Bodega Bay MPA/SMR Fishing Opportunity

The following was sent to me, so I thought I'd pass it on to all of you.  Also see the attachment.
Riverwatcher LT

Greetings Volunteer Anglers!
Thank you so much for your interest in the research fishing trips for the California Collaborative Fisheries Research Program & UC Davis Bodega Marine Laboratory! We are very excited for our first year of sampling MPAs in the Bodega Bay area!

My name is Erin Satterthwaite, and I will be Volunteer Coordinator for the California Collaborative Fisheries Research Program (CCFRP) & UC Davis Bodega Marine Laboratory this year. Please join us for our first year of collecting data for fisheries management and the monitoring of California MPAs through catch and release fishing surveys!

The 2017 CCFRP Sampling Dates for Bodega Bay are Sept. 24th- Sept. 29th, 2017! The sampling trips are full-day trips (often departing at 6am and returning to the dock in the late afternoon/evening around 3pm-6pm), although times may vary due to ocean conditions and transit times. Anglers must be at least 16 years of age. All participants must be able to spend extended periods of time (e.g., <12+ hours per day) on a recreational fishing boat, in potentially rough waters. Please note that there will be NO INDIVIDUAL TAKE on these cruises, in accordance with our CA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife scientific collecting permits.

If you are interested in participating, please be sure to fill out the google form linked here to request sampling dates on our upcoming 2017 fishing trips!  If you have a friend who would like to participate with you, they must fill this form separately-- and please feel free to forward this form to any other interested individuals.

Your place on a trip is not guaranteed until you have received a confirmation email from our volunteer coordinator: Erin Satterthwaite. Please wait for this email from our volunteer coordinator for details on your confirmed trips.  If you have any questions about this process or other information, please email bmlmorganlab@gmail.com.

Thank you, and we look forward to a great first season of CCFRP at Bodega Bay!

Best,
Erin Satterthwaite
 

--
California Collaborative Fisheries Research Program (CCFRP)
Bodega Marine Laboratory, UC Davis

Sounds like fun...

I did one of Ano Nuevo trips this past week, and they were pushing the Bodega trips.
Bodega is too long of a drive for me for only one day, but the one I went on this week out of HMB was indeed pretty fun. We fished cells just down coast from AN Island.

they are limited in the terminal tackle they use (for continuity) so you'll be fishing with either unbaited shrimp flies, baited shrimp flies, or 4 oz irons with a teaser. I'm sure if we'd used big rubbertails we'd have caught many more lings and big RF. Still the day netted over 830 fish landed and released for 15 anglers. My hands are thrashed from unhooking so many blues and blacks.

You all know I'm a little bit jaded when it comes to MLPA/MPA related stuff.  During the process, we were repeatedly told that it wasn't about fisheries management.  Now, they are sampling for fisheries management.  Which is it?

-Allen

Hey Piscean, thanks for the Ano Nuevo report and the heads up on the gear their using.  Sounds like you had a productive day.

Allen, I'm piking up what your putting down.....  I work as a fisheries biologist for an Irrigation District on the Tuolumne R., we're constantly under the agencies microscope, but I'm just not convinced about their motives.  Are we selling water to LA or managing for salmon?  It's not always clear............ 

You all know I'm a little bit jaded when it comes to MLPA/MPA related stuff.  During the process, we were repeatedly told that it wasn't about fisheries management.  Now, they are sampling for fisheries management.  Which is it?

-Allen

Yeah, I give the whole MPA thing a lot of side-eye too.
I believe the study is comparing overall biomass between open and closed fishing areas. While it seemed apparent down by Ano that the fish were more plentiful, the main researcher did tell me that out by the Farallons there really wasn't any difference.

Erin, why not ask all those MLPA lawyer people - the ones who shoved this process down our throats - to do this data sampling? You're asking fishermen  to gather data intended to validate and support the MLPA, a process most of us opposed due to its strong slant against fishermen and fishing access.

When did you create your account? This morning?

Also, what's the status of the SF Bay process? Or did they ditch that plan after they got what they really wanted (a bunch of marine reserves along the coast)? The whole process was grounded on the philosophy of an interconnected series of marine reserves, with SF Bay being the last in the process.

Not doing SF Bay seems to undermine that very concept and takes away some of its credibility, IMO.

Erin, why not ask all those MLPA lawyer people - the ones who shoved this process down our throats - to do this data sampling? You're asking fishermen  to gather data intended to validate and support the MLPA, a process most of us opposed due to its strong slant against fishermen and fishing access.

When did you create your account? This morning?

Don't hold back your thoughts. 

I think it's great that fisherman are invited to participate.  Harder to fudge the numbers if you see first hand how a protected zone is doing compared to an open area. 

I don't agree with everything fish and wildlife and biologists come up with to so call protect our fisheries but do agree some management needs to be done so we can sustain a healthy fishery. 

People seem happy to go Bass fishing and catch and release so I am sure some wouldn't mind being able to fish a protected area even if they have to return the fish. 

The more people that can collect data means more people that can attend meetings with first hand data.  Data doesn't always have to be used to support the mlpa.  It can be used to see if one species is dominating the others and could even result in the opening of one or more species in the future if a full closure isn't working the way they wanted. 

The data will most likely be used to keep the reserves closed to fishing no matter what the results are; lots of fish = the reserves are working so keep them closed to fishing, few fish = they aren't working so keep them closed to fishing.

The MLPA was always described as "adaptive management" which is supposed to mean that the reserves could be re-opened, but I highly doubt that will ever happen, no matter how well the fish stocks are doing.

Erin, why not ask all those MLPA lawyer people - the ones who shoved this process down our throats - to do this data sampling? You're asking fishermen  to gather data intended to validate and support the MLPA, a process most of us opposed due to its strong slant against fishermen and fishing access.

When did you create your account? This morning?

Don't hold back your thoughts. 

I think it's great that fisherman are invited to participate.  Harder to fudge the numbers if you see first hand how a protected zone is doing compared to an open area. 

Again, I'm pretty jaded from my experience with the MLPA ... but there are alternate motives in having fisherman participate.  It was clear from day 1 that we were bing pushed towards a pre-determined outcome.  Having fisherman participate enabled "them" to say that they had broad support.

I don't agree with everything fish and wildlife and biologists come up with to so call protect our fisheries but do agree some management needs to be done so we can sustain a healthy fishery. 

Again, we were told multiple times that the MLPA was not about fisheries management.  I finally figured out that they meant it was about CLOSING FISHERIES!

People seem happy to go Bass fishing and catch and release so I am sure some wouldn't mind being able to fish a protected area even if they have to return the fish.

The more people that can collect data means more people that can attend meetings with first hand data.  Data doesn't always have to be used to support the mlpa.  It can be used to see if one species is dominating the others and could even result in the opening of one or more species in the future if a full closure isn't working the way they wanted.

The act of participating is in itself supporting the MLPA. See above comments.  This effort will never result in opening more species.  Mark my words, it will result in more closures.

-Allen

CCFRP has been doing these studies and trips for awhile down here in Monterey.

I have been on several and really enjoyed them.

At least down here the CCFRP was run by grad students at MLML.

These students have nothing to do with the MLPA process...they are gathering data.

IMO you can rail against the process all you want but these trips WILL happen and data WILL be gathered, whether or not you decide to participate.

I decided to participate because I wanted to see what they were doing and how they did it...

I enjoyed myself immensely and if I had more free time would do it again.

My experience with the biologist students down here that work on the CCFRP has been 100% positive.

Just my 2 cents.

 

Sincerely,

Jim

ps...this came up about 6 years ago as well...what a fun thread that was!  http://www.norcalkayakanglers.com/index.php?topic=32157.0

CCFRP has been doing these studies and trips for awhile down here in Monterey.

I have been on several and really enjoyed them.

At least down here the CCFRP was run by grad students at MLML.

These students have nothing to do with the MLPA process...they are gathering data.

IMO you can rail against the process all you want but these trips WILL happen and data WILL be gathered, whether or not you decide to participate.

I decided to participate because I wanted to see what they were doing and how they did it...

I enjoyed myself immensely and if I had more free time would do it again.

My experience with the biologist students down here that work on the CCFRP has been 100% positive.

Just my 2 cents.

 

Sincerely,

Jim

ps...this came up about 6 years ago as well...what a fun thread that was!  http://www.norcalkayakanglers.com/index.php?topic=32157.0

Of course you can have a positive experience.  That doesn't mean their motives are "true".  And yes, they do have something to do with the MLPA process.  The data gathering is mandated as part of the MLPA.  I re-read that thread, and am happy to see my thoughts are still the same.  No one ever addressed my question about why NMFC does not use hook and line surveys for population assessments and why it is deemed ok to use in this effort.

-Allen

The act of participating is in itself supporting the MLPA. See above comments.  This effort will never result in opening more species.  Mark my words, it will result in more closures.

-Allen

I have a little bit of crow pie to eat here, as I’m signed up for one of these research trips this summer.  I still do not support the MLPA, but I have my reasons.   

-Allen

The act of participating is in itself supporting the MLPA. See above comments.  This effort will never result in opening more species.  Mark my words, it will result in more closures.

-Allen

I have a little bit of crow pie to eat here, as I’m signed up for one of these research trips this summer.  I still do not support the MLPA, but I have my reasons.   

-Allen

Look forward to your report... AND PICS