In Reply to: Re: Your apologies... posted by seldom seen slim on August 06, 2009 at 11:50:47:

Distortions don't warrant extra credit nor do explanations of "I meant it as an general example". You took the Alaskan fishery out of context plain and simple because you know most people won't look it up themselves. Alaska's management and fishery has nothing to do with California's.

As for 2-4 generations of increased take indicating sustainability, I'd point out the collapse of Red abs in the late 80's as a contraindication of that argument. That was over 40 years of increased take and we all know the results of that fishery. It's a flawed argument because it once again ignores effort and any population studies. That's the problem with after-catch data that the DFG uses. You mention population densities as a determining factor in management but you don't factor it into your definition of sustainability. You can continue to gloss over that but you can't say a fishery is sustainable or that ecological damage isn't being done without knowing that information. Period. End of discussion.

Who said I was in favor of mass closures btw? I never said anything one way or the other. I just think that the most vocal opponents of MPA's are self-serving and use words like sustainability and green as buzz words to continue practices that have over have time depleted ocean resources to a point where they are merely shadows of their former self. By that I mean the serial depletion of our coastal fisheries.

Instead of looking up sincerity on wikipedia, maybe you should think about looking up ethics and responsibility.

• Oh the morality of all... seldom seen slim 13:08:06 08/06/09 (4)
  • Thanks Chris Knight 13:47:16 08/06/09 (3)
    • two to tango seldom seen slim 20:48:43 08/07/09 (2)
      • A duck isn't a duck when it's a coot which is what that picture is of. Chris Knight 10:53:33 08/08/09 (1)
        • Done Say it aint so Cooter 14:19:45 08/08/09 (0)