LJ Conditions has it all wrong, Clipboarders are good - Kayak Fishing Adventures on Big Water’s Edge

Rusty · 05-13-2011, 11:44 PM

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 · 05-14-2011, 06:52 AM

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 · 05-14-2011, 09:17 AM

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 · 05-14-2011, 11:50 AM

Thanks Paul.

Rusty · 05-14-2011, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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 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 · 05-14-2011, 01:36 PM

^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 · 05-17-2011, 09:01 PM

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.

kurtfish · 05-18-2011, 10:35 AM

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.RecFishYearinReview2010.pdf

05-13-2011, 11:44 PM	#1
Rusty Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: LJ Posts: 201	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? __________________

05-14-2011, 09:17 AM	#3
PAL Senior Member Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 754	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! Last edited by PAL; 05-14-2011 at 01:37 PM.

05-14-2011, 11:50 AM	#4
Billy V Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Bay Ho Posts: 1,382	Thanks Paul. __________________

05-17-2011, 09:01 PM	#7
Rusty Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: LJ Posts: 201	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. __________________

05-18-2011, 10:35 AM	#8
kurtfish Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: I work in the little Village of La Jolla Posts: 139	Thanks for Sharing Rusty 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.RecFishYearinReview2010.pdf

05-14-2011, 06:52 AM	#2
Margarita Mike Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: San Diego Posts: 76	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.

05-14-2011, 01:36 PM	#6
PAL Senior Member Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 754	^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.