[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!