Cali surf entries and Laguna Closure Question or thoughts ..

[dead dog]

You don't have to look at the map to come up with a good explanation. A basic understanding of the ecological and demographic principles underlying marine reserves will at the very least hint at an answer.

In short, a study in 1999 found that that particular area has features which make it ideal habitat for cowcod (and related demersal fishes), meaning it has among the greatest potential to not only benefit from protection, but also substantial potential for spill-over into neighboring areas/habitat.

Here's the citation:

Butler, J. L., L. D. Jacobson and J.T. Barnes. 1999. Stock assessment of cowcod rockfish. In:
Pacific Fishery Management Council. 1999. Appendix: Status of the Pacific Coast Groundfish
Fishery through 1999 and recommended biological catches for 2000: Stock assessment and
fishery evaluation. Pacific Fishery Management Council, 2130 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 224,
Portland, Oregon,
97201.

Here's some additional reading from a stock assessment in 2005:

http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/Cowcod_Assessment_May25th.pdf

Nobody is hiding this information. It's an extremely transparent process. But the fact that you didn't bother to seek out this information tells me that you probably weren't actually interested in an answer.

****************************************
Yes, I read this report back in 2007 but wanted someone else other then myself to post it. I thought that Dr. Bill
would furnish this report. You have to read the whole report to come to your own conclusion.
Below is just the tip of the problem.

" Executive SummaryStock.
Cowcod (Sebastes levis) in the Southern California Bight (SCB) is the “stock” described by the
modeling. The SCB is at the southern end of the INPFC Conception management area and
extends from the US-Mexio border north to Point Conception at about 34o
30' N. Lat. Areas to the
north and south of SCB were not included in the first assessment because of lack of data and
possible differences in abundance trends. The SCB is the area where cowcod are most abundant,
where adult habitat is most common and where catches are highest. Although larvae may spread
across larger distances, we assume that the adults do not move beyond the stock boundary. This
assumption, however, is untested and may very well be inaccurate.
Catches
Catches in this assessment were a combination of commercial and recreational fleets.
Commercial catches were taken from the CALCOM database and recreational catches from the
RecFIN database. The commercial fishery was made up primarily of set net gears, and to a lesser
extent hook and line gears. The limited biological samples indicated commercial gears catch
larger fish than recreational. Catches since 2001 have been very low due to management action,
however catches in the 1980’s were substantially higher. Discard is not assumed except for a
minimal discard in the years after the no-retention management.
Most Critical Research Need.
A consistent and synoptic measure of relative abundance is necessary to monitor the population
biomass. Currently there is no dedicated survey operation meeting those criteria, and therefore
future monitoring of population change will be difficult. The two areas closed (Cowcod Conservation Areas) to bottom fishing due to concentrations of
cowcod, include the "43-fathom spot," which lies 40 miles offshore of San Diego and extends
northward and offshore to cover 100 square miles. A larger area was also designated (4,200
square ), this area begins about 20 miles off the Palos Verdes Peninsula extending southward ~90
miles and westward another ~50 miles. Do you think divers will be diving in "43-fathom spot," area of 882 west of Point Loma ? "Conclusions
The analytical team asked itself if any of the models presented in this document are realistic? The
answer is probably no. All the data sources used have their problems and are likely biased,
although we do not know the magnitude or direction of that bias. It is not clear if recreational
CPUE is truly proportional to biomass, especially with the likely undocumented changes the fleet
has made and the improvements the industry has made in technology. It is hard to believe that
over the 40 years the series spans, the fishing power, reporting rates and targeting practices have
not changed. The results of this assessment corroborate the 1999 assessment in that cowcod are very likely at a
small fraction of their hypothetical unfished state and below the overfished threshold. Although
the stock status in this assessment is more optimistic than in the previous assessment, this is due
in part to the different assumptions in this assessment. Most troubling to the assessment team is what future assessment will do. It is not clear that any of
the new survey methods discussed in the data section will be both useful (quantitative, synoptic
coverage etc.) and repeated in the near future. Very little new data was available for this
assessment beyond what was available for the 1999 assessment, and the future of survey
information is not certain. Survey type information will be most useful if it is done consistently
and often. A more directed and consistent measure of abundance that can be done at least
biannually is sorely needed. Research Needs
1. Consistent and synoptic monitoring of relative/absolute biomass. This new survey should
cover areas both inside and outside the CCA.
2. Work on defining stock boundary. The choice of stock boundary in the assessment was
based on historical definitions, but may not be accurate. Does Mexico or the Monterey
INPFC area harbor a portion (substantial?) of the stock.
3. Determine if fish move in response to environmental signals. There is some indication
that fish may have moved from the assessed area during regime type environmental
changes.
4. Collection and analysis of biological data. Better define growth, mortality and maturity.
5. As habitat classification maps are developed for the SCB, these will likely be useful to
construct the CPUE and Survey time series.
6. Establish different criteria (reference points, rebuilding strategies) for truly data poor
species that do not have the quality or quantity of data needed to estimate the current
suite of assessment/management quantities. It is unknown if trying to provide the detailed
advice currently requested by the PFMC may contribute to erroneous advice relative to
maybe much simpler assessment advice (ie. Abundance is increasing/decreasing). "

Bottom line is all of these people and groups don't know what they are doing. It's like big government in action.
It's all FUBAR ! You need to read the complete report at: http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/u...nt_May25th.pdf

 

[scanfield]

****************************************
Yes, I read this report back in 2007 but wanted someone else other then myself to post it. I thought that Dr. Bill
would furnish this report. You have to read the whole report to come to your own conclusion.
Below is just the tip of the problem.

" Executive SummaryStock.
Cowcod (Sebastes levis) in the Southern California Bight (SCB) is the “stock” described by the
modeling. The SCB is at the southern end of the INPFC Conception management area and
extends from the US-Mexio border north to Point Conception at about 34o
30' N. Lat. Areas to the
north and south of SCB were not included in the first assessment because of lack of data and
possible differences in abundance trends. The SCB is the area where cowcod are most abundant,
where adult habitat is most common and where catches are highest. Although larvae may spread
across larger distances, we assume that the adults do not move beyond the stock boundary. This
assumption, however, is untested and may very well be inaccurate.
Catches
Catches in this assessment were a combination of commercial and recreational fleets.
Commercial catches were taken from the CALCOM database and recreational catches from the
RecFIN database. The commercial fishery was made up primarily of set net gears, and to a lesser
extent hook and line gears. The limited biological samples indicated commercial gears catch
larger fish than recreational. Catches since 2001 have been very low due to management action,
however catches in the 1980’s were substantially higher. Discard is not assumed except for a
minimal discard in the years after the no-retention management.
Most Critical Research Need.
A consistent and synoptic measure of relative abundance is necessary to monitor the population
biomass. Currently there is no dedicated survey operation meeting those criteria, and therefore
future monitoring of population change will be difficult. The two areas closed (Cowcod Conservation Areas) to bottom fishing due to concentrations of
cowcod, include the "43-fathom spot," which lies 40 miles offshore of San Diego and extends
northward and offshore to cover 100 square miles. A larger area was also designated (4,200
square ), this area begins about 20 miles off the Palos Verdes Peninsula extending southward ~90
miles and westward another ~50 miles. Do you think divers will be diving in "43-fathom spot," area of 882 west of Point Loma ? "Conclusions
The analytical team asked itself if any of the models presented in this document are realistic? The
answer is probably no. All the data sources used have their problems and are likely biased,
although we do not know the magnitude or direction of that bias. It is not clear if recreational
CPUE is truly proportional to biomass, especially with the likely undocumented changes the fleet
has made and the improvements the industry has made in technology. It is hard to believe that
over the 40 years the series spans, the fishing power, reporting rates and targeting practices have
not changed. The results of this assessment corroborate the 1999 assessment in that cowcod are very likely at a
small fraction of their hypothetical unfished state and below the overfished threshold. Although
the stock status in this assessment is more optimistic than in the previous assessment, this is due
in part to the different assumptions in this assessment. Most troubling to the assessment team is what future assessment will do. It is not clear that any of
the new survey methods discussed in the data section will be both useful (quantitative, synoptic
coverage etc.) and repeated in the near future. Very little new data was available for this
assessment beyond what was available for the 1999 assessment, and the future of survey
information is not certain. Survey type information will be most useful if it is done consistently
and often. A more directed and consistent measure of abundance that can be done at least
biannually is sorely needed. Research Needs
1. Consistent and synoptic monitoring of relative/absolute biomass. This new survey should
cover areas both inside and outside the CCA.
2. Work on defining stock boundary. The choice of stock boundary in the assessment was
based on historical definitions, but may not be accurate. Does Mexico or the Monterey
INPFC area harbor a portion (substantial?) of the stock.
3. Determine if fish move in response to environmental signals. There is some indication
that fish may have moved from the assessed area during regime type environmental
changes.
4. Collection and analysis of biological data. Better define growth, mortality and maturity.
5. As habitat classification maps are developed for the SCB, these will likely be useful to
construct the CPUE and Survey time series.
6. Establish different criteria (reference points, rebuilding strategies) for truly data poor
species that do not have the quality or quantity of data needed to estimate the current
suite of assessment/management quantities. It is unknown if trying to provide the detailed
advice currently requested by the PFMC may contribute to erroneous advice relative to
maybe much simpler assessment advice (ie. Abundance is increasing/decreasing). "

Bottom line is all of these people and groups don't know what they are doing. It's like big government in action.
It's all FUBAR ! You need to read the complete report at: http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/u...nt_May25th.pdf

...so your problem is that they are erring on the side of caution...? Most of the "problems" you've highlighted indicate that this is the case. These types of assessments often have to work with limited datasets - there's simply no other option. As such, a cautious and conservative approach is usually necessary if effective management plans are to be implemented. At least they address and acknowledge these limitations.

It's easy to run through a report like this and cherry-pick statements of potential error or uncertainty (which, by the way, are the hallmark of an honest and rigorous scientific assessment) without giving any regard to the holistic merit of the report and its conclusions. That's exactly what you're doing here.

Finally, with regard to your (virtually hidden) question: "Do you think divers will be diving in "43-fathom spot," area of 882 west of Point Loma ?"

I was unaware that diving was restricted in said area. I can't imagine that recreational divers will dive at that depth (~ 258 fsw), but I happen to know researchers who routinely dive at those depths. Regardless, I think the report was rather more concerned with other, potentially more effective/destructive bottom-fishing methods.

 

[dead dog]

...so your problem is that they are erring on the side of caution...? Most of the "problems" you've highlighted indicate that this is the case. These types of assessments often have to work with limited datasets - there's simply no other option. As such, a cautious and conservative approach is usually necessary if effective management plans are to be implemented. At least they address and acknowledge these limitations.

It's easy to run through a report like this and cherry-pick statements of potential error or uncertainty (which, by the way, are the hallmark of an honest and rigorous scientific assessment) without giving any regard to the holistic merit of the report and its conclusions. That's exactly what you're doing here.

Finally, with regard to your (virtually hidden) question: "Do you think divers will be diving in "43-fathom spot," area of 882 west of Point Loma ?"

I was unaware that diving was restricted in said area. I can't imagine that recreational divers will dive at that depth (~ 258 fsw), but I happen to know researchers who routinely dive at those depths. Regardless, I think the report was rather more concerned with other, potentially more effective/destructive bottom-fishing methods.

*************************************************************

I posted this on Oct. 12th about area of 882 west of Point Loma look at the map below.
It's easy for you to run through a posting like this and cherry-pick the one's that fit your viewpoint.
I said several times to read the whole report. Yes, I could have posted the report (copy and past) which would of taken up a lot of space on this board. I'll say it again READ THE WHOLE REPORT !

" I think the report was rather more concerned with other, potentially more effective/destructive bottom-fishing methods." Like what ? Speak up, I would like to hear about these " potentially more effective/destructive bottom-fishing methods. " that this report showed.

" The analytical team asked itself if any of the models presented in this document are realistic? The answer is probably no. "

" This is just the begging of restrictions. Look at the map were you can't take game even if you have a license. Next the whole Pacific Ocean."

https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.a...32&inline=true

What is so special about the small area of 882 west of Point Loma ?
That's the QUESTION ?

There was a time when you could dive all of theses islands that are now restricted by the Fish and Game (wildlife) BUT WHY !

I used to go out to Cortez Bank and Tanner Bank twice a year, but no more thanks to the fish and game (wildlife)

If you keep letting the politicians and people of power run your life you lose.​

 

[scanfield]

*************************************************************

I posted this on Oct. 12th about area of 882 west of Point Loma look at the map below.
It's easy for you to run through a posting like this and cherry-pick the one's that fit your viewpoint.

Can you show me where/how I've done this?

I said several times to read the whole report. Yes, I could have posted the report (copy and past) which would of taken up a lot of space on this board. I'll say it again READ THE WHOLE REPORT !

I have read the report. I read it before I posted it. None of this addresses the points and concerns I've brought up.

" I think the report was rather more concerned with other, potentially more effective/destructive bottom-fishing methods." like what ? Speak up, I would like to hear about these " potentially more effective/destructive bottom-fishing methods. " that this report showed.

Demersal long-lines and bottom-trawling (or near-bottom trawling) are two prominent examples. There's also deep-sea fishing with rod and reel. According to these reports, recreational catch is substantial.

" The analytical team asked itself if any of the models presented in this document are realistic? The
answer is probably no."

Precisely how much experience do you have with demographic/ecological models? No model is ever 100% accurate, and there are necessarily trade-offs between realism, precision and generality. You're asking the wrong question(s). What should be asked isn't whether the models are completely realistic; instead, the appropriate question is: how are they unrealistic, and why? Then you move on to practical considerations (i.e., how this should influence conclusions and, ultimately, policy).

What is so special about the small area of 882 west of Point Loma ?

This has already been addressed.

Forgive me for saying so, but your responses are getting less and less coherent. If you're making a point, it's extremely difficult to find.

 

[dead dog]

" Forgive me for saying so, but your responses are getting less and less coherent. If you're making a point, it's extremely difficult to find. " Take your blinders off.

The point is you don't know what your talking about. Like the people in this report who admit they don't know what they are talking about. Different groups in this study don't agree with each other on anything. ( power play )

As I said before keep electing the same liberal members to the California senate and house with the help from their rich friends who run the state the way they want it. You keep eliciting the same people over and over again, then one day you will wake up and say WHAT HAPPENED TO CALIFORNIA ? ? ?

" The analytical team asked itself if any of the models presented in this document are realistic ? The answer is probably no. " Several of these aren't even divers !

 

[scanfield]

You've responded to precisely none of my points. Glad I spent the time trying to explain this to you. This is probably why Dr. Bill chose not to engage in this conversation.

Oh, well. Back to research and grading.

 

[H2Ocean]

sounds like trickle down economics, wonderful idea bill however it just does not work. well. Some smaller groups benefit enormously. recently water's been warmed to a degree of surface kelp "letting go." And at times the natural forces, just doesn't wade around lines of closure, no urgent threat in which MPA data can reflect has anything to do with it, except study some more science and see if more closures can help the kelp. And I promise there's someone working on it right now. I can't confirm this and I really don't want to, there's a strange occurrence going on, sea stars are coming down with a mighty bad case of natural, sicker than a dog, dying, dead dogs. And I realize some data collections might be a lofty thing to try, but not by scuba divers who say "hey i seen 3 black sea bass," or fishers. Counts are one thing. I know I rank high in nobility and opinion on this awesome site, it's why I'm gonna shed some of it here now. Doesn't it seem like the ocean, the big picture, is sort of like economics, only it's much less predictable, and very much less influenced by our crafty little notions of help. I know it's alot older and alot more healthy than economics ever was and ever will be. Honestly I used to think in terms of minerals that are primary on this planet, I might be the slow one in class, but it's looking more like the element H2o that runs the show. It's gonna out live the infection of temporary human life.
This is what is a bummer about MPAs and the progression of closures, they never reopen nor will it make that consideration list. (keep in mind, has anyone ever seen an area closure reopen? Besides a winter ground fish change from depths, etc. I'm talking about such as the massive closures to "rescue" "Overfished" cowcod, etc. So tradition and heritage of this great nation, inhabited by natives that lived only by the land. They managed. And as time went by, us awesome Europeans wanted to "help" them. Brought em some of the best alcohol we could find. And over the years our denatured attitude was, we'll just form this government, and dfg. We'll wing it. Well then past families of past families shared in the resources, with a cost to run the bureau, influenced dramatically who could afford to harvest, and a criminal system to manage, and now enforced closures. So I know we're all still gonna make it as long as the infection is hot, until we find a way to cure that, us. Just thinking an roving mobile MPA would actually make me believe your "understanding the spillover effects. It's connect the dots in MPA. IF it had anything to do with reseeding, more closures aren't going to keep up with the dwindling hard fished barren spots. There's gonna have to be a marshal army along our calif/pacific line to protect it. Hahah. Oh I know, wait, wait, just raise the dfw license fee. The best thing to do is open every thing wide open, and adjust limits. A daily take of 10 30lb yellowtail and 10 more of other species is a wrap up on the cost of the license but it doesn't happen that way all the time. You know what could of happened, when the regs were being developed someone might have been dipping into Native Negotiation drink.