LJ Conditions has it all wrong, Clipboarders are good

[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

[dos ballenas]

Originally Posted by 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

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

[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.
__________________
____________________________________________
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!