Date: January 6, 2005
To: PFIC Message Board
From: Ken Jones
Subject: Check out the conclusions...WRONG!
http://gis.ca.gov/catalog/BrowseRecord.epl?id=2342
Catalog: CA Dept. of Fish & Game (Marine) - Administrative Report
Dataset: Southern California Pier Fishermen: How familiar are they with the sport fishing regulations?
Geographic Bounding Box: South Coast Bioregion
Identifier: Administrative Report No. 80-2
Citation Information
Title: Southern California Pier Fishermen: How familiar are they with the sport fishing regulations?
Originator: Vickie L. Wine
Edition:
Publication Date: 1980-01
Information Resource Type: Format: Books, Hardcopy
Content: Documents, Reports
Other Citation Details:
Identification Information
Abstract: Anglers frequently violate sport fishing regulations out of ignorance, by mistake, or by deliberate action. To determine whether unfamiliarity with the regulations plays a major part in this problem, we asked pier fishermen a series of questions which tested their knowledge of the regulations. We discovered that on any given weekday, only 7% of the anglers on a pier kept a copy of the regulations with them for reference. The remaining fishermen had to depend upon memory for the rules; however, only 31% of the anglers knew three or more of those rules. Pier anglers are not well enough informed to follow the size limit regulations. However, anglers on piers do not often catch size-regulated fish. Unless these anglers engage in another type of fishing (such as from a boat) they will not significantly detract from the success of fishery management programs for size-regulated fish species.
Purpose: To assess pier fishermen's knowledge of fishing regulations.
Supplemental Info:
Time Period: Start: 1979-11-01 End: 1979-11-30
Currentness: Publication Date
Progress: Complete
Update Frequency: None Planned
Places: Place Name of Bounding Box: South Coast Bioregion
Other Place Names: South Coast Bioregion
Geographic Region: West: -119.4900 East: -116.3100 North: 34.7600 South: 32.5300
Themes: Desert resources, Drinking water, Electricity, Forest resources, Fossil fuels, Fuel, Gas fields, Gems, Geothermal resources, Germplasm resources, Gold mines and mining, Groundwater, Hydroelectric power, Irrigation water, Lumber, Marine mineral resources, Marine resources, Ocean fishing, Energy resources, Land, Fisheries, Marine fishes, Population, Coastal resources, Conservation of natural resources, Landings, Fishermen, Regulations, Species Identification
Access Limitations: No Restrictions
Use Limitations: No redistribution currently
Data Contact: Marine Region California State Department of Fish and Game
Posted by pescare
I’m not so sure, Ken. I don't find those conclusions the least bit surprising. Look what we see here, and we are certainly the best informed pier anglers as a group. What I see on piers leads me to believe they are correct.
Posted by jshang
Unless Ken was talking about the report's conclusion that fishing from piers doesn't have enough impact to affect the fishery??
Posted by Ken Jones
Yes, I meant in regard to the conclusions in the final sentences — “However, anglers on piers do not often catch size-regulated fish. Unless these anglers engage in another type of fishing (such as from a boat) they will not significantly detract from the success of fishery management programs for size-regulated fish species.”
Posted by pierhead
I think the qualifier here is ... size-regulated fish. Unless these anglers engage in another type of fishing (such as from a boat) they will not significantly detract from the success of fishery management programs for size-regulated fish species.... anglers on piers do not often catch size-regulated fish. Hence their ignorance is understandable. In SoCal the major size-regulated fish are halibut, the various basses, sculpin and leopard sharks. I venture to say that anybody who targets halibut is aware of the size limit ... as are most other anglers on the pier. The other fish aren't caught on a regular basis so the few that are retained illegally probably don't have that much impact. The overall bag limit and limits for perch are the areas that I see the most violations ... this study doesn't seem to account for that. It is certainly a problem that needs to be addressed.
Posted by pescare
Just call me Emily Litella.
Posted by Superfish
I'm not surprise either. Even now a very large segment of the population does not access the Internet. For example a very good friend, whom I've known for over 30 years has kids in colleges and a computer at home, does not use the computer. He feels intimidated by it. Many people refuse to accept new information. Again, he just retains what he wants. Now how many people want central SF Bay reopen up to shore fishing for sturgeons?
Posted by sleepingisnicer
Keep in mind that’s also from 1979, so I would hope things have changed since then.
Posted by SanClementeEric
If pier fisherman don't significantly detract from the success of fishery management programs for size-regulated fish species, then maybe they shouldn't have to regulate what pier fisherman catch? That would be fine by me.
Posted by Ken Jones
I need to clarify...
1. I AGREE that far too many pier anglers do not know the regulations and improperly catch and keep too many fish.
2. I DO NOT AGREE that pier anglers catch few size-regulated fish (in other words, sportfish). NOR DO I AGREE that pier anglers have little impact on those fishes. Pier anglers have a substantial impact on juvenile halibut and white seabass and a major impact on surfperch (one of the main types of fish that has seen a drastic reduction in numbers the last two decades).
This is one reason why California needs an organization like UPSAC! It is our job to help educate anglers at piers and shore areas as to regulations and the best ways to preserve our marine environment and fishery.
Posted by dompfa ben
The big problem, IMO, is a matter of altitude...There is some causality with pier fishing, ignorance of the regulations, and size-restricted fish mortality. However, this causality dabbled dangerously close to what might be construed as stereotypes and unfair assessments of the group as a whole; thus, I'll end that train of thought here for now.
However, I agree that released fish mortality at piers is probably higher than released fish mortality on boats for a simple reason: height.
If a short halibut is caught on a boat, and the anglers release it, it might have a 2 to 5 foot drop back to the water. This is not much greater a strain on the fish than its own ability to jump out of the water in pursuit of forage.
However, on a pier, even altruistic anglers who attempt to release a short halibut, might subject it to a 25 to 40 foot freefall, ending with a slap down on the water. This is probably the nail in the coffin for fish that have just endured an enervating fight, and the resulting shock or trauma means they are crab food, plain and simple.
Of course, I do not think fishing should be banned at piers! But perhaps an important goal might be to change the regulations on the MANNER in which fish (or at least, size restricted fish) are released--either via the use of a landing net, or perhaps some technological device that Daniel E. hasn't come up with yet.
Posted by baitfish
Fish release chutes? Daniel E? I wonder if there would be a way to release a fish via some type of chute. If you can make it fun for kids and easy for adults, it will work.
Posted by yobnhojmi
The problem IMO is...the DFG spending money to send people out to "quiz" pierfishers. How about using it to put some signs up with legal sizes and limits? Not all would obviously follow the posted regs, but some of those "ignorant" pier fishers might be educated by them. Such a waste of money!
Posted by pescare
We don't know. Their intent might be exactly what you suggest. I would imagine to get money allocated for anything in an org like DFG, you've got to prove a need. If they just asked for money for signs out of the blue, some paper-pusher would challenge the need for the funds because that is their job. If they can go up and say, "XX% of active pier anglers are ignorant of current regulations and we believe signs would educate XX% percent of those", they might have a case.
Posted by yobnhojmi
I hope you are right, but...I don’t give them that much credit.
To: PFIC Message Board
From: Ken Jones
Subject: Check out the conclusions...WRONG!
http://gis.ca.gov/catalog/BrowseRecord.epl?id=2342
Catalog: CA Dept. of Fish & Game (Marine) - Administrative Report
Dataset: Southern California Pier Fishermen: How familiar are they with the sport fishing regulations?
Geographic Bounding Box: South Coast Bioregion
Identifier: Administrative Report No. 80-2
Citation Information
Title: Southern California Pier Fishermen: How familiar are they with the sport fishing regulations?
Originator: Vickie L. Wine
Edition:
Publication Date: 1980-01
Information Resource Type: Format: Books, Hardcopy
Content: Documents, Reports
Other Citation Details:
Identification Information
Abstract: Anglers frequently violate sport fishing regulations out of ignorance, by mistake, or by deliberate action. To determine whether unfamiliarity with the regulations plays a major part in this problem, we asked pier fishermen a series of questions which tested their knowledge of the regulations. We discovered that on any given weekday, only 7% of the anglers on a pier kept a copy of the regulations with them for reference. The remaining fishermen had to depend upon memory for the rules; however, only 31% of the anglers knew three or more of those rules. Pier anglers are not well enough informed to follow the size limit regulations. However, anglers on piers do not often catch size-regulated fish. Unless these anglers engage in another type of fishing (such as from a boat) they will not significantly detract from the success of fishery management programs for size-regulated fish species.
Purpose: To assess pier fishermen's knowledge of fishing regulations.
Supplemental Info:
Time Period: Start: 1979-11-01 End: 1979-11-30
Currentness: Publication Date
Progress: Complete
Update Frequency: None Planned
Places: Place Name of Bounding Box: South Coast Bioregion
Other Place Names: South Coast Bioregion
Geographic Region: West: -119.4900 East: -116.3100 North: 34.7600 South: 32.5300
Themes: Desert resources, Drinking water, Electricity, Forest resources, Fossil fuels, Fuel, Gas fields, Gems, Geothermal resources, Germplasm resources, Gold mines and mining, Groundwater, Hydroelectric power, Irrigation water, Lumber, Marine mineral resources, Marine resources, Ocean fishing, Energy resources, Land, Fisheries, Marine fishes, Population, Coastal resources, Conservation of natural resources, Landings, Fishermen, Regulations, Species Identification
Access Limitations: No Restrictions
Use Limitations: No redistribution currently
Data Contact: Marine Region California State Department of Fish and Game
Posted by pescare
I’m not so sure, Ken. I don't find those conclusions the least bit surprising. Look what we see here, and we are certainly the best informed pier anglers as a group. What I see on piers leads me to believe they are correct.
Posted by jshang
Unless Ken was talking about the report's conclusion that fishing from piers doesn't have enough impact to affect the fishery??
Posted by Ken Jones
Yes, I meant in regard to the conclusions in the final sentences — “However, anglers on piers do not often catch size-regulated fish. Unless these anglers engage in another type of fishing (such as from a boat) they will not significantly detract from the success of fishery management programs for size-regulated fish species.”
Posted by pierhead
I think the qualifier here is ... size-regulated fish. Unless these anglers engage in another type of fishing (such as from a boat) they will not significantly detract from the success of fishery management programs for size-regulated fish species.... anglers on piers do not often catch size-regulated fish. Hence their ignorance is understandable. In SoCal the major size-regulated fish are halibut, the various basses, sculpin and leopard sharks. I venture to say that anybody who targets halibut is aware of the size limit ... as are most other anglers on the pier. The other fish aren't caught on a regular basis so the few that are retained illegally probably don't have that much impact. The overall bag limit and limits for perch are the areas that I see the most violations ... this study doesn't seem to account for that. It is certainly a problem that needs to be addressed.
Posted by pescare
Just call me Emily Litella.
Posted by Superfish
I'm not surprise either. Even now a very large segment of the population does not access the Internet. For example a very good friend, whom I've known for over 30 years has kids in colleges and a computer at home, does not use the computer. He feels intimidated by it. Many people refuse to accept new information. Again, he just retains what he wants. Now how many people want central SF Bay reopen up to shore fishing for sturgeons?
Posted by sleepingisnicer
Keep in mind that’s also from 1979, so I would hope things have changed since then.
Posted by SanClementeEric
If pier fisherman don't significantly detract from the success of fishery management programs for size-regulated fish species, then maybe they shouldn't have to regulate what pier fisherman catch? That would be fine by me.
Posted by Ken Jones
I need to clarify...
1. I AGREE that far too many pier anglers do not know the regulations and improperly catch and keep too many fish.
2. I DO NOT AGREE that pier anglers catch few size-regulated fish (in other words, sportfish). NOR DO I AGREE that pier anglers have little impact on those fishes. Pier anglers have a substantial impact on juvenile halibut and white seabass and a major impact on surfperch (one of the main types of fish that has seen a drastic reduction in numbers the last two decades).
This is one reason why California needs an organization like UPSAC! It is our job to help educate anglers at piers and shore areas as to regulations and the best ways to preserve our marine environment and fishery.
Posted by dompfa ben
The big problem, IMO, is a matter of altitude...There is some causality with pier fishing, ignorance of the regulations, and size-restricted fish mortality. However, this causality dabbled dangerously close to what might be construed as stereotypes and unfair assessments of the group as a whole; thus, I'll end that train of thought here for now.
However, I agree that released fish mortality at piers is probably higher than released fish mortality on boats for a simple reason: height.
If a short halibut is caught on a boat, and the anglers release it, it might have a 2 to 5 foot drop back to the water. This is not much greater a strain on the fish than its own ability to jump out of the water in pursuit of forage.
However, on a pier, even altruistic anglers who attempt to release a short halibut, might subject it to a 25 to 40 foot freefall, ending with a slap down on the water. This is probably the nail in the coffin for fish that have just endured an enervating fight, and the resulting shock or trauma means they are crab food, plain and simple.
Of course, I do not think fishing should be banned at piers! But perhaps an important goal might be to change the regulations on the MANNER in which fish (or at least, size restricted fish) are released--either via the use of a landing net, or perhaps some technological device that Daniel E. hasn't come up with yet.
Posted by baitfish
Fish release chutes? Daniel E? I wonder if there would be a way to release a fish via some type of chute. If you can make it fun for kids and easy for adults, it will work.
Posted by yobnhojmi
The problem IMO is...the DFG spending money to send people out to "quiz" pierfishers. How about using it to put some signs up with legal sizes and limits? Not all would obviously follow the posted regs, but some of those "ignorant" pier fishers might be educated by them. Such a waste of money!
Posted by pescare
We don't know. Their intent might be exactly what you suggest. I would imagine to get money allocated for anything in an org like DFG, you've got to prove a need. If they just asked for money for signs out of the blue, some paper-pusher would challenge the need for the funds because that is their job. If they can go up and say, "XX% of active pier anglers are ignorant of current regulations and we believe signs would educate XX% percent of those", they might have a case.
Posted by yobnhojmi
I hope you are right, but...I don’t give them that much credit.
