LJ Conditions has it all wrong, Clipboarders are good

[kurtfish]

As for the conditions today they are not good, white caps and big waves at launch.

In regards to the clipboard ladies they are just trying to get data on fishing activities and it is good to report all fish caught especially baitfish. Last week a Mackerel fishery conference was held at Scripps and the lack of reporting of Mackerel landings by recreational fishermen made the scientists report that we hardly catch any Macs with all the hours of sportfishing logged in our local waters. The 1/2 days boats don't bother reporting Mac landings either so the data shows not many Macs caught in the local waters. If we don't let the scientsists know how plentiful the various species of Macs are around here they will have justification to place limits on these specieis.

The graduate students that are trying to collect data have nothing to do with the MLPA process they are accurally trying to help us. The more fish we report the better picture we paint of the very healthly local fisheries that we have in our area. If we under report to these dedicated folks that are just trying to do a challenging job we play into the hands of the MPA pormoteres and the "all oceans are overfished" folks that want to shut us down.

My commerical fishing client that attended the meetings at Scripps last week is the one that suggested we need to make proper reports even with the fish we release so the scientists cant' say that all these guys spending lots of time fishing our local waters are not catching much fish at all. If we don't report our landings proeprly they don't know about all the fish we catch very single trip.

Don't foreget to turn-in your WSB heads to Hubbs as well. The scientists at Hubbs are trying to help us as well. Not all scientists are in the pockets of The Packard Foundation.

[dos ballenas]

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]

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.

[dos ballenas]

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]

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]

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..

[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.