Re: How do you expect to be taken seriously?


dive-instructors.com, the first place to look for a dive instructor

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ California Scuba Diving BBS ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by finfan on August 29, 2002 at 15:53:30:

In Reply to: How do you expect to be taken seriously? posted by Brad on August 27, 2002 at 15:58:41:

What questions are you referring to? If you take the time to read the thread you made "statements" as to the recreational fisherman decimating Catalina in regards to shallow water rockfish. If there was a question in your posts it was how do I explain it and when I offered not one answer, pollution, but several such as breeding habitat, el nino impacts on extended red tides, current changes and baitfish conditions you simply blew them away with a consistent, but totally unsubstantiated claim that it is the fishing industry's fault.

When I offered proof to support my theories you then blew them off with another unsubstantiated (and obsolutely ridiculus)statement that all the studies are bought and sold by commercial interests. I really can't believe you think I'm not the credible one here.

Again as you did initially by suggesting my position was only due to my self interest, you now suggest that it is me who hasn't answered your questions. I repeat what questions?

As to your here's how it is done - I'll make one last effort to lead you to the water trough and make you drink (Not that I haven't already held your head down in the trough)

Your point #1 - The data referred to was your proof not mine and I would have flipped your question around to you earlier had I thought it wasn't just too easy. I don't think the fact that the amount caught proves any of your points, but I dying to know how you believe that the total catch anywhere proves that commercial or rrecreational fishing is the sole cause of shallow water rockfish demise. Remember this argument isn't about whether or not fishing takes fish from the ocean - your initial post where I called you an extremist clearly says that it was the recreational fishing interests that destroyed the shallow rockfish pouplation around Catalina.
Just for the record I don't believe catch rates could begin to be substantive proff as to a specific cause - yours or all of the ones I have put forth. ou offered it as proof I say it proves nothing.

#2 - So you do your best, but have on occasion, touched some part of our local reef system. I'm not sure how free diving versus scuba has any revelance to my question. You aren't suddenly attacking all of the scuba divers and saying that it is only scuba divers that damage reefs or ecosystems are you? Bottomline is that no matter how you do it, whether by scuba, free diving or just swimming, once you enter the water you like all of us have an impact to the ecosystem and ultimately to the fish population. Agreed, some might have a greater impact than others and some might be more aware than others and as such try and minimize their impact, but the fact is anyone who has ever been in the water in SO Cal cannot possibly sit back and say they have had no impact what so ever. I guess what has really bothered me about your posts is your attitude that your different from us and you have no blame here, becasue you don't eat it, only take a few, only take pelegics, etc... I never take kindly to people who express that holy than thou position.

As to the I only can go 50 feet, again you exposed the limits of your knowledge and ultimately your credibility. A key factor in egg development for most of the shallow water rockfish is sunlight and warmth. Much of their ability to breed is based on laying eggs shallower than 50 feet, so you see your in the zone and even the flick of a flipper near a nest can disturb or displace the eggs enough to destroy that crop of spawn. Truth is, one knee in a nest or fin pass over it close enough can probably do more damage than a boatload of recreational guys fishing under limits.

#3 - I just don't have a thread long enough or patience to explain to you how incorrect you are here. Again you make a difinitive statement - let me see if I can summerize - Water clarity is more a function of immediate natural content and plankton rather than any pollution. I can't tell you the number of studies done in this area that go completely against that reasoning. As recent as this last week there was an article posted throughout the news wires discussing how pollution and local coastal run-offs have attributed to an increase of near and offshore red tides and how global warming is impacting red tide conditions regarding intensity and frequencies around the globe.

#4 - I see this as more of your holy than thou stand. Whether by natural attrition or though take, fish populations can not grow to unsustainable levels. Case in point, F&G has often increased take limits and reduced sizes to remove fish due to overcrowding. Several bass lakes tend to have underweight bass in them because there are just to many fish. Simple fact, when fish populations expand beyond their food supply first they become stunted, then the naturally reduce their numbers through mortality. Whether that mortality comes naturally or from Man who cares it accomplishes the same goal. Sustainable fish populations.

#5 - So let me see if I clearly understand you here - are you suggesting to me that that coffee table piece of the sand you drop your anchor in doesn't have any life form in it? I wondered if you ever dropped that anchor in a bed of rockfish eggs. Better question can you guarantee me that you can see that bed of squid eggs at 50 feet so you don't drop your anchor on it. I said it earlier and I'll say it again. If you boat or enter the water you have some impact. Your concept of because I don't take any fish and the other person does makes his impact is greater than mine and therefore I should be allowed and the other guys interest not allowed lacks one hugh thing- fairness. It's not about the degree of impact. The study that just came out pointed to aquariums as being major problems to certain reef ecosystems. What gives you or the folks that visit aquariums any greater right to that ocean than a rec fisherman.

As to keeping non-consumptives out of the reserves I can think of several reasons. First I don't buy your I can place my anchor perfectly anywhere pitch (and I'm willing to bet you hard dollars) you don't and you can't put that anchor within a coffee space everytime. Even if you could, are we now going to limit anchoring to only 50 feet or less or require every boat to have a window in it's floor?

You never did answer my question in regards to the reserve you used as you proof that small reserves don't work and big reserves do work. Before you do and dig a even bigger hole here let me share with you some facts you have either left out or purposely failed to consider.

First we were talking about shallow water rockfish. Resident fish by definition. Do you know why the commercials had such a big impact. They don't move around - once you find the habitat that they concentrate on a gill net or concentrated fishing technique can make short work of them.

Secondly, cold water fish tend to be more residential. By definition they are not pelegic. They move for food, but don't follow food and certainly not because they want to check out the next rock pile. Lingcod for example can and do establish a set territory and never leave that area unless their food source leaves. The bulk of their migration is vertical shallow to deep and deep to shallow.

Lastly, you should check your records in Florida a little closer. Show me the resident fish that they set records with near the reserve. Looks to me like there are more pelegic species than resident type. It was a bad choice of support.

Have you every stopped to ask yourself why the biologists even at the F&G office can't reach a concensus on the size of the reserve or even on a reserve concept? Why do you think they submitted several variations even the first time by? It's fueled by one thing politics, not science. Have you ever wondered if the size thing is more a function of enforcement than of benefit? Let me ask you what do you think would cost less from F&G standpoint (who already has limited resources) -monitoring a string a large reserves or a complex of smaller reserves? You think that didn't come up in their discussions about what the right size is for the reserve?

Again the question isn't about what depleted the fish population, it's how do we fix the problem. Throughout this thread you have constantly proven that you are on the extreme end - stop consumption! So far on that end that you discount known causes and dismiss even the slightest idea that the fix like the cause is not a single source.

I said it many times, it's about habitat. How can you explain three species halibut, seabass and rockfish. All three dessimated in the early 90's, yet halibut and seabass counts are as good as ever and rockfish only worse. The gill nets did the damage and then increased pollution and silting over prime breeding ground (including those on the offshore islands) helped to prevent good recovery spawns when the gill net was stopped. It was the supplemental catch limits , size limits and breeding programs that brought those fisheries back. It wasn't any talk of shut off a third of the prime waters in the West was it.

I'd love to debate, but just to listen to you make statements that you can't support grows old fast. The kelp one was another perfect example. Let's see you say lobster pots and anchors. I'm not sure I have ever heard anyone that has spent anytime around our coast conclude that anything but the El Nino's have caused the single greatest impact on the kelp, followed by pollution. The kelp support was just another attempt to fit a cause around commercial and rec guys without one shred of evidence to justify the position. You seeing it happen is not evidence. Have you ever seen the amount of kelp washed a shore after one of our strong winter storms?

Also, did you ever stop to think about how inter twined this issue is to the whole dive industry. Take away the game taking and I doubt many boats will be filling up. Ok so let's forget the lives of the commercial guys or the interests of the rec guys or the lives of the families running boats or dive shops, beef and prok will be big sellers since we can't afford fish.

You really need to become a little more educated about your subject before you attempt to engage in this type of dialogue. I only continued because I knew that the harder I pushed the question the more extreme you would become. The proof is shall we say in the sushi -

Rec guys wiped out Catalina - No it was commercials that did it and it was to (excuse me) Cortes.

Pollution is just an excuse. Accepted by everyone except you as a known cause and impact within the SCB ecesystem.

All studies are consumables, bought and paid for by commercial interests. Yet none bought by your sides interests and most published without respect to fishing and by a variety of different sources.

Anchor and lobstering destroyed the kelp forests. Again, no source to support and consensus in the marine world that El Nino is the culprit.


Non-consumption is good and consumption is bad. It fits in your model, who gives a Sh*t about therest of the world and the impact that might have filtering down.

You wonder why I can't understand your position and stop calling you a extremist and a lunatic and I wonder how anyone who has follwoed this thread could come to any other conclusion. See YA!



Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ California Scuba Diving BBS ] [ FAQ ]