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.
4136

[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..:leaving:

[radastaff]

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..:leaving:

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]

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..:leaving:

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

[GregAndrew]

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.

[Regor]

I've never seen "them", but I'm reading through this thread and hear assumptions going both ways, for them, against them.

Every reputable organization usually has "the" pitch that they are told to use....

..
..

Hi, I'm Susie from Scripts Institute, and I'm here to do a survey ... blah blah blah.

Hi, I'm Joe, your local DFG officer. Here to check your catch and license.

So far I've heard no-one state who these folks really are, or who they say they are? Guess if I ever see the "clipboard lady" I'll have to pick her brain as much as she tries to pick mine :)

[tagyak]

not to change the subject; Regor i just noticed your avatar. all this time i thought it was just two clown fish, i didn't notice that they were painted onto two peoples cheeks.
that is really cool......

[radastaff]

not to change the subject; Regor i just noticed your avatar. all this time i thought it was just two clown fish, i didn't notice that they were painted onto two peoples cheeks.
that is really cool......


that is way cool
iam trippin on it

imagine u and ure gf/wife having those tatts
that would be crazy

[MuddyMike]

So far I've heard no-one state who these folks really are, or who they say they are? Guess if I ever see the "clipboard lady" I'll have to pick her brain as much as she tries to pick mine :)
I met a clipboard lady coming in at Dana Landing. I asked "Who is this for?" She said DFG. She had a DFG hat and shirt on, not a uniform, just a hat with the emblem, and white shirt with the emblem. She was not driving a DFG marked car either.

[Margarita Mike]

At this point, I really don't trust any of them. Who can you believe anymore?
Sorry.

[dos ballenas]

I met a clipboard lady coming in at Dana Landing. I asked "Who is this for?" She said DFG. She had a DFG hat and shirt on, not a uniform, just a hat with the emblem, and white shirt with the emblem. She was not driving a DFG marked car either.

DFG wardens wear uniforms.

DFG biologists DO NOT wear uniforms, or drive state vehicles.

You guys are classic. The sky is falling the sky is falling!

Do you guys believe in medical science?

There are many people that are passionate about the ocean. Most of them do not have hidden agendas.

Yes there are flaws in the way the data is collected. Yes there are probably better ways to get better data.

We still have a lot to learn about the ocean and all its resources.

I can't figure it out: The same guys that don't trust fisheries biologists are the same guys that get excited about stuff like the satellite tagging of albacore tuna and tracking them across the ocean from Japan to the U.S. West coast.

Without fisheries research and management many of our Ca fisheries would have collapsed a long time ago.

Can you imagine what it would be like if no one ever took the time to figure out how long it takes for a Calico to reach sexual maturity? What about banning inshore drift gill nets?

A wise man once said: Its not about closures, its about proper management.

[MuddyMike]

DFG wardens wear uniforms.

DFG biologists DO NOT wear uniforms, or drive state vehicles.

You guys are classic. The sky is falling the sky is falling!

Do you guys believe in medical science?


:eek: Chill out man. What part of my post mentioned I doubted her.

I was responding to the other post about people asking who they were. I had no reason to doubt she was taking data for DFG.

[MuddyMike]

ok, after re-reading it, i can see how it could have been taken that way. i was just reporting what i saw. the thought of her not being legit didn't even cross my mind. she even had a big metal fish measurer with her.

[T Bone]

I say just tell them the truth.If the other side wants to twist it so be it.Integrity is allways more important.

I had a clipboard lady call me on the phone.It wasnt about what I caught,It was about where I fish.It was an economic impact survey.

[dorado50]

You guys are classic. The sky is falling the sky is falling!

X2......lmao

[TCS]

The last time I got questioned by the 'clipboard people' I didn't feel like talking. This girl who had seemed nice and cute starts to get all mad and she touches the secret button on her collar and a black unmarked van came roaring onto the beach. These navy seal types hopped out, threw me in the van and off we go. Next thing I know the damn van is lifting off, we leave the atmosphere to outer space behind the moon to be a friggin alien mothership.

I won't gross you out with the other details of the abduction, except to say the the 'clipboard people' are not actually people at all and their 'survey' is really a part of a diabolical plan to take over and dominate our planet!

[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 :rolleyes:

[dos ballenas]

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 :rolleyes:


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. :reel:

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 :you_rock:

[dos ballenas]

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!:sifone:

[dos ballenas]

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!:sifone:

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]

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, :eek: 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? :hmmmm2::doh:

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. <!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
__________________
____________________________________________
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]

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.

:D

[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.4165

[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.

[bus kid]

Fuck the MLPA!


couldn't have said it better myself. :cheers1:

[stuppid]

What one has to worry about in my opinion is who is going to interpret the data and how are they going to use it. I can imagine two ways. High fish counts can help you and hurt you. If they are using fish counts to estimate the total fish population then high fish counts can help because high fish counts would equate to a healthy fishery. If they already have an estimate of the fish population by some other means then high fish counts could be interpreted as over take. If they have a low estimate of the fish population and the take is high they will have to take measures to reduce the take. I don't have any idea how they use the data but it is the pits when you feel that you cant trust the government to do the right thing whatever that might be.

[flydigital]

What one has to worry about in my opinion is who is going to interpret the data and how are they going to use it. I can imagine two ways. High fish counts can help you and hurt you. If they are using fish counts to estimate the total fish population then high fish counts can help because high fish counts would equate to a healthy fishery. If they already have an estimate of the fish population by some other means then high fish counts could be interpreted as over take. If they have a low estimate of the fish population and the take is high they will have to take measures to reduce the take. I don't have any idea how they use the data but it is the pits when you feel that you cant trust the government to do the right thing whatever that might be.

The DFG, like many state's wildlife departments, has really done a great job managing take and balancing a habitat so it reaches is optimal population / carrying capacity. This is true for big game as well as fish. The are using REAL science and fixing problems before they get out of control.

The problem is when other government/legislation comes in and tries to "fix" existing policies that DFG has spent decades working on to find the best solution. We've already fixed it. DFG has done a great job and if we would just let them continue doing their job we would be just fine and everyone would be much happier. But that's just too darn non-dramatic and makes too much sense for a state like California to fathom.

Anyway, generally higher take figures are indicative of a thriving population.