Quote:You can't just harping on about the so called consensus statement.
Hence all the other stuff.
You mistake literature and enthusiasm for evidence. Quote:It's akin to asking us to accept these closures on faith alone.
A scientific consensus statement is pretty much the opposuite of that.
It's a political device designed to quell debate by saying it's already been decided. Quote:Once again these are your own unsubstantiated musings.
So you don't see the problem with killing of the fastest growing specimens and keeping the runts as breeders? Most people don't seem to have any trounble understanding that one. Do you need proof that it is a bad thing before taking it seriously? It isn't just me and my musings either. It is a well recognised problem. Hence the evidence I posted in support.
There are still larger fish around when a fishery is fished a maximum sutainable yield, just less than the virgin population. 'Keeping the runts' is just an emotive statement. What is well recognised is that if you have lots of large fish then the price is a lower yield. Quote:You counterpoint the merits of catch and release by claiming high mortality.
It also achieves a low harvest rate.
That is nonsensical. Quote:Also the largest fish aren't always the best breeders
Are you trying to say that killing the big ones and keeping the runts as breeders is a good idea?
Refer to my explanation of poulation dynamics and MSY. Quote:it depends on the species
Oh really? I'd love to hear your explanation of this.
Sometimes the largest fish aren't always the most fecund. Depends on the biology of the particular species. Quote:The smaller breeders are far larger in no in any case.
Is that supposed to make snese?
A larger no of a particular class size can reproduce as much as a smaller no of a larger class size - get it? Quote:Its also well known that under fishing pressure fish grow faster and the juvenile classes benifit from less competition for food and predation.
What's that got to do with anything?
If this wasn't the case then there would be no such thing as any substantial fishing effort being sustainable! Quote:Most fish stocks are have been shown to be able to recover remarkably quickly from overfish.
Some do. Some don't. Regardless of how long it takes it is still a bad thing. What's you're point?
If you bothered reading your own cut and pastes one claimed that fish recover slowly or not at all from overfishing. My point counters this claim. Also that the worst case is not that bad. Quote:In any case if you rely on marine parks you may well end up with depleted fisheries plus a few relatively pristine areas where there is no fishing. The odds are that you really need to tackle problems of overfishing head on.
Marine parks do tackle it head on. They also give more fish outside of the marine park, not just inside.
No they don't. And you assertion is unproven. Quote:Thats at odds with you assertion that you will get an increased yeild with marine parks in place.
No it isn't. You aren't making any sense.
You are giving 20% or more grounds away. They are lost to fishermen. The spillover (if it happens) is probably not more than 10%. So for a total loss to a green zone you are getting 10% back. This is hardly increasing the overall yield. Quote:A buffer exists only if you are taking less fish out.
Wrong. It also exists if you manage the stocks better. You can even take more fish.
Quote:You don't consider that other types of input reductions will do the same job.
They can't do it as well as marine parks, that's all.
Quote:Totally at odds with actual studies on catch and release.
No it isn't. You just don't understand what it says.
90% plus survival rate - whats hard to understand about that? Quote:It's a claim made by anti-fishing activists
No it isn't. Plenty of pro fishing activists say it. It's got absolutely nothing to do with being anti-fishing. It's about bad management. Everyone is against that. Well, nearly everyone.
Your talking out of your rear end! Quote:Fishers for Conservation (FFC) seems to exist for the promotion of marine parks.
Seems pretty sensible to me. [/quote]
Obviously they are a front group rather than a group of concerned fishermen.
Forum
Pages: 
