tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896836091935734799.post2464749046070320738..comments2024-03-15T08:52:03.058-04:00Comments on ONE ANGLER'S VOYAGE: IF YOU WANT A FISHING INDUSTRY, IT HELPS TO HAVE FISHCharles Witekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16752632941300366580noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896836091935734799.post-36159652685729676712014-07-21T06:25:33.166-04:002014-07-21T06:25:33.166-04:00This is nice post which I was awaiting for such an...This is nice post which I was awaiting for such an article and I have gained some useful information from this site. Thanks for sharing this information.<br /><b><a href="http://bigbangfallout.com/fishing-resources/" rel="nofollow">Saltwater trolling</a></b>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09957264585846264209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896836091935734799.post-71732762473426378922014-04-04T18:48:59.288-04:002014-04-04T18:48:59.288-04:00Yes, you're right. But...
All of the things ...Yes, you're right. But...<br /><br />All of the things that you mention only matter when they affect either mortality or recruitment--which they often do.<br /><br />If some sort of habitat degredation, or climate change, results in a stock being less productive, so that recruitment declines, fishing mortality needs to be reduced to take account for the productivity loss. If that's not done, overfishing results, even though the same level of removals (referenced as reductions in biomass, not as a removal rate) would not have caused problems before.<br /><br />Similarly, if the change in environmental conditions increases natural mortality, fishing still plays a role. We talk about fishing mortality ("F"), but it's really total mortality ("Z")--made up of both fishing mortality and natural mortlaity ("M")--that determines the health of the stock. F+M=Z. So if habitat changes, increased competition, disease, increased predation or any other factor causes M to increase, F has to be reduced to compensate, or once again, overfishing results.<br /><br />Again, I don't disagree with you. But this is a sensitive point for me, because in my part of the world too many fishermen and industry reps try to frame things in terms of "fault." They'll argue that stock declines are due to habitat loss, pollution, predation, etc., thus "not their fault" and they end up resisting needed harvest cuts, and fish stocks suffer as a result.<br /><br />I know that's not your intent, but given how prevalent those arguments are around here, I had to raise the point.Charles Witekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16752632941300366580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896836091935734799.post-55109348738973481632014-04-03T22:48:05.107-04:002014-04-03T22:48:05.107-04:00It's not just fishing an harvest impacts anymo...It's not just fishing an harvest impacts anymore. There is still ongoing water pollution from industry and domestic sources, habitat loss and degradation, and the emerging issue of climate change and ocean acidification turns out to be ahuge impact. I am not denying that fishing is a problem. It most certainly is. But there are many other factors conspiring here as well.<br />Bob Triggshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01477110366429518001noreply@blogger.com