Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9
Send Topic Print
Why is Walter so bitter? (Read 12959 times)
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 26014
I like fish
Re: Why is Walter so bitter?
Reply #75 - Jul 24th, 2010 at 8:52am
 
fishfinder wrote on Jul 24th, 2010 at 2:15am:
I would have thought the important point would be not that CPUA is 100X lower on the GBR coral reefs than other reefs with different oceanography, biology and fishing methods etc.- but what CPUA can the GBR handle? We know quite a lot about the oceanography and biology of the GBR and fishing methods employed there. I don't think any other scientists have suggested ratcheting up the fishing pressure to that extent and it seems a pretty radical course of action based on a simple comparison and a lone voice.
I'm no expert but I would have thought not all coral reef fisheries are the same. Temperate fisheries are not.
Where I'm living in WA the entire demersal scalefish catch (of over 15 species) was ~1500t in an . It has been cut this year to ~750t to avoid 'high risk' of collapse of those fisheries. This fishery is spread over ~1000km of coastline. Just one of those species, Pink Snapper, in just one fishery zone in New Zealand - over about 100km of coastline - has an allowable catch of 4500t that is considered a sustainable yield. In other words one species in a fishery area a tenth of the size can produce six times more fish than all the fish in 1000km of coastline in Western Australia.
To me, this suggests that fishery productivity varies widely.


Exactly. You don't have to be an expert to figure that one out. Most people would laugh if a 'scientist' compared farm stocking rates in an arid region with those in a wet region and suggested this is a good way to judge whether stocking rates should be increased or decreased. It would get even more ludicrous if different animals from different parts of the food chain were being harvested and it was strongly impacted by size effects an inflows from surrounding regions.

Yet this is what Walter does with the oceans. He and his devoted followers accept the absurd simplification that because they are both called a 'reef' it is reasonable to expect the same level of productivity. His analysis is based on the equivalent of ignorance of the difference between a desert and a jungle.

I suppose you couldn't expect much more from a self described "pioneer in the scientific investigation of coral reefs" who does not have a single scientific publication in a peer reviewed journal.
Back to top
 

Honest criticism is hard to take, particularly from a relative, a friend, an acquaintance, or a stranger - Franklin P. Jones
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1330
Re: Why is Walter so bitter?
Reply #76 - Jul 24th, 2010 at 9:43am
 
fishfinder wrote on Jul 24th, 2010 at 2:15am:
I would have thought the important point would be not that CPUA is 100X lower on the GBR coral reefs than other reefs with different oceanography, biology and fishing methods etc.- but what CPUA can the GBR handle? We know quite a lot about the oceanography and biology of the GBR and fishing methods employed there. I don't think any other scientists have suggested ratcheting up the fishing pressure to that extent and it seems a pretty radical course of action based on a simple comparison and a lone voice.

Strawman. He is not advocating ratcheting up the fishing pressure on the GBR 100x. Also you have ignored my point that there is no evidence that the GBR is less productive than other coral reefs.  

I'm no expert but I would have thought not all coral reef fisheries are the same. Temperate fisheries are not.

The scientists in the paper I put up would have some expertise wouldn't they? The must have thought the CPUA comparison was worth making.

Where I'm living in WA the entire demersal scalefish catch (of over 15 species) was ~1500t in an . It has been cut this year to ~750t to avoid 'high risk' of collapse of those fisheries. This fishery is spread over ~1000km of coastline. Just one of those species, Pink Snapper, in just one fishery zone in New Zealand - over about 100km of coastline - has an allowable catch of 4500t that is considered a sustainable yield. In other words one species in a fishery area a tenth of the size can produce six times more fish than all the fish in 1000km of coastline in Western Australia.

To me, this suggests that fishery productivity varies widely.

What has this got to do with the GBR? Also your forgetting that NZ the fishery is far less diverse, ie fewer species. There snapper fill a lot of the ecological niches fill by a variety of species in Australian waters. Also primary productivity of oceans can be measured and compared. There is no evidence that Australian waters are lacking in productivity/.



Exactly. You don't have to be an expert to figure that one out. Most people would laugh if a 'scientist' compared farm stocking rates in an arid region with those in a wet region and suggested this is a good way to judge whether stocking rates should be increased or decreased. It would get even more ludicrous if different animals from different parts of the food chain were being harvested and it was strongly impacted by size effects an inflows from surrounding regions.

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.

Yet this is what Walter does with the oceans. He and his devoted followers accept the absurd simplification that because they are both called a 'reef' it is reasonable to expect the same level of productivity. His analysis is based on the equivalent of ignorance of the difference between a desert and a jungle.

The paper I put up makes a CPUA comparison from areas all over the South Pacific - so it's not just Walter. Also there is no evidence the GBR is less productive than these reefs. Actually it's probably more productive.    

I suppose you couldn't expect much more from a self described "pioneer in the scientific investigation of coral reefs" who does not have a single scientific publication in a peer reviewed journal.

Rubbish, he has published many papers in peer reviewed journals. Plus your argument is self negating FD. You don't even have any scientific qualifications or expertise and this doesn't stop you.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 26014
I like fish
Re: Why is Walter so bitter?
Reply #77 - Jul 24th, 2010 at 10:33am
 
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.

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.

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". 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.

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?

Quote:
Rubbish, he has published many papers in peer reviewed journals.


I must have missed them. Can you give some examples please?

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.
Back to top
 

Honest criticism is hard to take, particularly from a relative, a friend, an acquaintance, or a stranger - Franklin P. Jones
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1330
Re: Why is Walter so bitter?
Reply #78 - Jul 24th, 2010 at 1:43pm
 
[] 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?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 26014
I like fish
Re: Why is Walter so bitter?
Reply #79 - Jul 24th, 2010 at 2:57pm
 
Quote:
The evidence above suggests the contrary.


No it doesn't actually. It suggests that herbivores can be overfished too, but does not suggest that this happens at a lower catch rate than for predators higher up the food chain. It doesn't make sense PJ.

Quote:
They weren't making comparisons with the GBR were they. If they were they may have well drawn the same conclusions as Walter.


No they wouldn't have. They are real scientists. They wouldn't say such silly things.

Quote:
Well do you have any evidence to the contrary?


Walter's stats indicate that it is less productive.

Quote:
Even his critics say he hasn't published recently not that he hasn't published at all.


So you don't have any examples of a genuine scientific publication in a peer reviewed journal? But you are still certain he has some? Why? Because he describes himself as the pioneer of scientific research?
Back to top
 

Honest criticism is hard to take, particularly from a relative, a friend, an acquaintance, or a stranger - Franklin P. Jones
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1330
Re: Why is Walter so bitter?
Reply #80 - Jul 24th, 2010 at 3:06pm
 
freediver wrote on Jul 24th, 2010 at 2:57pm:
Quote:
[quote]Well do you have any evidence to the contrary?


Walter's stats indicate that it is less productive.



Which stats? I have never heard him suggest the GBR is less productive.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 26014
I like fish
Re: Why is Walter so bitter?
Reply #81 - Jul 24th, 2010 at 3:20pm
 
You provided the stats PJ. You just don't know how to interpret them sensibly.
Back to top
 

Honest criticism is hard to take, particularly from a relative, a friend, an acquaintance, or a stranger - Franklin P. Jones
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1330
Re: Why is Walter so bitter?
Reply #82 - Jul 24th, 2010 at 3:30pm
 
freediver wrote on Jul 24th, 2010 at 3:20pm:
You provided the stats PJ. You just don't know how to interpret them sensibly.



Duh, the stats are of the catch, expressed as unit of area. They are no indication of the actual productivity.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 26014
I like fish
Re: Why is Walter so bitter?
Reply #83 - Jul 24th, 2010 at 3:44pm
 
The actual catch rates are a far better indication of potential productivity, at least for the species currently targetted, than the catch rates for other reefs. Which is why no-one takes Walter's interpretation of them seriously.
Back to top
 

Honest criticism is hard to take, particularly from a relative, a friend, an acquaintance, or a stranger - Franklin P. Jones
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1330
Re: Why is Walter so bitter?
Reply #84 - Jul 24th, 2010 at 3:58pm
 
freediver wrote on Jul 24th, 2010 at 3:44pm:
The actual catch rates are a far better indication of potential productivity, at least for the species currently targetted, than the catch rates for other reefs. Which is why no-one takes Walter's interpretation of them seriously.


The commercial catch is limited by government restrictions and for recreational fishermen likewise, as well as the low population/ lack of accessability.

Or are you talking about something different, ie catch per unit effort? This is not what I or Walter have provided.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1330
Re: Why is Walter so bitter?
Reply #85 - Jul 27th, 2010 at 6:17pm
 
freediver wrote on Jul 24th, 2010 at 3:44pm:
The actual catch rates are a far better indication of potential productivity, at least for the species currently targetted, than the catch rates for other reefs. Which is why no-one takes Walter's interpretation of them seriously.


Catch rates alone can't be used as a guide to productivity. If you think they can then why don't you expain how?

PS: do you think anyone takes you seriously?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1330
Re: Why is Walter so bitter?
Reply #86 - Jul 28th, 2010 at 7:04pm
 
It just goes to show how bankrupt FD's policies are when his arguments aren't even internally cosistent. He (and other marine park advocates) happily quote marine park studies from waters far more heavily fished than our own and where fisheries management is non-existant or innefective, and say this is 'proof' that marine parks are needed here.

In the next breath he goes on to say that we can't compare fishing efforts between countries, even if there are a couple of orders of magnitude difference and there is no evidence that the lightly fished region is less productive!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 26014
I like fish
Re: Why is Walter so bitter?
Reply #87 - Jul 28th, 2010 at 8:52pm
 
You can compare it PJ. You just have to do it properly. Not assume the waters and species targetted are equally productive and leave it to your critics to do the actual research.

But only if you want to be taken seriously.
Back to top
 

Honest criticism is hard to take, particularly from a relative, a friend, an acquaintance, or a stranger - Franklin P. Jones
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1330
Re: Why is Walter so bitter?
Reply #88 - Jul 29th, 2010 at 7:37am
 
freediver wrote on Jul 28th, 2010 at 8:52pm:
You can compare it PJ. You just have to do it properly. Not assume the waters and species targetted are equally productive and leave it to your critics to do the actual research.

But only if you want to be taken seriously.


It's an observation, not an assumption. Plus you ignore the fact that the scientists quoted do in fact compare fishing pressure by such a comparison.

PS: How can you be taken seriously if you think catches alone are a guide to abundance and shy away from explaining how?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 26014
I like fish
Re: Why is Walter so bitter?
Reply #89 - Jul 29th, 2010 at 6:30pm
 
Quote:
It's an observation, not an assumption.


Actually, what he observed was vastly different actual productivities. What he assumed was that this was down to absurdly misapplied management policies.

Quote:
Plus you ignore the fact that the scientists quoted do in fact compare fishing pressure by such a comparison.


Can you explain what you mean by this? Are you talking about Walter's article?

Quote:
How can you be taken seriously if you think catches alone are a guide to abundance and shy away from explaining how?


You can't. I don't think anyone here said that.
Back to top
 

Honest criticism is hard to take, particularly from a relative, a friend, an acquaintance, or a stranger - Franklin P. Jones
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9
Send Topic Print