Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 29, 2024, 06:10:11 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Recent Topics

[March 28, 2024, 11:47:21 PM]

[March 28, 2024, 11:34:08 PM]

[March 28, 2024, 09:44:18 PM]

[March 28, 2024, 09:12:36 PM]

[March 28, 2024, 07:11:09 PM]

[March 28, 2024, 01:13:46 PM]

[March 27, 2024, 07:25:42 PM]

[March 27, 2024, 07:05:39 PM]

[March 27, 2024, 12:35:34 PM]

[March 27, 2024, 11:18:23 AM]

[March 26, 2024, 07:45:07 PM]

[March 26, 2024, 06:19:03 PM]

[March 26, 2024, 05:47:06 PM]

Support NCKA

Support the site by making a donation.

Topic: Fish for Science - Central CA (it's a free boat trip)!  (Read 5200 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

sharky

  • Sea Lion
  • ****
  • View Profile monkeyfacenews
  • Location: Oakland
  • Date Registered: May 2007
  • Posts: 1931
+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.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2011, 04:20:30 PM by sharky »


  • View Profile
  • Location: Moss Landing
  • Date Registered: May 2011
  • Posts: 9
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


polepole

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • View Profile Kayak Fishing Magazine
  • Location: San Jose, CA
  • Date Registered: Dec 2004
  • Posts: 13071
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


sharky

  • Sea Lion
  • ****
  • View Profile monkeyfacenews
  • Location: Oakland
  • Date Registered: May 2007
  • Posts: 1931
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.


Salty.

  • Sea Lion
  • ****
  • View Profile
  • Location: Sonoma County
  • Date Registered: Sep 2006
  • Posts: 4808
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


steelhead

  • Sand Dab
  • **
  • View Profile
  • Location: Seaside
  • Date Registered: Jun 2008
  • Posts: 62
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.


ex-kayaker

  • mara pescador
  • Sea Lion
  • ****
  • View Profile
  • Location: San Jose
  • Date Registered: Dec 2004
  • Posts: 6973

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.
 
..........agarcia is just an ex-kayaker


polepole

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • View Profile Kayak Fishing Magazine
  • Location: San Jose, CA
  • Date Registered: Dec 2004
  • Posts: 13071
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

  • Sea Lion
  • ****
  • View Profile monkeyfacenews
  • Location: Oakland
  • Date Registered: May 2007
  • Posts: 1931

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.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2011, 08:32:55 AM by sharky »


sharky

  • Sea Lion
  • ****
  • View Profile monkeyfacenews
  • Location: Oakland
  • Date Registered: May 2007
  • Posts: 1931

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.


Rock Hopper

  • SonomaCoastSafetySquad
  • Global Moderator
  • A-Hull Muggle
  • View Profile
  • Location: Santa Rosa
  • Date Registered: Apr 2005
  • Posts: 12998
+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.

In Loving Memory of Mooch, Eelmaster, Shicken, and Cabeza De Martillo

I started kayak fishing to get away from most of you...


polepole

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • View Profile Kayak Fishing Magazine
  • Location: San Jose, CA
  • Date Registered: Dec 2004
  • Posts: 13071

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

Vote up!

-Allen


Sin Coast

  • AOTY committee
  • Global Moderator
  • Pat Kuhl
  • View Profile Turf Image
  • Location: Mbay
  • Date Registered: Jul 2006
  • Posts: 14642
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 (~:
Photobucket Sucks!

 Team A-Hulls

~old enough to know better, young enough to not care~


e2g

  • Sea Lion
  • ****
  • 53 lb seabass
  • View Profile
  • Location: Aptos
  • Date Registered: Jul 2006
  • Posts: 3026
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
Winner 2011 MBK Derby
Winner 2009 Fishermans Warehouse Santa Cruz Tournament
Winner 2008 MBK Derby


ex-kayaker

  • mara pescador
  • Sea Lion
  • ****
  • View Profile
  • Location: San Jose
  • Date Registered: Dec 2004
  • Posts: 6973
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.
 
..........agarcia is just an ex-kayaker