'Illusion of plenty' masking collapse of 2 key Southern California fisheries - Kayak Fishing Adventures on Big Water’s Edge

taggermike · 09-27-2011, 01:57 PM

It's a bit of an apples to oranges thing to compare atlantic cod to sand and calico bass. There is no commercial bass fishery in CA. Only party boat landings record numbers of fish landed (no size, age, or sex data). And the landing's numbers are occationally suspect. Private boaters' part in the fishery is difficult to assess. The spotty creel samples taken at the launch ramps can not give an acurate account of fish taken. You factor in the increase in C&R and the view gets even cloudier. 4 anglers bass fishing for 8 hours with no fish landed looks statisticly like 32 hours of fishing effort for 0 fish. That looks like a serious decline in fish stocks. Except they went to San Clemente Island and caught and released 50 calico bass each. They also mention entrapment in power plant intakes. This is real data of fish killed, but only for fish large enough to get caught in screens or traps. Larval fish passing through the power plant's cooling systems are extreamly difficult to quantify. Landings of sport fish are also subject to conditions way out side of fisheries data. When gas was $5.00 a gallon several summers ago it might have made the data look like catches were down when in accuallity there was simply less fishing pressure on the stocks for that time period. OK, I've gone on enough but these are a few things that can complicate studies of this type. Mike

dsafety · 09-27-2011, 02:34 PM

I may have a worm's eye view of this subject but it is hard for me to believe that recreational fishing has "decimated" the stocks of Calico's and Sand Bass. We are out there on the water and we see what people catch and keep. It would surprise me if on a given day any more than about 25 of these kinds of fish are killed by recreational fishers off the San Diego coast. Most days the take is probably far less.

I suppose that the party boats with their many clients who just want to take home some sort of trophy regardless of species or size, probably hurt the population a bit. Even if that is the case we are talking about a very large ocean here. While some areas are heavily fished, many habitats likely receive little or no fishing pressure.

On the other hand, Scripps is known for its good science and if they say that the fish stocks have been reduced, I am sure they are right. The important questions are, "what is the real cause?" and "how can the situation be reversed?"

In the unlikely case that recreational fishing is the cause, the solution is simple. Shorten the seasons, reduce the limits or if the situation is dire, go to C&R only for the species proclaimed to be in danger. I think that most recreational fishers would happily embrace such regulations if they were based on reliable scientific data.

I am just guessing but I suspect that the real cause is more likely related to the changes in water temperature, food supplies and/or pollution. Maybe these fish are victims of the exploding seal and sea lion populations that have occurred in the places where these fish typically live and breed.

Just my opinion.

Bob

GregAndrew · 09-27-2011, 02:38 PM

Here are a few other suspect things that I noticed in the article. Their theory on "Hyperstability" assumes that people were not fishing the spawing grounds before. In the case of Sandbass, I would highly disagree with that assumption. I don't believe for a minute that the biomass has decreased by 90% without a decrease in the catch rate, regardless of where they are being targeted. Also, using data from the intakes of powerplants seems a bit skewed too. The long term effect of a 24/7 intake has to be the reduction of the fish population in the nearby waters. Especially for fish of slow growth rate that don't travel very far in their lifetime like Kelp Bass. It is funny how they dismis "changes in environmental conditions" in less than it's own sentence as a contributing factor.

I agree with Rob, there are a multitude of factors that effect the fish counts. And just like forcasting the weather, nobody is very effective at putting all the pieces together. Is there really far less tuna in the sea the last 2 years than there was 3 years ago, or are environmental factors influencing the counts? I also agree that the most important steps are controlling pollution and creating structure along the SoCal coast. Most of the artificial reefs created along our coast are little more than bumps of sand today.

DanaPT · 09-27-2011, 03:39 PM

Not as many fish in the water.

It's still fun.

09-27-2011, 03:39 PM	#4
DanaPT Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: South OC Posts: 1,606	this is my new excuse for not catching fish. . Not as many fish in the water. It's still fun.

09-27-2011, 01:57 PM	#1
taggermike Senior Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Chula Vista Posts: 1,589	It's a bit of an apples to oranges thing to compare atlantic cod to sand and calico bass. There is no commercial bass fishery in CA. Only party boat landings record numbers of fish landed (no size, age, or sex data). And the landing's numbers are occationally suspect. Private boaters' part in the fishery is difficult to assess. The spotty creel samples taken at the launch ramps can not give an acurate account of fish taken. You factor in the increase in C&R and the view gets even cloudier. 4 anglers bass fishing for 8 hours with no fish landed looks statisticly like 32 hours of fishing effort for 0 fish. That looks like a serious decline in fish stocks. Except they went to San Clemente Island and caught and released 50 calico bass each. They also mention entrapment in power plant intakes. This is real data of fish killed, but only for fish large enough to get caught in screens or traps. Larval fish passing through the power plant's cooling systems are extreamly difficult to quantify. Landings of sport fish are also subject to conditions way out side of fisheries data. When gas was $5.00 a gallon several summers ago it might have made the data look like catches were down when in accuallity there was simply less fishing pressure on the stocks for that time period. OK, I've gone on enough but these are a few things that can complicate studies of this type. Mike

09-27-2011, 02:34 PM	#2
dsafety Olivenhain Bob Join Date: May 2008 Location: Olivenhain, CA Posts: 1,122	I may have a worm's eye view of this subject but it is hard for me to believe that recreational fishing has "decimated" the stocks of Calico's and Sand Bass. We are out there on the water and we see what people catch and keep. It would surprise me if on a given day any more than about 25 of these kinds of fish are killed by recreational fishers off the San Diego coast. Most days the take is probably far less. I suppose that the party boats with their many clients who just want to take home some sort of trophy regardless of species or size, probably hurt the population a bit. Even if that is the case we are talking about a very large ocean here. While some areas are heavily fished, many habitats likely receive little or no fishing pressure. On the other hand, Scripps is known for its good science and if they say that the fish stocks have been reduced, I am sure they are right. The important questions are, "what is the real cause?" and "how can the situation be reversed?" In the unlikely case that recreational fishing is the cause, the solution is simple. Shorten the seasons, reduce the limits or if the situation is dire, go to C&R only for the species proclaimed to be in danger. I think that most recreational fishers would happily embrace such regulations if they were based on reliable scientific data. I am just guessing but I suspect that the real cause is more likely related to the changes in water temperature, food supplies and/or pollution. Maybe these fish are victims of the exploding seal and sea lion populations that have occurred in the places where these fish typically live and breed. Just my opinion. Bob

09-27-2011, 02:38 PM	#3
GregAndrew Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 2,384	Here are a few other suspect things that I noticed in the article. Their theory on "Hyperstability" assumes that people were not fishing the spawing grounds before. In the case of Sandbass, I would highly disagree with that assumption. I don't believe for a minute that the biomass has decreased by 90% without a decrease in the catch rate, regardless of where they are being targeted. Also, using data from the intakes of powerplants seems a bit skewed too. The long term effect of a 24/7 intake has to be the reduction of the fish population in the nearby waters. Especially for fish of slow growth rate that don't travel very far in their lifetime like Kelp Bass. It is funny how they dismis "changes in environmental conditions" in less than it's own sentence as a contributing factor. I agree with Rob, there are a multitude of factors that effect the fish counts. And just like forcasting the weather, nobody is very effective at putting all the pieces together. Is there really far less tuna in the sea the last 2 years than there was 3 years ago, or are environmental factors influencing the counts? I also agree that the most important steps are controlling pollution and creating structure along the SoCal coast. Most of the artificial reefs created along our coast are little more than bumps of sand today.