Posted by finfan on September 12, 2002 at 12:06:19:
In Reply to: here is what happened posted by Brad on September 11, 2002 at 22:15:51:
Heard the story before, but I still don't see anything other than your opinion to support your conclusion.
Let's go back to the start of this -
For the record I don't think you will ever find a thread that said I was against the reserve, but I will argue about the size being so large.
Second, what is your point on the self interest ? I'll turn it right around and ask you to show me anyone who isn't in favor of the reserve for their own self interests. I've said it all along that any suggestion that the people in favor of the reserve have any less of their self interests in mind than those who are against the reserves is being hypocritical. Each side is arguing for their own self interests. So if that is the best reason you can provide for suggestion that the size of the reserve be where it is, that isn't much support. You see whether you agree with someone else's interests or not, nothing gives you or the hunters of this world any more of a claim to what the ocean has to offer.
As you recall my biggest beef with you Brad has been what (and I will confuss) my perception that you believe that fishermen have less rights to those rockfish than you have and should be banned from take. 65% of the worlds population rely on fish as their primary food source, so any idea that the world is going to stop fishing or eating fish is foolish. Won't happen, probably even to the point where fishermen would extinct a species. Hell there are enough of those examples.
My point is and has been all along that the solution is in management and a large reserve is not management. You see you will never find proof that the size of the reserve is what makes it successful. That evidence doesn't exist (especially where cold water species are concerned). That is why even in draft form there are several options in the plan up for consideration. The guys that spend their whole lives studying this don't have the answers or there wouldn't be differences of opinion in size in the first place. I really challenge you to point to anything scientific that says - it has to be at least this big XXX in order for the reserve to work. I'll believe it because I don't think all the studies are commodities.
A final point - unless you address all of the issues (pollution, sedmintation, habitat, etc..)that impact the food chain within any given size of reserve the success of the reserve will be questionable. And that would be regardless of whether or not hook and line fishing is allowed. Fish populations are all about mortality rates. Based on your own example of rec take being 15,000 to 20,000 fish per weekend. If I can find a way to hatch and survive 21,000 that weekend I have an increasing population without removing take. Sound logical? Under that scenerio then both the non-takers and the takers get what they want. Seems like a better solution than the some get what they want and others get nothing.
As for your last comment - you enjoy yourself in the water without ever killing anything. Well maybe nothing you could see. Have you ever touched (intentionally or even by accident) any part of the seabed, reef or kelp prong? You like me and everyone who has ever entered the water has killed millions of micro organisms. I guess those don't matter since you don't want to take a picture of those things. It might matter to the creature that eats those who are eventually eaten by something larger, so on and so forth, until that animal is eventually eaten by a SWRF. Again it is all inter-twind and to believe that just one thing (rec fishing) is too blame --- We'll way to easy to attack as fiction not fact.
Just for the record - I don't eat rockfish, so if you have taken even just 3 in the past 20 years. Well you've actually been mor damaging to that resource than I have. But I do like my halibut. That would be with a cilantro butter sauce please!
Post a Followup