When the Whip Comes Down...

[WildHawg]

it hits hard, and is meant to send a message to everyone within earshot. In this case it's us in Oregon.
As posted below, the closure has come to pass, and it is the entire West Coast of The United States that gets to pay for California's mistake.

http://www.oregonlive.com/metro/oreg...9656744921.xml

With the 40 fathom limit, and now these "temporary" closures of nearshore waters. I have a feeling we may be micromanaged out of many opportunities in the next few years.
Only one thing will have an effect on these managers, and that is your voice. We all need to speak our peace--in writing or in person, and make our voices heard. Nothing else, short of California FINALLY falling into the ocean (Imagine the reefs all those buildings would create!), will save our fisheries.
It's time we band together, donate a bit of our time and money, and make a statement about the imbalance and inequities in the management of Eastern Pacific Fisheries.
Jen (OceanBlue), I have not read all of your posts along these lines, so I don't know if it's been suggested--but we need to join together under a common name and start contacting our congressmen and others with clout as an organization of concerned fishermen.
Things are drifting south a bit to fast for my liking--we need to back into 'er and hold our ground.
Any suggestions on a name for a group of concerned fishermen. A catchy acronym would be great--then let's get serious.
I would be willing to put up $50.00 towards the cause. 100 people at $50.00 each (or 200 at $25.00!), and we could afford to set up an educational website detailing our position (oh yeah--just what is our position?) and do direct mailings to the many politicians and bureaucrats who pull the strings in our lives.
Just think--with all the money we'll be saving by not hauling our boats to the ocean every weekend $50.00 shouldn't be anything.
If we could enlist enough people to our cause--we might even be able to exert some real political pressure!
I shall cast a stone or two today--will anybody join me? This is going to take some help.

OK, I admit this is a shameless attempt to play on the enthusiasm that was no doubt engendered in my salty Brutha's and Sista's at last nights T.A. meeting--but hey, ya gotta pick the fruit while it's ripe :tongue:
Let's open this can o' worms and see what we catch.

[Mark Mc]

Thanks for the motivating post, Wildhog.

One has to understand that the closure decision was based on a very specific survey done in California called the MRFSS. Our compatriots down there argued fiercely that this data was terribly flawed. It was based on mostly telephone surveys, and it assumes that people spoken to know the difference between a canary rockfish and all the other "reds."

The Coastside Fishing Club presented their own survey data that was collected by hundreds of saltwater fishermen. It contradicted the MRFSS data, but to no avail. What came out of this though is that the Coastside Fishing Club now has a seat at the table in California (with CDF&G) to help develop future surveys.

The PFMC has stated that as of the first of January they (MRFS Surveys) will be replaced by individual state operated data collected systems

So the one specific action that I personally believe we could take, to make a real difference in how we are managed in Oregon, would be to get involved in how future data is collected..

ODFW has already announced the most recent survey, at: ODFW News

Guess what? It shares some of the same flaws as the survey used in California (i.e. random telephone calls to licensed anglers, no way to verify if they know what a canary looks like, extrapolating a small amount of data to come up with a total catch, etc.) For example, a person tells the surveyor that he caught "4 red fish" which may be the plentiful rosy rockfish, but it gets put down as 4 canaries. Then that one false data point gets multiplied (extrapolated ) to apply to other anglers.

In closing, I have copied a message from the Coastside club's political advisor that explains the situation well, and what their plans are. We really should follow suit. Any of you good with statistics & survey design? Later......Mark


From Coastside Fishing Club:
----------------------------------------
PFMC update on MRFSS and CRFS Dan Wolford (NancyH) 11.06.03 - 09.21 PM (PST)


My last report on this PFMC session - I came home tonight.

The data collection system that did us in is dead. The MRFSS and RecFIN data collection systems run by the Feds, will no longer be the system used to manage our fisheries. As of the first of January they will be replaced by individual state operated data collected systems - in CA that means it will be the California Recreational Fishing Survey (CRFS). That's the good news.

In a presentation to the Council this morning, CRFS looks like a major improvement in the way data is collected and analyzed in California. It builds on the MRFSS methodology and makes it more robust, adding in more launch ramp surverys to assess both catch and effort. One in twenty fishing license holders will be included in a random dial system to assess fishing effort for shore and pier modes of fishing. Different catch-per-unit-effort (CPUEs) will be applied according to the fish being targeted.... Lots of refinements are being added into the system in an attempt to make it more credible.

In addition, Coastside has an opportunity to work with the CDFG to not only improve our own data and data collection methods - you may see some changes in the way we ask you to report fish postings - but we have also been invited to participate in the final development of the CRFS system. In addition we also have an opportunity to participate in three workshops this coming year that address stock assessments and recreational CPUE, Data collection, and Stock Assessment models. That we have these opportunties is a direct result of the positive impact the Coastside team had at this meeting. These doors would otherwise be closed.

Now the bad news - MRFSS will be replaced with CRFS beginning January 1st. Yes I just said that CRFS was a major improvement - but what no one exactly knows is how well it work. If it is as good as it looks, then it will be more accurate than MRFSS, but that accuracy may not always give us the outcome we expect. Until we see how the system really works, and what it really tells us, we are at risk that it may have many of the same flaws as the system it is derived from, or perhaps we really catch more fish than we think. Good bad or indifferent, the private boat recreational CA fishery will be managed with the CRFS data beginning in January, and until we have some experience with it, we just don't know what to expect. So when the new year comes, lets go catch some fish, lets be particulary accurate with our reports, and lets see how CRFS does. Hopefully I can put my worry-beads away.

------------
Dan (Nancy H - 19ft Arima)

[WildHawg]

Thanks for the information Mark.
I understand that the decision was based upon data which was then interpreted using federally mandated harvest quotas--the problem, as you pointed out--is that the "science" they use to interpret the data is flawed.
To then extrapolate it across the entire Eastern Pacific, from Mexico to Canada, is also patently flawed.
The problem lies in their fix--which doesn't take into consideration that one small portion of the California Coast catch is not representative of the other 1600 or so miles of coastline.
Yes we need to address the way the statistics are gleaned, but we also need to address the way these federal and state rules are interpreted.
It is not a stretch to call this an emotion based reaction, ie. "shut it all down" simply because harvest in one area was too high. Where's the science in that?
With the 40 fathom curve next year, and the specter of another boneheaded, emotion based ruling by the feds on the horizon to further cheebob us, I'm <furious>, and am going to try and do something about it--starting with an editorial in the Oregonian.
This is a call to arms people--you gonna sit on your hands, or are ya gonna fight back and expose the idiot scientist's as the buffoon's they really are?
HOOOOOOOAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sincerely,
The Slightly Flustercated 'Hawg!

[ 11-08-2003, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: skein ]