Runty Lingcod?

Once again scwafish writes what I would like to more eloquently.

I think a slot limit would work well for lingcod.

MolBasser

See you at Elk, I'll be the one with the bulls-eye painted on my wetsuit.

  Brian I think you had a Bullseye on your wetsuit since you won last year.

>Fishermen don't want MPAs, not becuase they don't think they will work, but because they don't like the idea of having more restrictions on fishing.

No, we don't like them because of the 'permanent' part about them.  Wether they work or not, we'll never get them back.  The 120' depth restriction has exactly the same effect as a massive MPA, but we are much less concerned about it because it exists for an explicit, measureable reason and once it's objectives have been met DFG is able to roll it back (as they have just done).

Here's an idea I had for the study design of Gatohoser's masters thesis:

Capture a significant number (consult a statistician about what's needed to be statistically significant) of ling cod of a certain size class from a number of (like, say, four) different regions on the west coast.  The regions may be something like California, Oregon/Washington, BC, and SE Alaska.  Ideally, the size class would be like right out of the egg so Gatohoser could fairly make the assumption that all the fish from all the regions were the same age class.  Maybe he could  hatch a bunch of eggs collected from the different regions so there'd be no argument.

The experiment would be to grow up all the fish from the different regions under identical lab conditions (same tank sizes, feeds, lighting, etc) but, of course, either uniquely identifying each fish, or keeping the regionally different fish in separate facilities.  The control group would be a randomly selected subsample from all the groups.

At the end of some time period (2 years?) weigh and measure the fish.  His mission would be to show whether or not there is a statistically significant difference between the mean age/weight relationships of the four regional groups.  All independent variables would be hopefully controlled (feed, environment, etc).  The dependent variable would be growth rates, hopefully only the expression of the heritable growth traits.

Just kidding about a real idea for his project, but just tossing this out for fun.  Sure would be a fun thing to do.

Hey, did I get accused of being a Le-Marxist?  Man, I'm going to Gitmo.  I know it.

Pescadore,

Oddly, what you've described is another set of experiments that David Conover and his lab have done in the past on silversides and striped bass.  It turns that the different populations of silversides have different growth rates when raised under similar conditions.  Now you might think that those fish from lower latitudes would grow faster, but that isn't the case.  In fact, the refer this phenomenon as "counter-gradient variation" in growth rate.   Northern populations grow faster than southern populations.   The explanation for this seems to be that northern populations have a shorter growing season, and natural selection favors those fish with the ability to grow and reproduce in a shorter period of time.   

Now what that has to do with lingcod, I'm not sure.  They might be completely different.

Brian

Even if you go with the idea that fishing pressure is equal across the different growth rate fish the fish who reproduce earlier will be selected for by fishing pressure as they reproduce more often in the amount of time we allow them to grow before harvest.

yeah, I have to say for a bunch of people involved in a what is generally regarded as a
blue-collar bloodsport, the intelligence level and knowledge is pretty darn high on this
board at times. thanks to scwafish and bsteves for trying to "edumucate" us. scwafish last
post was clear even to me!

Do I see big WSB or totuava or other unusual stuff in that ELK photo?

J

Do I see big WSB or totuava or other unusual stuff in that ELK photo?

I doubt it.

However, I do see lots of monster lings, a few really big rockfish, and maybe a couple pacific halibut.  I don't think there is a fish in the bunch that wouldn't have won at Elk last year.

Brian

I have to say for a bunch of people involved in a what is generally regarded as a
blue-collar bloodsport

I have consistantly found the intelligence level of kayak anglers to be quite high.  Certainly higher than the guys piloting 40K bass boats in San Diego......

There are at least 3 PhDs in the regular posters here right?  Me, Bsteves, and scwafish if I'm not mistaken.

MolBasser

Nope, I bailed with an MS degree, but my wife is pretty close to finished with her PhD.  I have however been working in science since getting that degree in 1997.

Brian

Let me clarify that last post...
I didn't bail with an MS.  Rather after working on my MS for 3 1/2 years I decided to take a break before going on for the PhD and 5+ more years of school.  I ended up with a sweet gig with the Smithsonian, a lovely wife and a great little kid.  With all that I haven't gone had the time or interest in going back for the PhD yet.  At this point I feel that getting one would mostly be an ego trip for me so I haven't bothered.

I say this becuase, in persuit of a PhD you can literally "bail" with a MS degree.  In other words, you're committee doesn't think you're up for the demands of getting a PhD and after a few years they let you go with an MS.  These terminal masters degrees based on failure are a totally different animal than the intensive 3 1/2 years of thesis based work I did for my masters.

BTW, Jim ("InSeine") is a bonified PhD in fisheries.  So, minus one on the PhD count for me, add one to it for Jim.

Brian

No Phd here either...just 15 years of OJT, a BS, and smarter friends!  When we get together I'll tellyou a funnay PhD joke though.

Hmm....  My bad.  I guess I had it wrong.

Fat lot of good my PhD is doing me right now.....6 years in grad school....ah well.

MolBasser

I have a MS too, but it only took 2 years.  At least for engineering it's common for people to target a MS degree.  The difference in pay between MS and PhD starting salaries was about 3 years raises...

That photo is taken at a very favorable perspective, for all we know the fish are 4x closer to the camera than the guys with the boats.

b.s. -> bull sh!t
m.s. -> more sh!t
ph.d. -> Piled Higher and Deeper

that's the one I know. pretty accurate!

I skipped the m.s. got the ph.d. in under 4 years but don't really use it. however it was fun.

mol, I hate to say it, but the smart guys are the ones that spent those 4-6 years making $$$,  .

p-spark, you are trying to say that they were taking fishsniffer shots 106 years ago? is nothing sacred?