NorCal Kayak Anglers
Kayak Fishing Zone => Fishing Tournaments and Events => Topic started by: California Collaborative Fisheries Research Program on July 08, 2011, 03:18:47 PM
-
Experienced anglers needed for hook-and-line fishing project used to monitor California marine protected areas (MPAs) along the central California coast!
California Collaborative Fisheries Research Program (CCFRP) volunteers aide local scientists in the collection of valuable data on economically important marine fish species by fishing on board party boats out of Monterey and Half Moon Bay. Once caught, each fish is identified, measured, tagged and released at their respective MPA or reference site. Data recorded from these fishing expeditions will eventually be used by state regulators to evaluate the effectiveness of MPAs in the region.
CCFRP is a partnership of the fishing and scientific communities of central California.By combining the expertise and ideas of fishermen and scientists, we have successfully established protocols that are to gather information for fisheries management and to monitor potential changes in local fish populations with reference to marine protected areas.
This project is a collaborative effort among researchers from CA Sea Grant at Moss Landing Marine Laboratories and SLOSEA/Center for Coastal Marine Sciences at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo and the captains and crew of F/Vs Admiral, Caroline, Fiesta, Huli Cat, New Captain Pete, Pacific Horizon, Patriot, Princess, Queen of Hearts, Rita G, Salty Lady, and Tigerfish.
Join us for a day on the water and some awesome fishing while contributing to our understanding of important marine populations!
Note: Volunteer anglers should have a fair amount of experience fishing in the marine environment. Volunteer anglers must be at least 16 years of age in order to participate. All participants must be able to spend extended periods of time (up to 10 hours per day) on a recreational fishing boat, in potentially rough waters. An interest in marine fish/fishing is strongly desired. Please also note that there will be no individual take on these cruises, in accordance with our CDFG Scientific Collecting Permits.
For more information or to be added to our list of interested volunteers, contact:
California Collaborative Fisheries Research Program
CA Sea Grant / Moss Landing Marine Laboratories
8272 Moss Landing Road | Moss Landing, CA 95039
p: (831) 771-4443 f: (831) 632-4403
e: seagrant@mlml.calstate.edu
-
Big Jim, just spoke with Cheryl at the number in the post. Here are the dates she has thus far
August 8 - 11 Monterey
August 15-18 Half Moon Bay
September 12 - 15 Half Moon Bay
September 19 - 22 Monterey
-
As an expat of the wildlife biology crowd and moderatly obsessed fisherman, I would love to do this! :smt006
I am pretty sure I can do both Half Moon Bay trips if there is still room :smt001
I will know for sure tomorrow.
Jim
-
Can you please provide the details of this study? The data is only as good as the methods use to gather and interpret it. We should all understand exactly what is going on before volunteering to participate.
-
Big Jim, just spoke with Cheryl at the number in the post. Here are the dates she has thus far
August 8 - 11 Monterey
August 15-18 Half Moon Bay
September 12 - 15 Half Moon Bay
September 19 - 22 Monterey
Thanks Brandi!!
:smt006
Sincerely,
Jim
-
Dude, I'm in!! :smt003
-
PolePole - If you want more information regarding this study please visit the follow MLML web page
http://seagrant.mlml.calstate.edu/research/ccfrp/ (http://seagrant.mlml.calstate.edu/research/ccfrp/)
-
I'm good :)
-
would they be the mothership??? looks like a PB trip........would love to "Get Some" of this...fishing protected waters legally....If there were earlier dates I'd be down for this... :smt044 :smt044 :smt044 anytime before aug-sept works for me or after....maybe nxt yr..... :smt009
-
Thanks for the heads up on this Jim. I'm signed up for 8/11 and on the waiting list for 8/10. Hope to see you both days but definitely the 11th.
-FF
-
IM in.
-
Thanks for the heads up on this Jim. I'm signed up for 8/11 and on the waiting list for 8/10. Hope to see you both days but definitely the 11th.
-FF
Awesome!
dpshim, FishMaster 1, Fish Flogger and Big Jim...sounds like a fun time on the water to me!!
:smt003
:smt006
Sincerely,
Jim
-
Hi All,
Please click the following link (http://seagrant.mlml.calstate.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/CCFRP-2010-Report-06032010_Final.pdf (http://seagrant.mlml.calstate.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/CCFRP-2010-Report-06032010_Final.pdf)) for detailed information regarding study protocols, etc. As for open volunteer dates, we still have limited availability on:
August 9 (Monterey)
August 16 - 18 (Half Moon Bay)
September 12 - 15 (Half Moon Bay)
September 19 - 22 (Monterey)
Thanks and hope to see some of you out there soon!
Cheryl Barnes
Graduate Student, Fisheries & Conservation Biology
Program Representative, California Sea Grant
Moss Landing Marine Laboratories
8272 Moss Landing Road | Moss Landing, CA 95039
p: (831) 771-4443 f: (831) 632-4403
e: seagrant@mlml.calstate.edu
-
Why are hook and line surveys deemed an appropriate method (vs other methods such as trawl surveys or visual dive surveys) to evaluate the effectiveness of MPAs in the region? This method requires the fish to actually be feeding. We all know that fishing can be good the one day and bad they next with things such as weather, currents, moon phases, lure choice, and what you ate for breakfast affecting the fishing. How do you ensure your sample set is statistically valid?
This just smells of feel-good PR to me. Gee, let's involve the fisherman.
Sorry, just speaking my mind here.
-Allen
-
visual dive surveys
Dive at Ano Nuevo? naaaaah
But I see your point polepole. i was wondering about the hook and line thing myself before you wrote. Any controls used for hook size can be criticized for introducing biased selection of a certain fish size, i.e., small sabiki-ish jigs = dinker population
-
+1...what Allen said. Forgive me for being sceptical but I'm a little concerned about giving the powers that be ANY ammunition to justify their ill conceived MPAs.
Probable outcome: few fish caught...." Look, we need more protection"
Or
Lots of fish caught " Look the MPAs work, we need more"
The treehuggers should have secured funding for PROPER assessments by PROFESSIONALS before implementing the MPAs. A few days of hook n line fishing is imo a useless tool for stock assessments. All out tells you is if the fish were biting or not.
Seems to me like throwing a dog a bone.
All this after defunding the professional data collectors like Kirk to rehire inexperienced people at half the wage.
The enviros are gonna do whatever they want behind closed doors and lie to your face as the whole MLPA process has shown.
-
Hi Allen,
Please let me refer you to Rick Starr (starr@mlml.calstate.edu / 831.771.4442). He is the principal investigator on this project and can speak in more detail and with greater authority than I. I will simply state that our methods are standardized (e.g. similar levels of experience among anglers, same months surveyed each year, same lure types and colors - we use lingcod bars and shrimp flies, timed fishing, etc) and incorporate fairly large sample sizes. This allows us to monitor relative changes in nearshore fish populations (inside and outside of reserves) over time, with fewer confounding factors. Also, we are currently comparing our hook-and-line data with that produced from submersible and SCUBA surveys in order to evaluate potential differences. In addition, the formation of this collaborative research was not motivated by PR, but rather the benefits that come from incorporating the extensive amount of knowledge, experience and valuable input that the fishing community offers.
Cheryl Barnes
MLML Graduate Student
-
Hi Allen,
Please let me refer you to Rick Starr (starr@mlml.calstate.edu / 831.771.4442). He is the principal investigator on this project and can speak in more detail and with greater authority than I. I will simply state that our methods are standardized (e.g. similar levels of experience among anglers, same months surveyed each year, same lure types and colors - we use lingcod bars and shrimp flies, timed fishing, etc) and incorporate fairly large sample sizes. This allows us to monitor relative changes in nearshore fish populations (inside and outside of reserves) over time, with fewer confounding factors. Also, we are currently comparing our hook-and-line data with that produced from submersible and SCUBA surveys in order to evaluate potential differences.
Do any of the Regional Fisheries Management Councils use hook and line surveys for stock assessment surveys? Why not?
In addition, the formation of this collaborative research was not motivated by PR, but rather the benefits that come from incorporating the extensive amount of knowledge, experience and valuable input that the fishing community offers.
Pardon me, but fishermens' "extensive amount of knowledge, experience and valuable input" has never truly been used before in the MLPA. Stop drinking the cool-aid. The question are asked, the questions are answered, the answers are ignored, then the statement is made that the fishermen were involved. It IS motivated by PR, whether you think so or not. At the end of the day, you get to say that the fishermen where involved.
What are the metrics being evaluated. Total fish population? Or population of fish within a MPA vs. outside an MPA?
Total fish population will not increase. I challenge you to tell me why or why not.
Fish population within an MPA will increase at the expense of fish populations outside the the MPAs. I challenge you to tell me why or why not.
I invite Rick Starr to join us here for this conversation.
-Allen
-
Disclaimer to my previous post:
I only read 19 of the 125 pages of that PDF.
I found it to be repetitive, hard to read and above my humble scope of extrapolation.
One thing that did concern me was the reference sites of comparison, for reasons Allen pointed out as well as the FACT that the BEST sites were nabbed for MPAs. A does NOT equal B..
How many times do we as fisherfolk have to be punched in the face before we realize the boxing rink isn't a dating service?
Backers of the MPAs have ZERO trust with fisherfolk who have an attention span longer than a goldfish. They lied to us. FACT. Met behind closed doors. FACT. Put on a dog and pony show after they had already decided the outcome. FACT. They used the same stooge as public prosecuter and judge. FACT. They paid people with zero interest or knowledge of the resource to lie at the dog and pony show to fake public opinion. FACT.
Fool me once.........
When something seems to good to be true, like a free fishing trip, it usually is.
-
Well said Sharky and Allen. Good luck trying to get answers to your questions Allen.
The whole MLPA "process" has been nothing but a savage example of injustice and tyranny.
From the politicians that originally foisted it on the population without a chance for the public to vote, to the M.O.U. that allowed Big Green/enviro fascists to fund it, and now these insulting "Fish for Science" free boat trips. We kayak anglers know exactly how whatever data is collected will be manipulated to serve the agenda of the State/politicians, Big Green, and all those making money off "the process". More data equals more MPA's. If I want to know the real truth regarding the state of the fishery I will go ask some commercial fishermen.
The few that are left. jim
-
I want to thank Cheryl for coming on to this forum and giving the anglers here the unique opportunity to participate in this study.
PolePole - This study has absolutely nothing to do with PR. This data is currently NOT being used Pacific Fishery Management Council or NMFS for stock assessments. This study is limited to angling in 120 feet or less to reduce barotrauma. That type of data is not used for assessment because its limited by its scope. One of the primary goals is to look at populations MPA vs. outside an MPA? These types of studies are being conducted up and down the coast...inside and outside of MPAs. Actually it is a requirement written into the MLPA that MPAs go through a 5 year review to assess its effectiveness. We have a great opportunity here in the Monterey area because we have an MPA (Point Lobos reserve) that has not been fished by commercial and recreational anglers in 35+ years. We can see how these new MPAs MIGHT act in the future.
Sharky - I know you are a close friend of Kirk Lombard...but Kirk was offered his old job back when the CRFS program was taken over by DFG but he turned it down.
Saltydog - Come on ...are you serious "....savage example of injustice and tyranny. " Really!! Give me a break.
-
Saltydog - Come on ...are you serious "....savage example of injustice and tyranny. " Really!! Give me a break.
I believe he's serious, about 99.9999999999% of the fishermen who partook in the process, or even followed along, STRONGLY AGREE with him, yes really and to be quite honest, this statement alone is enough to make me not want to participate.
Can you point us toward any evidence that proves the process was neither unjust nor tyranical, I'd say the whole process was textbook defnition of tyranical and unjust.
-
PolePole - This study has absolutely nothing to do with PR. This data is currently NOT being used Pacific Fishery Management Council or NMFS for stock assessments.
I know that. Why aren't hook and line surveys used for NMFS stock assessments?
This study is limited to angling in 120 feet or less to reduce barotrauma. That type of data is not used for assessment because its limited by its scope. One of the primary goals is to look at populations MPA vs. outside an MPA?
If they can't be used for stock assessment, then how can they be used for population comparisons?
MPA's weren't just implemented for the benefit of the fish inside the reserves. They were touted as saviors of fish stocks in general. A stockwide assessment is the only way to measure the results.
Let me pose my questions again.
Total fish population will not increase. I challenge you to tell me why or why not.
Fish population within an MPA will increase at the expense of fish populations outside the the MPAs. I challenge you to tell me why or why not.
These types of studies are being conducted up and down the coast...inside and outside of MPAs. Actually it is a requirement written into the MLPA that MPAs go through a 5 year review to assess its effectiveness. We have a great opportunity here in the Monterey area because we have an MPA (Point Lobos reserve) that has not been fished by commercial and recreational anglers in 35+ years. We can see how these new MPAs MIGHT act in the future.
Review studies are good, provided they use valid measurement techniques and are measuring what is really important. Otherwise it is a waste of even more money.
Point Lobos Reserve would not have passed the sizing requirements of the MPA. That is why it was expanded. How then can it be used as an example?
-Allen
-
Sharky - I know you are a close friend of Kirk Lombard...but Kirk was offered his old job back when the CRFS program was taken over by DFG but he turned it down.
Please dont push the misinformation here. I KNOW The truth. Kirk is collage educated with a decade of experience in data collection. He was getting $19/ hr+ befits and overtime. He was offerd his job back at $11/hr, no benefits, time capped. You get what you pay for, and when paying Mc Donalds entry level wages for a scientific job your data is going to be as good as a Big Mac is nutritious.Thats not an offer, its an insult. The time cap means the current collectors dont count the boats that come in late. Those are the boats with the most fish on board.
Just another example of the data being manipulated to suit the
agenda. (UN Agenda 21, ch2)
*Edit*
Kirk wants any previous employer in data collecction who may read this to know he is in a good place and really enjoyed his time as a collector.
-
Saltydog - Come on ...are you serious "....savage example of injustice and tyranny. " Really!! Give me a break.
Serious as a heart attack! In a democracy, unelected bureaucrats meeting behind closed doors to push corporations will on the populace and steal their rights IS the definition of injustice and tyranny. You didnt defend your point, you were merely dismissive towards SD. A tactic often employed when one cannot defend their position. I dont mind people with varying viewpoints coming here to debate, but please do not insult the locals.
-
+1...what Allen said. Forgive me for being sceptical but I'm a little concerned about giving the powers that be ANY ammunition to justify their ill conceived MPAs.
Probable outcome: few fish caught...." Look, we need more protection"
Or
Lots of fish caught " Look the MPAs work, we need more"
The treehuggers should have secured funding for PROPER assessments by PROFESSIONALS before implementing the MPAs. A few days of hook n line fishing is imo a useless tool for stock assessments. All out tells you is if the fish were biting or not.
Seems to me like throwing a dog a bone.
All this after defunding the professional data collectors like Kirk to rehire inexperienced people at half the wage.
The enviros are gonna do whatever they want behind closed doors and lie to your face as the whole MLPA process has shown.
Not much to add, but I agree with Sharky here 100%. Especially the bolded text.
-
Saltydog - Come on ...are you serious "....savage example of injustice and tyranny. " Really!! Give me a break.
I believe he's serious, about 99.9999999999% of the fishermen who partook in the process, or even followed along, STRONGLY AGREE with him, yes really and to be quite honest, this statement alone is enough to make me not want to participate.
Can you point us toward any evidence that proves the process was neither unjust nor tyranical, I'd say the whole process was textbook defnition of tyranical and unjust.
Let's settle it in this poll ... http://www.norcalkayakanglers.com/index.php/topic,32337.0.html (http://www.norcalkayakanglers.com/index.php/topic,32337.0.html)
Vote up!
-Allen
-
Sorry Steelhead & Cheryl, but you might be wasting your breath/typing here. Not because you're right or wrong, but because of the head-in-the-sand lemming effect that happens within fishing website culture. Don't be discouraged though--I think you'll find a few knowledgable anglers here willing to help.
I can't participate in the fishing surveys this year, but the one I did back in 2006 inside Pt Lobos was a pretty cool experience. Yeah guys, this type of research has been ongoing for YEARS and it has nothing to do with 'concessions to fishermen' or 'making fishermen feel better' about the MLPA. Not everything is a conspiracy. And I'd much rather have Big Jim or LapuLapu onboard 'gathering data' than some random person who may or may not have an inherent bias or econazi agenda.
Natural contrarian (~:
-
I am just a dumb farmer. My son dives, I fish. He often sees fish checking out my bait, but not biting. He spears them. So hook and line fishing does seem to be a bad way to count fish...again I am not a scientist.
As to the tyranny thing, "thanks for your input, now shut the F up you ignorant yokel" seems to be the way most guys felt. Follow that up with State Park rangers trying to get me to not fish "near the boundary" adds to the injustice feeling. I cannot fish there, now I cannot even approach the fence? :smt011
-
Not everything is a conspiracy. And I'd much rather have Big Jim or LapuLapu onboard 'gathering data' than some random person who may or may not have an inherent bias or econazi agenda.
Natural contrarian (~:
Asking about the collection methods and how the research will be used seems like valid questions one might ask prior to participating in such a study. Allen asked why none of the other governing bodies use hook and line collection techniques to perform stock assesments. Even though no answers have been provided I think its fairly obvious that its inadequate for the metrics they're studying. 5 year reviews are mandated by the act....IMO, party boat full of volunteers and underpaid biologists seems like an extremely cheap way to perform a "review" for a state that has no money.
I'm not gonna knock anyone that participates. I'm also not a lemming and regularly voice opposition to alot of "popoular" opinions here......I just think these trips are counter-productive to anyone who wants to fish in 10-20 years.
-
Sorry Steelhead & Cheryl, but you might be wasting your breath/typing here. Not because you're right or wrong, but because of the head-in-the-sand lemming effect that happens within fishing website culture. Don't be discouraged though--I think you'll find a few knowledgable anglers here willing to help.
I can't participate in the fishing surveys this year, but the one I did back in 2006 inside Pt Lobos was a pretty cool experience. Yeah guys, this type of research has been ongoing for YEARS and it has nothing to do with 'concessions to fishermen' or 'making fishermen feel better' about the MLPA. Not everything is a conspiracy. And I'd much rather have Big Jim or LapuLapu onboard 'gathering data' than some random person who may or may not have an inherent bias or econazi agenda.
Natural contrarian (~:
Really? They are not wasting their time. I encourage them to engage in the debate in a productive manner. Love it or hate it, we have to live with the MLPA (for the time being at least), so may as well continue to debate it.
I'm not sure what the lemming statement was about, so I'll just leave that one alone other than this comment.
Just because it has been going on for years (in the MLPA context at least), doesn't make it right.
BTW, I recall something about budgets issues w.r.t. to last years "surveys". Did they happen last year?
So Pat, you do feel better!?! Just because you know someone on the survey trip? Looks like their mission is accomplished.
-Allen
-
Oh yeah.....to all of the guys signing up for the "free boat trip". Just remember guys.....whatever fish is caught or not caught.....the collected data will be used and manipulated to meet the agenda of those who paid for it. Can you honestly look at yourself in the mirror and believe that any of this will result in more or even the retention of our existing fishing rights?
Not when the enviros and their bought and paid for politicians are picking up the bill for the "free boat trip". Let your conscience be your guide. I will wait for when the Partnership for Sustainable Oceans is allowed to conduct their surveys to participate. And tell me Matt or Cheryl.....when will that be allowed to happen? jim
-
I have to agree with all the skeptics. Why should our involvement be put to good use now, after we've been lied to and deceived throughout the MLPA process? (I'm referring to the NCC MLPA.)
Now that NRDC and Ocean Conservancy and MBA got their way, they want to take us fishing? Give me a break. Let them do their own research. They're only going to twist it into whatever result it is that will benefit them most.
:smt013 :smt013 :smt013 :smt013 :smt013 :smt013 :smt013
-
Calling DaveW ... isn't it about time you posted up something regarding Bias, Confidence Intervals, Probability (p values), and Random Sampling, etc.? :smt002
-Allen
-
PS: Pat I just kicked the shit out of your BBQ.
Jim, shame on you! What did that poor thing ever do to you? Gonna have to report you to People for the Ethical Treatment of BBQs. Possibly they can implement a BBQ Lifestyle Protection Area in your neighborhood.
Sin, so do the lemmings have their heads in the sand or are they jumping off cliffs? Would you be willing to help out with a "lemming gravity research project" in which well determine the exact height of the cliff necessary to kill them on impact. We'll do it by playing Angry Birds while watching the mass suicide. Mind you, we'll have to defund the MLPA to do this scientifically sound project.
Funny thing, throwing myself headlong into the ocean seems quite appealing rite now.
-
a free boat ride....... who needs that?
KNOWyourEMEMY! :smt011
-
Do any of the Regional Fisheries Management Councils use hook and line surveys for stock assessment surveys? Why not?
I'd also like to see an answer to this one.