Posted by finfan on September 11, 2002 at 08:06:27:
In Reply to: you obviously didn't read my reply (again) posted by Brad on September 10, 2002 at 18:25:22:
I think if your ego can handle it, you might go back to my message and tell me exactly where I said it was japenese gill netting? Talk about not reading the thread. Gusti blames gill netting and the Japenese commercial fisheries for having impacts to the fish populations in general not just the Catalina shallow rockfish decline. And he was talking about strictly japenese gill net efforts. He was talking about all of the commercial efforst by the japenese. Hell he wasn't even talking about the Japenese doing anything at Catalina. He was talking about their seining of the baitfish populations off our coast. You know Brad I think giving up eating fish has serious affected you, maybe you should have some shrimp.
The fact that 20,000 fish are taken by hook and line - what does that prove? Let me answer that - nothing!!! Period! How many are taken daily by nets, by pollution spills, etc..?? Answer those questions and then we can get back to whether or not Gusti statement was fact (remember - that would be the comment that hook and line is the most ineffectiove method). You won't answer that because you know damn well that by doing so it would just prove Gusti correct and yes, Bradly wrong Again!!!!
I've grown extremely tired of your unsubstatiated statements regarding sedimintation. Your statement regarding the lack of sedimintation at the islands is just plain wrong (I don't care how many trips you've made) and the sedimintation issue and estuary issue isn't about Catalina dips***! It's about breeding habitat locally in the SCB area that provides the food source for the island ecosystem. You see the baitfish breed onshore locally in the estuaries, they feed on the polluted nutrients in the local water, the swim through the channel and out to the islands where they are eaten by the shallow water rockfish. If they don't have good breeding habitat they never can get to the islands and support the food source for the rockfish (that would be the course on fish life 101).
You really are clueless, Brad. I gave you written proof from several different sources that you blew off. I offered first hand biologist proof that you now claim doesn't have a clue and yet Brad is still right.
I will go back to my previous question - did you or did you not say that it was the recreational fishing that wiped out the shallow water rockfish at Catalina. That would be a yes or no question, Bradley. Here's your quote just to remind you - "Those species of fish are long gone in the shallow waters surrounding that island. The pressure that eventually drove the depletion of those fish came almost exclusively from recreational angling...."
Yes, I've known about the reward and have passed on several of them over the course of the last couple of years. If you think the reward is going to result in 100% return factor then you are even more of a fool than I gave you credit to being. Hey - Mister I know everything, if your so smart what is the growth rates of a white seabass annually?? Why don't you multiply that by the years the program has been in place and then tell me that the bulk of the recreational catch isn't a factor of the program. You see Brad, not everyone is catching trophy seabass, in fact, if you knew anything about the fish catch (beyond just what you say) you would have known that the bulk of the catch is just over legal. You would also know that small seabass given the removal of gillnetting over the last decade would obviously be resident and could grow to substantial size. Damn there goes another Brad theory. That's ok, I'm sure you'll just make up another one like you always do (add a Period to it, that always has impressed me)
How can someone who supposedly has done all those trips and spent so much time in the oceans be so confused about the SCB system and the food chain concept. Fess up - all you do is play with a toy boat in the tub and watch the discovery channel, isn't it? Your knowledge of the shallow water rockfish is from reading the picture books (I'll bet you only look at the pictures)
Simple truth here is that you have someone who called you to the mat on your errouneous and extremist statements regarding the impact recreational fishing has had on shallow water rockfish and provided you with a bounty of sources supporting the position that it has much more to do with several other things than recreational take. Your ego can't handle admitting that you were wrong. Your shallow minded approach to this discussion only proves you're clueless. The approach of let's try and divert the issue from your opening statement to what is wrong with all of the various sources of proof I offered only shows that your statement regarding recreational fishing is only that a statement from an uniformed extremist who is out for one thing - making sure his interests are protected.
Put up the empirical evidence to support your comment on the recreational fishing demise of shallow water rockfish or stand aside and let the real divers play. I'll bet your a member of Green Peace aren't you - why don't you just go ram a sport boat. I'm sure they have a sport boat model you could add to your tub.
Maybe next time I see Gusti I'll share with him your theories on the kelp demise. Another big laugh around the campfire is always welcomed. Just out of curiousity - what's you theory on smog? Another conspiracy?? (Yes, that was a change of subject, given your problems with association I wouldn't want you to infer that I'm now saying it was smog that impacted the fishery or get confused that I was somehow saying it was Japenese smog)
I think Bradley has been playing diver in the tub just a little too long. Take him out Mom and pay special attention to drying his eyes out.