freediver wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2010 at 8:13pm:


Duh FD, it's still your same one and only point. PS the name is part of the address - your splitting hairs. Furthermore your forgetting a declaration was made by the author's as to no conflict of interest, this is what Walter Starck was refering to:

"It is incongruous to note that all these employees and repeated recipients of generous GBRMPA funding, could, “…declare no conflict of interest.” (see footnote, p.1 of the report) when they are in fact assessing the value of their own work and that of the organisation which supports them. To compound the impropriety even further, PNAS also requires that, “Authors must acknowledge all funding sources supporting the work.” There appears to be no such disclosure in this study either.

freediver wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2010 at 8:30pm:


And what about the footnote he refers to? Chopping bits out of quotes does not make them go away FD!

freediver wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2010 at 9:52pm:


How about when it clearly shows up in their work.

PS: Fourth? What happened to 2 & 3? Regarding 2, the institutions name and address is not a breakdown of funding, past funding, affiliation or conflict of interest.

It is probably a combination of low effect of fishing on coral trout numbers, and illegal fishing on closed reefs, that is responsible for the lack of difference in coral trout numbers we have shown between closed and fished reefs.
If surveys on closed and fished reefs are not giving us a good idea of what is going on with coral trout numbers, perhaps the long-term counts we have done can give us a better picture.
We have counts from three reefs off Townsville (John Brewer, Lodestone and Davies) over the period from 1983 to 1994. These reefs are close to the coast and are fished by both recreational and commercial fishermen. In 1983 the average density of coral trout on these reefs was 34 per hectare, in 1989 it was 34.3 and in 1994 it was 66 per hectare.
In the Cairns Section we have counts from some reefs in 1983 and again in 1991. In 1983 average density of coral trout was 22.5 per hectare and this had increased to 31.7 by 1991.
Off the Whitsundays, on the three reefs Hook, Line and Hardy, mean density of coral trout was 57 per hectare in 1984, 84 in 1988 and 124 in 1994.
All these figures suggest that far from decreasing in numbers that has been a marked increase in the numbers of coral trout on the GBR over the past 10 years.
So why is it that a lot of fishermen are always talking about the good old days? Why is it that the general consensus is that there has been a drop in catch rates of coral trout over the past few decades? This apparent contradiction can be resolved if we separate catchability from numbers. Poor catches do not mean that the fish are not there, just that they are not taking the bait. Reported catch rates by commercial fishermen from experimental fishing done for scientists on protected reefs are three to four times those from fished reefs, in spite of the similar densities we have mentioned above. This indicates that naïve populations of coral trout, ie those that are not often fished, are far more catchable that exploited populations. Similar results were reported from Heron Island where catch rates were much higher on protected parts of the reef than in fished parts, but no significant density differences between the two areas could be found. It is often reported by fishermen that catches are good after a long spell of bad weather when fishing activities are restricted; the fish have become more naïve and more catchable.
Another way of looking at the effect of fishing on coral trout is to use the count figures we have from along the GBR to get some idea of the total number of trout out there, and compare this to the number taken by fishermen. The Marine Park Authority has listed about 2,500 reefs on the GBR but our counts on charts and maps of the reef area indicate that there are about 1,200 major reefs. Measurements from these maps show that the average major reef has about 500 hectares of reef slope where coral trout are common, and about 2,500 hectares of reef flat and lagoon where coral trout are not very common. Our density figures indicate that the average density of coral trout on the reef slope is about 50 per hectare, compared with about 10 per hectare in the lagoon and reef flat. Length estimations show that an average of half of these are over 38 cm long and able to be taken by fishermen. From these figures we can calculate that there are about 30 million adult coral trout on the GBR.
These figures do not include inter-reef numbers of coral trout. There are large areas of broken ground between the true reefs that also support coral trout, and the true figure may be twice or more the 30 million we have calculated.
The Marine Park Authority and DPI have made recent estimates of the total annual catch of coral trout from the GBR of about 2 million kilograms, including both the recreational and commercial catch. Given the average size of coral trout this equates to about 3 million fish or only about 10% of the available stock.
We have also made counts of young coral trout on the reefs we have surveyed. By young coral trout I mean those that have resulted from the spawning season in the previous year. These figures show that an average of about 20% of the total coral trout on any reef are these young of the year (often called juveniles). Thus the annual input of young coral trout is equivalent to about 40% of the available stock,
far higher than the annual catch of 10% of available stock.
In addition coral trout grow rapidly, the fastest growing individuals reach 30 cm long in about 12 months and most individuals are over 38 cm at the end of two years.
These figures are all rather approximate but they are based on actual records and probably give a good indication of what is happening in the fishery. On this basis it seems unlikely that the present exploitation levels of coral trout on the GBR are any threat to coral trout numbers. On the contrary is seems possible that numbers will increase, as some of our counts are already indicating.
Just remember: the number of fish that are caught does not relate to the number of fish that are there, but to how easy they are to catch.

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2010 at 7:50am:


Someone in the Journal staff must be a goose too, seeing they require a conflict of interest statement in addition to any name and address. Obviously they think that the later is inadequate.

PS: I take it that you are not going to address the actual content of the paper and and the validity of it's conclusions. How much of a goose does that make you?

Sixth was me when I took this thread seriously enough to respond to it.

Seventh was Walter Starck when he took himself seriously enough to go accusing other people for doing the same thing he himself has done.

Eighth was you when you tried to associate this with a genuine scandal like watergate.