LJ Conditions has it all wrong, Clipboarders are good

[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.

[Tman]

Originally Posted by dos ballenas

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, 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?

Unfortunately, they do have their agenda, regardless of how we respond.