other studies have directly linked with a climatic shift in regional water temperatures. But they say fishing impacts exacerbated the declines.
"The combined evidence from this study indicates that persistent overfishing of seasonal spawning aggregations by recreational fisheries brought about the collapse of barred sand bass and kelp bass stocks in Southern California," the authors write in their paper.

I'm not going to dispute that the fish stocks are not what they once were. however, the question as to why is different. the tremendous growth of coastal populations and all the crap that gets dumped in the water can't be helpful. also, these fish are very structure oriented and that's been a problem.

look at a study like that (and since I teach economics, one must always be aware of cause vs. effect, and must appreciate the difference) and that means the declining bass populations aren't the "problem" but the result of the problem. since they're at the end part of the chain (figuring that water quality improves kelp, more kelp and plankton, more bait fish, more bait fish, etc.) one has to go back to the beginning. bass populations are an amalgam of the components, not the singular issue.

bottom line is that we have ALWAYS supported sound management, reduced take limits, slot limits, all that. no fisherman wants to fish out the ocean. closing off areas to fishing aren't going to the core of the problem since the declining populations are an end result.

In fact, closing areas will only make the problem worse, as we pointed out at the public hearings. the open areas will get overfished even worse, leaving a greater imbalance between the populated areas. and that still won't solve the other environmental issues that have hurt the fish stocks.

[taggermike]

It's a bit of an apples to oranges thing to compare atlantic cod to sand and calico bass. There is no commercial bass fishery in CA. Only party boat landings record numbers of fish landed (no size, age, or sex data). And the landing's numbers are occationally suspect. Private boaters' part in the fishery is difficult to assess. The spotty creel samples taken at the launch ramps can not give an acurate account of fish taken. You factor in the increase in C&R and the view gets even cloudier. 4 anglers bass fishing for 8 hours with no fish landed looks statisticly like 32 hours of fishing effort for 0 fish. That looks like a serious decline in fish stocks. Except they went to San Clemente Island and caught and released 50 calico bass each. They also mention entrapment in power plant intakes. This is real data of fish killed, but only for fish large enough to get caught in screens or traps. Larval fish passing through the power plant's cooling systems are extreamly difficult to quantify. Landings of sport fish are also subject to conditions way out side of fisheries data. When gas was $5.00 a gallon several summers ago it might have made the data look like catches were down when in accuallity there was simply less fishing pressure on the stocks for that time period. OK, I've gone on enough but these are a few things that can complicate studies of this type. Mike

[Handymansd]

Originally Posted by Phatford

But it's a damn good thing we have people out there saving the seals... oh wait!

It would be interesting to see a study on the tonnage of fish that the overgrown colony of LJ seals and sea lions eat VS. the recreational fishermen in LJ. Hell, I bet the Cormorants would give us a pretty good run for our money in pound per capita comparison.