Wonder how this will be used?

[Seacidal]

How do you think this will be interpreted?

[Nate Baker]

Interesting for sure. Do you know if it's accurate? I have to scratch my head about the kelp thing. The only real world example I see first hand is here in Laguna. The only place they allow commercial urchin diving is also the only place that consistently has kelp.

[Wind_in_his_hair]

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/response/kelp.pdf

[ralphthehalibut]

THE KELP THING IS LAUGHABLE.

Look at the kelp along the entire coast - inside or outside reserves it has changed dramatically the last few years.

And of course there's going to be more kelp growth in the reserves when they take all the reefs along the coast and leav us only the mud flats in between. That's a bit like saying that there is more plant growth in the feild next to the highway then on the blacktop.... DUH.

I don't understand how the "scientists" behind this have such a pathetically bad grip on reality, common sense, or what's really out there in the ocean. Are they really that dumb? Are they thinking that we are that dumb and they can just make up statistics, push it out there, stamp it as science, and the general public will believe them? I just don't get it.

[campbellc0321]

:stupid:

[Tino Bernazzani]

This is statistics 101.
When you want to get a particular answer, statistics can be a great place to prove your point.
You pick the desired result and work it backwards, leaving out key data that can be looked at out of context.
I guess the non-targeted species did not get the memo about the safety of the reserves?
What is a targeted species vs. a non-targeted species anyway?
How many of these fish are non-migratory and to what degree?
If they are going to dumb down fish info they should at least have some more realistic images of fish to keep me preoccupied from ingesting any relevant data.
Now I would have been completely distracted by the info if they would have just used yellowtail icons instead of goldfish.:p


"60% of the time, it works every time!"
Quoted from the movie "Anchor Man, Legend of Ron Burgundy"

[Urchin_Diver]

The only place they allow commercial urchin diving is also the only place that consistently has kelp.

thats what ive said at these meetings over and over again.



not to mention how fast kelp will disappear at the channel islands during a warmer summer.

now palos verdes is loaded with kelp.... even though theres no mpa there:confused:

[Noyo Jim]

There's a simple way to interpret this chart.

Look at the kelp chart - that shows the reserves were placed predominantly on rocky bottom. That's where the larger predatory fish hang out, with a few exceptions.

That's why there's more biomass there, except for non-target bait fish, which the big fish in the reserves ate.

This data looks like it was produced for the CIMNS report this week at the F&G Commission meeting.

[ryddragyn]

Wow. I should have made a figure like this for my thesis defense. Would have made for some great discussion... Interesting. Gotta love stats - especially error bars.

[TheSpearit]

Wow. I should have made a figure like this for my thesis defense. Would have made for some great discussion... Interesting. Gotta love stats - especially error bars.

No kidding, look at the size of those error bars on the kelp. They don't even say if it's statistically significant. What do the bars represent? SEM? StdDev? If its not significant, they can't claim its of any real meaning.

[5869]

Are they really that dumb? Nope!


Are they thinking that we are that dumb and they can just make up statistics, push it out there, stamp it as science, and the general public will believe them? I just don't get it. Yep and Yep.

Sorry to sound so disillusioned, but most people are sheep and would like to be spoon fed their "facts", especially if they like where they are pointing.

[Wind_in_his_hair]

THE KELP THING IS LAUGHABLE.


I don't understand how the "scientists" behind this have such a pathetically bad grip on reality, common sense, or what's really out there in the ocean. Are they really that dumb? Are they thinking that we are that dumb and they can just make up statistics, push it out there, stamp it as science, and the general public will believe them? I just don't get it.

I think they are dumbing it up for the general public. The pool of scientist working on the MLPA process seem to be well credentialed in my opinion. The kelp in PV is now at pre El Nino levels. 1994-95?

Mike

[Nate Baker]

I think they are dumbing it up for the general public. The pool of scientist working on the MLPA process seem to be well credentialed in my opinion. The kelp in PV is now at pre El Nino levels. 1994-95?

Mike

:yup: On both counts.


The kelp down to at least El Rosario in Mexico has been experiencing the same boom for a year now.

[SeaZen]

The only data being used right now both for the MLPA process and the data from the report your looking at is from the last 5 years for the later and from 1998 for the MLPA process. We are supposed to be using the best avaliable science during this MLPA process but they are not using the best avaliable common scense. The 8.5x11 color glossy multi page MPA Report being distributed by PISCO, is definately designed to influence the public that fishing is bad and MPA's are good.
Talk with as many people as you can, let them know the ocean is not dead and lifeless, in fact if the landlubbers would stop polluting every river and creek driving ocean water quality down fish would be in even better shape. if you would like information or talking points contact me or if you would like to offer your thoughts on the MLPA process, important areas that need to be kept open, areas that you could careless if they closed, whatever, give me a call or send me an email (805-683-DIVE).
We'll be needing all the help we can get here in the next few months!
Capt. Eric
MLPA Representative

[Daryl Bulloch]

Wow. I should have made a figure like this for my thesis defense. Would have made for some great discussion... Interesting. Gotta love stats - especially error bars.

Seriously, as a scientist I know that if I presented data on ANYTHING with error bars that large, I would get laughed at hard. I'd have to change my emphasis to comedy...

[toggy]

Seriously, as a scientist I know that if I presented data on ANYTHING with error bars that large, I would get laughed at hard. I'd have to change my emphasis to comedy...

Really? in some of the science I do the error bars are larger than the signal. You have to be honest. And you have to do the best you can. Of course, I'm an oceanographer...

Anyway, I think these plots were to be taken as talking points (i.e. made for a newspaper). I'm sure there are more official versions if you track the references back. (they're probably black and white and ugly...)

So anyway, after sitting through one of these meetings I came to the conclusion that the scientists are actually doing a fair and honest job with the science. They stated historical facts and not one tried to predict future behavior. ralphthehalibut, for all you know the person who made that kelp plot interpreted it the exact same way you did. These people are not all necessarily pro-mlpa...they may be just doing their job. Scientists want to be right more than anything...they really can't get away with BS for very long...some colleague will be very happy to correct them

Unfortunately during the meeting's coffee break I talked to a few that did give opinions about how the only way to a healthy ocean ecosystem was through MLPAs. Basically they didn't trust fisherman to be sustainable. But this feeling was just there opinion and had no scientific backing. My issue with other scientists is when they use their title to opine on issues outside their expertise. Unfortunately this may be happening, some people are corrupt (see the news).

[Daryl Bulloch]

Really? in some of the science I do the error bars are larger than the signal. You have to be honest. And you have to do the best you can. Of course, I'm an oceanographer...

I see plenty of science where the error bars are larger than the signal, but policy is generally not enforced based on that data. I also understand it would suck for the DFG to come out and say that they can't generate data with sufficient statistical power to make sense of things they do, and that it's a total catch 22 for multiple reasons. We don't trust DFG enough to give them enough money to allow them the resources to make accurate enough measurements to produce reliable data to make sound decisions upon and educate the users of the resources, rinse and repeat. If the DFG were to make public how they made measurements and from where, it would increase confidence in their methods. That is to say, we could point out things they may have missed and contribute knowledge their resources prohibit. At the end of the day I want to be able to enjoy the ocean as I have for the rest of my life. There is bias on both sides and I'm too young and too inexperienced to provide a blanket plan for how to deal with this, and so my opinion may be buried. As a plus, I feel much worse about the future when I voice my opinion.

[Kelsea]

What sort of scientific peer review process, if any, exists for data gathered by DFG? Are these data published and easily accessible to the public before policy changes are made based upon them?

Are there any agencies/institutions outside of CA DFG, that conduct their own independent studies? If so, what have they found?

[ralphthehalibut]

:yup: On both counts.


The kelp down to at least El Rosario in Mexico has been experiencing the same boom for a year now.

Yeah, the kelp is back to PRE EL NINO levels. But the el nino had nothing to do with the die off, right?:rolleyes:


HMMMMM. Lets see. cold water liking plants die off after a ......WARM WATER event coupled with unusually large, consistent surf, and then comes back after a number of years without strong warm water events or consistent large surf..... it must have come back because of ... RESERVES. Yeah, that's the ticket - the RESERVES are the reason, not the return to a normal weather pattern, even though it was an unusual weather pattern that killed the plants, it's our little baby that we are pushing on you that is the reason the kelp is coming back.

Did we also mention that puppies are 30% furrier, the weather is 60% nicer, and 74% more people win the lottery in areas surrounding MPA's? Really, they do! In fact, if we create an MPA in your dive spot, you automatically gain 90 IQ points too!!!!


Sorry guys, but I just don't but it that MPAs have anything to do with the kelp return. MPAs don't affect the weather.

[ralphthehalibut]

What sort of scientific peer review process, if any, exists for data gathered by DFG? Are these data published and easily accessible to the public before policy changes are made based upon them?

Are there any agencies/institutions outside of CA DFG, that conduct their own independent studies? If so, what have they found?

The MLPA and a lot of the studies used to justify it are funded by some of the same groups that fund the non biased thinkers at PETA and the Sierra club.

NO ulterior motives there, right?

[ralphthehalibut]

So anyway, after sitting through one of these meetings I came to the conclusion that the scientists are actually doing a fair and honest job with the science. They stated historical facts and not one tried to predict future behavior. ralphthehalibut, for all you know the person who made that kelp plot interpreted it the exact same way you did. These people are not all necessarily pro-mlpa...they may be just doing their job. Scientists want to be right more than anything...they really can't get away with BS for very long...some colleague will be very happy to correct them

).


Really? Ther people producing this "science" aren't neccesseraly pro MLPA? Funny, when they are on the payroll of groups that are rabidly anti fishing, and will suffer financially if they don't vcome up with "science" in line with the views of said groups, I think it's more than a bit suspicious that they consistently continue to produce "evidence" that support the views of the people that cut them their paychecks despite the fact thir "science" flies directly in the face of things like common sense, reason, or even easily observable facts.

To put it bluntly, these "scientists" are bought and paid for whores of anti fishing groups, and any studies they produce are pretty much worthless because they are biased by a finacial responsibility to their employers.

[WESTBURY]

I agree with Dave P. on what he just said.
These people have an agenda.
Manipulation of the data is part of it.
Marketing this manipulated data to the uninformed/naive public is part of the agenda.

[WESTBURY]

The Pro MLPA people are "creating" a problem to justify a solution (MLPA). Funded by their private money.
It's a dirty game that I don't think we can win, unfortunatly.:(

[Nerka]

Wow. I should have made a figure like this for my thesis defense. Would have made for some great discussion... Interesting. Gotta love stats - especially error bars.

apparently you don't work in ecology.....

[Nerka]

Really? Ther people producing this "science" aren't neccesseraly pro MLPA? Funny, when they are on the payroll of groups that are rabidly anti fishing, and will suffer financially if they don't vcome up with "science" in line with the views of said groups, I think it's more than a bit suspicious that they consistently continue to produce "evidence" that support the views of the people that cut them their paychecks despite the fact thir "science" flies directly in the face of things like common sense, reason, or even easily observable facts.

To put it bluntly, these "scientists" are bought and paid for whores of anti fishing groups, and any studies they produce are pretty much worthless because they are biased by a finacial responsibility to their employers.

Ad hominem arguments are cheap and easy and unfortunately surprisingly effective on sheep. Care to elaborate on why all marine science is bad?

[ralphthehalibut]

Ad hominem arguments are cheap and easy and unfortunately surprisingly effective on sheep. Care to elaborate on why all marine science is bad?
I NEVER said all marine science is bad. What I said is that when you have studies being done to decide wether or not we close an area funded by a group that wants to close said area, there is a direct conflict of interest.

Would you trust a study saying smoking cigarrettes is good for you when the funding from that study was provided by malboro? I wouldn't.

The studies being used to push the MLPA forward were funded by private antifishing groups. That's publicly available knowledge. There is a direct conflict of interest, and any ethical scientist would see that.

We are getting hornswaggled.

[toggy]

Wow, it was my impression that the majority of the science was being done through the CalCOFI program and primarily by NOAA (http://www.calcofi.org/). And it was my impression that these NOAA scientists are on hard money and set pay scales and therefore cannot be money whores...they can whore for attention or whatever, but not for money

I really would love to know where (what agency) you think the DFG and the policy makers gets there info. The CalCOFI meeting I went to was valid science....and it was my impression that their reports were a primary source of info given to the policy makers.

I know there is bad science out there funded by private interests...but I do not think this is making it into the reports.

And on a final note, Dave, with all due respect, has anyone said that designating MLPAs is the reason that kelp has grow faster in those regions? Its just a plot...a figure...not an analysis

[edit: I guess my point is that we need to know who the `enemy' is...it is likely not the entire establishment. ]

[toggy]

I NEVER said all marine science is bad. What I said is that when you have studies being done to decide wether or not we close an area funded by a group that wants to close said area, there is a direct conflict of interest.

Would you trust a study saying smoking cigarrettes is good for you when the funding from that study was provided by malboro? I wouldn't.

The studies being used to push the MLPA forward were funded by private antifishing groups. That's publicly available knowledge. There is a direct conflict of interest, and any ethical scientist would see that.

We are getting hornswaggled.

Actually I think the MLPA policies being made are based much more on politics than science. I doubt there is sufficient science to prove that MLPAs are the best way forward. I think its just one possible answer that the politicians grabbed hold of cause its easy.

At the CalCOFI meeting it was all about the current state compared to the last few years. It was about what species where in trouble, possibly in trouble, and ok. The subject of how to save these species never came up in a single talk. Though there was speculation about some species that have been recovering (e.g. "the return of species A may possibly be linked to changes in gillnetting regulations" or something like this)

So my impression is the CalCOFI report states what fish are in trouble....and possibly why....but thats it

Politicians and DFG ecologists then speculate on how to save these species and instead of regulations, came up with abstinence...I think what they do should be labeled more as a wide-ranging cost-benefit analysis than science. And the benefits may be corrupt....anway this is just my interpretation of how its going down...and I could very well be wrong

and i realize the DFG will use some other reports as well...I'll try to find these

[toggy]

And just for the record, I am totally for sustainability over abstinence.
Designating more MLPAs is not the proper way forward

[toggy]

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/response/kelp.pdf

Dave, you should read the last 2 paragraphs of this. It's not very well written, kind of just facts put together, but it certainly does not make a clear case for MLPAs. It says that "Tegner and Dayton (1991) suggested that the
commercial fishery for red sea urchins has helped to increase the long term stability of kelp off Point Loma."

I really think the MLPA issue has much much much more to do with politics than science. For whatever reason the California government has decided MLPAs=good and fishing=bad.

I think the most effective way to voice our opinion is by calling or writing our representatives. Perhaps newspaper editorials would be appropriate too. I think this has become a policy issue way beyond the influence of science.

[SDspearo]

If I recall right, the MLPA was passed by the people as a ballot initiative. No science, all politics. Hopefully the implimentation will be more scinece less politics.

[toggy]

If I recall right, the MLPA was passed by the people as a ballot initiative. No science, all politics. Hopefully the implimentation will be more scinece less politics.

I moved here in August so I just found out about the MLPAs recently. I'm a bit embarrassed to admit that I never knew how the initiative got started.

The fact that MLPAs are to be implemented due to a popular vote is sad. I feel its a shortsighted idea. I wish I could have been here during that vote.

Although maybe they were envisioned to be highly regulated areas, which I'm ok with. I just don't like the absolutely no-take regions...which they are being implemented as

[Nerka]

I NEVER said all marine science is bad.

I think you did "To put it bluntly, these "scientists" are bought and paid for whores of anti fishing groups,"
In your statement "these" is meant to refer to all marine scientists that work on any issue that could be related to or used in the MLPA process. So, I guess that might not mean ALL but it certainly refers to MOST.


What you don't seem to understand is that while yes there are NGOs putting out reports slanted toward MORE harvest and NGOs putting out reports arguing for LESS harvest this is not the majority of science nor is it the norm. If you wish to actually make progress toward your agenda, which appears to be all open access, I would suggest you learn about the process and get involved rather the stick your fingers in your ears and say "science is bad, I can't hear your logic, science is bad"

You will get a lot further promoting good science than you will vilifying science.

[Urchin_Diver]

im with ralph

this is a bunch of crap agenda being pushed by a bunch of enviro nazis with $ that dont know half as much about the ecosystem in question as the fishermen that spend 150-200 days a year out there

not to mention that the group that was in charge of the socioeconomic impact was EcoTrust (an environmental group, most of which are anti-fishing)

Sorry, not buying it.

If we want our fisheries to be sustainable we need to manage them, not shut them down completely so we dont have to worry about it.

[ralphthehalibut]

I think you did "To put it bluntly, these "scientists" are bought and paid for whores of anti fishing groups,"
In your statement "these" is meant to refer to all marine scientists that work on any issue that could be related to or used in the MLPA process. So, I guess that might not mean ALL but it certainly refers to MOST.


.


NO.

"These" referred to tho scientists that put out that particular study, and if you really want to broaden it, it referred to any scientist that is on the payrole eithier directly, or indirectly of anti spearfishing/anti hunting groups. That is a clear and direct conflict of interest. Scientists who are financially beholden to a group that is in favor of closures should not be producing studies on wether or not that closure should happen. It's like a doc working for a cigarrette company telling you smoking is good for you. It simply can't be trusted.

That is what "These" referred to in my statement. Nothing else. Don't put words in my mouth. If you need clarification on my meaning, just ask, don't assume.

I am all for GOOD science. That means unbiased studies where the data is gathered, then the outcome is concluded on based on the data, and error os minimized. Studies funded by anti fishing groups are not good science because the group is paying for a study to come up with data that matches what they want to happen. Honestly, how long do you think they would keep funding a project if the lead kept coming up with data that went counter to their predecided goals? Look around. It's a sad comment, but in research nowadays, you roduce what your grantor wants, regardless of the truth, or you lose your funding.

[ralphthehalibut]

not to mention that the group that was in charge of the socioeconomic impact was EcoTrust (an environmental group, most of which are anti-fishing)

Sorry, not buying it.

.



Another example of what I'm referring to when I say "these"

Extremists with agendas can and do produce fake studies.

Hell, there are religious nuts out that "found" their own "University". Give themselves a PhD form that university, and then produce "studies" that claim the world is only 4000 years old and dinosaur bones are nothing more than funny shaped rocks. Do you believe them to Chione? Because I don't (I'm a flyingspaghettimonsterist)

[Urchin_Diver]

Basically they didn't trust fisherman to be sustainable.

most fishermen that i know, including myself, dont trust the biologists/managers. A lot of us feel if we give them everything, they will just try to use it to shut us down

one particular ngo, came to some us and asked about the most productive areas in some of our fisheries. Literally gave us a map and asked us to fill it out.
I personally would not ever do that becuase i know that those areas would be the one's becoming mpa's

[deckhandmike]

I can personally say I have been on boats doing rockfish studies. We were given a grid to go fish in. The captain looked at it and laughed, told the researchers there is no rockfish there. They insisted on the area and we barely caught anything. That situation was repeated over and over. Then it became fact that rockfish in that area were depleated. Never got to take them to a spot we recommended.

[Urchin_Diver]

same way they did it for sea cucumbers

alot of the guys told them that in the summer they are here in numbers and only in rocky/reef habitat.

But with all their education and phd's, they didnt understand that and just picked random spots along the coast of the islands and did their transect line surveys. A bunch of the spots were in the SAND!!!! Obviously there is no cucumbers there.

Really blows my mind. What a waste of $$ on your "education" into marine biology

[Nate Baker]

I can personally say I have been on boats doing rockfish studies. We were given a grid to go fish in. The captain looked at it and laughed, told the researchers there is no rockfish there. They insisted on the area and we barely caught anything. That situation was repeated over and over. Then it became fact that rockfish in that area were depleated. Never got to take them to a spot we recommended.

Is there any chance there might have been rockfish there 50 years ago? I'm guessing there must have been some comparative data they were trying to match, no?

[Nerka]

I can personally say I have been on boats doing rockfish studies. We were given a grid to go fish in. The captain looked at it and laughed, told the researchers there is no rockfish there. They insisted on the area and we barely caught anything. That situation was repeated over and over. Then it became fact that rockfish in that area were depleated. Never got to take them to a spot we recommended.

See cod, the fishermen said the same thing "you scientists don't know where to look". Well the fishermen where right and took almost every cod left in western Atlantic and fisher has not recovered after a very long total closure. Be careful what you ask for..

It sounds like the people you were working with were either following the same plots year after year or using a random sampling, nothing wrong with that in fact cherry picking sites leads to bad data.

[Nerka]

I am all for GOOD science.

Then why don't you talk about good science then?

What about the scientists on the payroll of pro-fishing groups? How do feel about them?





"These" referred to tho scientists that put out that particular study, and if you really want to broaden it, it referred to any scientist that is on the payrole eithier directly, or indirectly of anti spearfishing/anti hunting groups.

This "study" ->
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/response/kelp.pdf
Dude that is a basic lit review done by some lower level work a day employee at DFG, do you really think PETA funded that paper? :scratch:


It's a sad comment, but in research nowadays, you roduce what your grantor wants, regardless of the truth, or you lose your funding.

sure sounds like you are vilifying science to me...

[deckhandmike]

I don't think those spots were ever rockfish spots. The spots were all new numbers. It seemed like this was all pretty new stuff to them. Random sampling off data is not going to be effective and all I wanted is a little better thought out study. You can tell there was no input from those who know about fish locations in there study.

[ralphthehalibut]

Then why don't you talk about good science then?

What about the scientists on the payroll of pro-fishing groups? How do feel about them?

I don't trust them eithier.



This "study" ->
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/response/kelp.pdf
Dude that is a basic lit review done by some lower level work a day employee at DFG, do you really think PETA funded that paper? :scratch: Do you know WHERE the fnding for the MLPA is coming from? It's coming from a nearly 8 million dollar grant from an antifishing group. So yeah, I don't trust the studies the lower level DFG people are doing when those DFG people working on the MLPA are essentially on the payroll of an antifishing/antihunting group.



sure sounds like you are vilifying science to me...

Again, I'm not villifying science. I'm villifying the current non-science being used in the MLPA process. As I stated above, the MLPA was dead, out of funding, until it was "rescued" by the RLFF to the tune of 8 million dollars. The MLPA is being funded by a private, extremist, antifishing/antihunting group. Everyone working on the MLPA who is getting paid by that funding is therefore financially beholden to that group and can not be trusted to be objective.

Follow where the money is coming from for the MLPA chione, and it gets really ugly.

[deckhandmike]

What was even worse was Cal Poly had years of good data that supported that the fish populations were healthy. But instead of going to bat with this data for us they saw future $ for doing more research on MLPA areas vs no MLPA areas. For at least the last five years we have had cal poly observers on our boats for free doing rockfish research and when it came time for them to show what they came up with we got no help. It's all about the money in the end.

[Nerka]

Again, I'm not villifying science. I'm villifying the current non-science being used in the MLPA process. As I stated above, the MLPA was dead, out of funding, until it was "rescued" by the RLFF to the tune of 8 million dollars. The MLPA is being funded by a private, extremist, antifishing/antihunting group. Everyone working on the MLPA who is getting paid by that funding is therefore financially beholden to that group and can not be trusted to be objective.

Follow where the money is coming from for the MLPA chione, and it gets really ugly.


Cited in the for mentioned "PETA" sponsored article -Brandt 1923

I bet they the anti-fishing people paid Brandt in hookers and blow 80+ years ago so they could use his biased propaganda based science to destroy fishing
:rolleyes:


So how do you feel about the people serving on the SAT and RSG?

[Urchin_Diver]

i always found it interesting when they did trawl surveys too