[]
Quote:The fact that we don't target the herbivours like the susbsistence fishermen of the South Pacific is a good thing, given their role in reef ecology.
two points
1) It is not necessarily a good thing. Herbivores and carnivores both play a role in reef ecology and the overharvesting of either causes problems.
Herbivours play a role in the health of corals by keeping algal growth down. Experiments and exaples of overfishing of these herbivours have shown adverse effects on the health of corals. There is no evidence as far as I am aware of such dramatic effects from the overfishing of predatory fish. And with a harvest of 9kg per km2 per year there is no evidence that the predators are anywhere near overfished on the GBR.2) Given that herbivores are lower on the food chain, they can support higher catch rates, so it is definitely a bad thing if you use this as a benchmark for judging the sustainability of catch rates for a fishery dominated by higher level carnivores.
The evidence above suggests the contrary. And not all fish lower in the food chain are herbivours. Quote:The paper I put up makes a CPUA comparison from areas all over the South Pacific - so it's not just Walter.
True. It's the conclusions that Walter draws that are the problem. This is what the genuine scientist said about CPUA comparisons: "not a great deal can be said regarding overfishing per se".
They weren't making comparisons with the GBR were they. If they were they may have well drawn the same conclusions as Walter. It was you who said you can't make CPUA comparisons of reefs whaterever the reason didn't you?
You have pulled out one quote but ignore the fact that they do quote a level of 10,000kg as sustainable. Others have made similar estimates. Also what's wrong with setting the bar a bit lower to make a estimate for sustainable fishing? Eg a conservation organisation put a level of 4000 kg as sustainable for coral reefs - still orders of magnitude higher than the GBR.Also, a genuine scientist like the one you referenced would make effort to compare apples with apples and acknowledge the limitations of the comparison - pretty much the opposite of Walter's politicised approach.
He has acknowledged the limitations. Just as I have done above. All fisheries measures have limitations - we don't throw them away or call scientists who use the frauds. Strawman. Quote:Also there is no evidence the GBR is less productive than these reefs. Actually it's probably more productive.
LOL. Did Walter tell you that?
Well do you have any evidence to the contrary? Doesn't the GBR get more nutrients being near a large land mass. Doesn't it have more large fish than other coral reefs? Quote:Rubbish, he has published many papers in peer reviewed journals.
I must have missed them. Can you give some examples please?
Even his critics say he hasn't published recently not that he hasn't published at all. Quote:Plus your argument is self negating FD. You don't even have any scientific qualifications or expertise and this doesn't stop you.
No it isn't. I make no appeals to my own authority on this matter. Walter does. Therefor the fact that he is a fraud is relevant.
Then why are you so sure that your not the fraud?