Quote:
Originally Posted by reason162
Dakota, I also read your posts with great interest. I am not dismissing out of hand the sex ratio theory, but there is countering evidence which you do seem to dismiss, that fluke is indeed a particularly steep species and therefore resistant to sex ratio imbalance. I think the Rutgers study will shed light on squaring that circle, but the fact is there might not be a conflict to resolve within those parameters if there are larger forces at play. Climate change would most certainly have an impact on fluke migration/recruitment/abundance, as it does on every species on earth. My assumption is that even if true, whatever effect the sex ratio imbalance is on recruitment, the effects of climate change largely eclipses.
I know I don't need to point out to you the difference between causation and correlation, but for the benefit of the forum: the "perfect inverse relationship" you plot between size regulation and recruitment is firmly in the first camp, and could very well be irrelevant IF the causation lies elsewhere, ie global climate change. I wish you were correct, that fisheries management alone is to blame, or that regulations account for the majority of poor recruitment. If that is the case, the solution is relatively easy.
|
Reason appreciate your reply and position. When I look at the data holistically I come to a different conclusion. If climate change were the primary culprit, in my opinion we wouldn't have seen a resurgence in SSB from 1989 to 2002 with a sudden reversal and continued decline ever since. The biomass is there, but it's declining every year and at an accelerated rate. Could climate be effecting egg reproduction, can't rule it out. I'd bet the build up of a winter commercial fishery and the biomass being pounded during the spawn has caused considerably more harm in the reproductive process itself and significantly higher levels of unreported dead discard. These fish years ago once they started migrating off shore went untouched for the most part, today they have no safe haven.
NMFS has tried the same failed approach for the last 20 years to the point they said the stock was rebuilt in I believe '10 or '11 and they're wrong. They've been wrong with their management approach and they're still wrong today. Let's wait and see what next year holds in store with the regulations (going to be a disaster) and what the next stock assessment tells us even with chain sweep technology. Hope I'm wrong but in my opinion we're on the wrong path and managing the fishery to a collapse.
