More Recreational Data Coming Soon

[Seacidal]

This database should prove valuable for providing some indication of the level of recreational effort over time. From discussions on this forum and elsewhere, it is becoming apparent that the extent of spearfishing activity may be significantly under represented in the recreational data collected to date. It will be interesting to see how spearfishing impacts are factored in during the upcoming SoCal MPA process.

This is a work in progress, but it already shows significant opportunities for assessing the relative degrees of recreational catch and effort data. I look forward to the availability of the entire data set.

From NMFS:
This data set contains the L.A. Times daily summary of Sport Fish catches for the southern California region for 1959-1998 (!) from Ensenada, Mexico in the south northward to San Simeon, California in the north.

Purpose: This data set has been compiled as a means for persons interested in the recreational marine commercial passenger sport boat fishery in southern California to look at historical trends in catches effort for various species. The original data has been provided to the Los Angeles Times by individual commercial sport fish landings and carried by the L.A. Times as an informational service to their subscribers. The data set is a fairly complete and objective time series of commercial sport fish catches in the southern California region providing a unique opportunity to look at long and short term trends in catches & effort. The NMFS Fisheries Resource Division has compiled the data for a 40 year time period 1959-1998, and presented it in a format allowing extraction of catch and effort data by date, species, and location.

It may not be perfect, but it is an extensive set of data. I'm sure it will be useful in one way or another.

[SpearMax]

Chip, why was the data gathering stopped in 1998? Was that an L.A. Times decision? Just curious, Tony

[Seacidal]

Good question, Tony, and I don't know the answer. Perhaps as the database becomes more available we'll find out.

[ralphthehalibut]

I wonder how valid a 10 year old data set really is for todays issues. Think about the radical changes in effort and catches we've seen in the last decade. I have a feeling if the data was brought up to date there would be radical increases seen in the take of certain species on a recreational level (WSB comes to mind, as do Humboldt Squid) and radical drops in other species (rockfish, sheepshead). Another interestiing study would be to take the increases/decreases in certain fish specie takes and see if there is any correlation to increased trends in conservation of certain species (eg: the "slow to grow, let them go" C&R push calico bass fishing has enjoyed the past decade or so), captive breeding programs/gillnet bans, increases in fuel prices, etc.


It's too bad they stopped gathering data back in 1998.

[Seacidal]

Dave, bear in mind that the MPAs aren't based solely on today's environment. That's very important to keep in mind when conducting surveys or analyzing any data, or even answering surveys. Historical data is critically important to the determination and establishment of areas for MPA protections. If you read the language of the statute and its implementing regulations, critical habitat that may once have been very productive (but is now barren wasteland) is qualified for MPA protection based on its historical significance.

Your suggestions for greater data analysis are worth considering. As is often the case, there is probably not enough raw data to permit meaningful interpretation. This would support efforts to develop and implement more and broader data collection programs and increased reporting requirements for recreational fishery participants. With the "report card" programs being introduced for some stocks, we may expect to see more of this (and the fees necessary to support the program) in the future.

It's often frustrating -- we want fisheries to be properly managed in accordance with the best available scientific data, but we don't want to pay the money required to fund the fishery research and monitoring programs, or the data collection and analysis costs. It's a real challenge, on all sides.