BajaNomad

Fishing in the Gulf/Better/Worse?

tehag - 5-14-2008 at 09:46 AM

Among sport fishermen with some experience in the Gulf there seems to be a difference of opinion concerning the condition of the fishery. Let's see the spread. Select the answer that best describes your opinion of the change, if any, in the Gulf of California sport fishery.

Osprey - 5-14-2008 at 11:40 AM

Tehag, it's a good start, a good idea. You may not like the answers: the gulf is 68,000 sq. miles. Are the people in the poll to assume they are catching more/bigger fish of any specie labeled Sport Fish? Is it any/all fish not intended for sale? For example: I'm catching way more ladyfish than I ever did in the past fishing only in a bay about 20 X 15 miles 60 air miles from the tip of the peninsula on the west side of the gulf. Should my reply be MUCH BETTER?

[Edited on 5-14-2008 by Osprey]

Russ - 5-14-2008 at 11:45 AM

Simple in simple out

Skipjack Joe - 5-14-2008 at 12:32 PM

Specifying a time reference frame would have been helpful. Perhaps it was purposefully omitted. My comparison was with fishing about 25 years ago. It was very different back then.

vandenberg - 5-14-2008 at 12:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
Specifying a time reference frame would have been helpful. Perhaps it was purposefully omitted. My comparison was with fishing about 25 years ago. It was very different back then.


Concur with Skipjack.
Have to have a way for comparison, otherwise this poll is worthless.

Osprey - 5-14-2008 at 01:06 PM

Without picking fly poop out of pepper there must be a way to get a reasonable answer without a long questionaire but I think, to be fair, the questions have to narrow down what kind of fish, take into account better success opportunities vis a vis charters, lures, bait, etc. If you use the word "Success" that could mean "more of what you were/are after" and simplify things a bit. Should be careful about the word "Sport" and don't forget to include flyfishing.

Cypress - 5-14-2008 at 01:43 PM

If you have to run out of the average panga's range to catch a mess of fish, 30+ miles, that ought to give you a clue.:) The Sea of Cortez is getting hammered.:)

Fishing

tehag - 5-14-2008 at 02:18 PM

Key word here, opinion, not science. Parameters such as where, when, what kind, etc. are not needed in an opinion poll. This is not intended as a fisheries management tool, simply a poll of opinions. It has already begun to show something of a trend in opinion, that's all it will ever show.

Pescador - 5-14-2008 at 02:46 PM

Skeet wants to vote twice.:D

Osprey - 5-14-2008 at 02:46 PM

Sorry, got off on the wrong track there for a minute. To form my opinion I will lean on fairly new data: the 400 plus permits now allow an extra 1.5 million baited hooks to be longlined all over the gulf as many times a day as they can be pulled in and redeployed. Based on that, my opinion is that fishing was better (for our side) before the permits were issued. I'll bet if any permit holders want to post they might say it's better now (for their side) that they have the permits.

vandenberg - 5-14-2008 at 03:29 PM

Tom,
It has to be
"better then what/when?":?:
or
"worse then what/when?":?:

Trying again

tehag - 5-15-2008 at 05:59 PM

Obviously I have worded this invitation to participate in an opinion poll unclearly. Otherwise, how can we explain more than 300 views and only 24 opinions. I know there are more than 24 fishermen on this board, and among them there is certainly no great shortage of opinions.

Let me try to clarify. If you, in your own personal experience of fishing in the Gulf of California over the aggregate of all the types of fishing you have done over whatever span of time since you began fishing there have formed any opinion as to whether the quality of fishing has changed, and you would care to share your opinion with others here, please check an appropriate box in the poll at the beginning of this thread.

This is not science. I am simply curious. I would hope that others here are, too. In my own experience, which spans some years, I have noticed that catching most pelagics has become increasingly difficult and inshore species even more so. How long since you caught a dorado inside Danzante on a red and white feather or a sierra from the beach on a blue and white one? Was a time when that was far enough, and a feather seemed to be just what they wanted.

vandenberg - 5-15-2008 at 06:12 PM

O.K. Tom, you have my "much worse" vote.
But I want to add that this is an overall decline in all fishes since the end of the 70's.

better or worse then WHEN???

flyfishinPam - 5-18-2008 at 03:58 PM

this question is too general.

areas need to be focused on and technique needs to be focused on.

well for me its better than it was ten years ago...I have been using different techniques than I did ten years ago and I have gotten better at using these techniques.

same goes for my sport captains, they have become more skilled at what they do.

sportfishing clientele has changed considerably along with it their techniques have changed, and they along with the captains have become more skilled at catching fish.

we've learned more about fish behaviour and seasons and have been able to pass this knowledge to clients so that they travel during the optimum times, focus on the best technique for their area of fishing and time of year they're fishing...etc.

this poll is too general.

this general question can be asked with decent results to commercial fishermen who fish in the same location as they did ten years ago, and with the same techniques. then the results would actually be useful. but your heart is in the right place by asking.

flyfishinPam - 5-18-2008 at 09:06 PM

you know this poll caught my attention and when I read through, there are several people that had the same concerns about the generality of this opinion poll that I have stated

did all of you recieve a nasty u2u from tehag too?

mr hag I know who you are so you can't hide behind a keyboard. you stalk all of my posts. its weird. get a life. here's my opinion, this opinion poll doesn't matter.

Way beyond polling

tehag - 5-18-2008 at 09:15 PM

Hi Pam:

Nice to hear from you. I U2Ud as a courtesy to you in case you didn't want to be public. Evidently that's not the case. What you saw as nasty in my communication is beyond me. It certainly wasn't intended to be nasty. I'm sorry that I misjudged your take on it. Please accept my apology.

Tom Haglund

Iflyfish - 5-18-2008 at 10:16 PM

How about looking at some research?

http://www.google.com/search?q=Studies+on+Fish+Populations+i...

In my opinion this topic is too important for opinion.

I would invite some reading and then some discussion.

Iflyfishwhennotreadingtheworkofpeoplewhodevotetheirlifeworktothescienceofansweringquestionslikethis

backninedan - 5-19-2008 at 08:22 AM

True, why would we want to rely on first hand observations from people who have fished the sea of cortez for decades? Especially when we have a perfectly good government paper to read.

Iflyfish - 5-19-2008 at 09:13 AM

backninedan

You may want to rely on anecdotal observations to base your conclusions. For centuries people have done just that. This is why so many believed and some still do that the earth is flat.

Notice how others are asking for the basis of the observations i.e. where, at what time, at what depth, at what time of the year, at what species, at what point in their migration (if they migrate), at what location etc. These are questions used to make scientific and systematic observations that compare oranges to oranges and apples to apples. These sort of questions insure that we are all talking about the same thing.

If you will go to the site I posted, you will find lots of different studies by many different groups, some government sponsored and some not. I realize and sympathize with your skepticism of recent government studies. Since the Bush administration started to stack scientific boards with Christians with anti science bias, we now need to question carefully scientific studies produced by agencies overseen by these people because of their obvious bias. For instance the Bush administration destroyed ERIC, the repository of all research that had been done in the history of education in preparation to pass its “No Child Left Behind” program. That body of research took place over decades and was the equivalent of burning the library of Alexandria to educators. Now we know that “No Child Left Behind” is an utter failure, so we now have bad programming as well as bad science.

I love to hear the stories of others who have fished the Sea of Cortez, some of my greatest memories are of fishing this amazing body of water. There are a significant number of people and studies that question whether or not this great or once great fishery can be sustained. All the anecdotal stories we may gather will never answer in any scientific way the question that has been asked here. This is why I have suggested that we inform ourselves of the science that does exist so that we can adequately advocate for this great natural resource.

Iflyfish

Osprey - 5-19-2008 at 09:28 AM

If you ask questions only about fish caught in this little sea you still have some problems: Just after 9-11 people were in shock, did not travel much, didn't sport fish and I quipped "what irony - Bin Ladin might have saved the SOC fishery". Now diesel in the U.S. (and elsewhere) is screaming up while it is still a relative bargain in Mexican (read Mexican waters). That could change things in a big way as fishing here makes more profits (shrimpers all over the Gulf of Mexico are selling their boats because of low cost imports/rising diesel costs). The eastern shore of the SOC is barren now because of dead zones caused by fertilizer, Oxogen depletion and to the big shrimp farms, overfishing, pollution. The when/how/where answers help but it's still pick a paradigm time.

Skipjack Joe - 5-19-2008 at 12:18 PM

Tom,

If you'll respectfully allow me to say so, you're being overly sensitive to the posts. I don't think anyone is critical of your survey. They're (we're) just providing friendly suggestions, is all. It's fine the way it is, though.

Cypress - 5-19-2008 at 12:36 PM

Jeez! We can talk circles around this issue, throw in all the "buzz words" you want, bottom line, the fishing in the Sea of Cortez is in the process of collapse.:no:

David K - 5-19-2008 at 05:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by flyfishinPam
this question is too general.

areas need to be focused on and technique needs to be focused on.

well for me its better than it was ten years ago...I have been using different techniques than I did ten years ago and I have gotten better at using these techniques.

same goes for my sport captains, they have become more skilled at what they do.

sportfishing clientele has changed considerably along with it their techniques have changed, and they along with the captains have become more skilled at catching fish.

we've learned more about fish behaviour and seasons and have been able to pass this knowledge to clients so that they travel during the optimum times, focus on the best technique for their area of fishing and time of year they're fishing...etc.

this poll is too general.

this general question can be asked with decent results to commercial fishermen who fish in the same location as they did ten years ago, and with the same techniques. then the results would actually be useful. but your heart is in the right place by asking.


Hey Pam... when I saw this post and voted, I read it to ask "Is fishing better or worse in the Cortez... COMPARED to the Pacific" LOL... after I voted, I then read the replies and realized he was asking better or worse than another TIME, no another PLACE! LOL

Yes, if it is compared to another time, than when?

Perhaps when Ray Cannon was having a good time staging the famous Giant Snook shot in the Rio Santa Rosalia de Mulege!

[Edited on 5-20-2008 by David K]

!cid_023f01c4a42f$4f134e60$7D55F271@user.jpg - 29kB

comitan - 5-19-2008 at 06:02 PM

David your right its Ray Cannons fault.:lol::lol:

Iflyfish - 5-19-2008 at 06:10 PM

Tom,

You have asked a very good question. One that has great significance to many on this site. There are many on this site who see the immenant demise of something that they love. It is understandable that feelings would run high when some deny the very things that they read about and see with their own eyes.

If you and I were sitting at a bar and you asked me this question if I had a good day on the water, saw even half the fish Skeet describes, caught a dandy myself I would buy a round and say it was the best fishing ever.

This reminds me of sitting over a fairly good bottle of red one evening with a friend and asking him the question "what is the finest bottle of wine you have ever had?" His response "the one sitting in front of me at the moment" He said it with all sincerity.

I hope that we can all get on the same page as Osprey suggests. To those who think that the Sea of Cortez is an endless and infinite resource that cannot be destroyed would see that those who want to protect it are doing no harm to you and may even be doing some good.

Iflyfish

David K - 5-19-2008 at 06:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by comitan
David your right its Ray Cannons fault.:lol::lol:


Well, there is no doubt that Ray had a GIANT influence on bringing sportfishermen to Baja... Heck, his book popularized the pet name 'Sea of Cortez' for the Gulf of California so well... most of us use it now!

Cortez-r.JPG - 38kB