Quote:
Originally Posted by reason162
|
This dialogue would be more productive if you answered questions with facts. None of the material discrepancies in science I've identified or pointed out are included in your selective reply.
Your statement "
NC, you have it backwards: they were allocated the lion's share of fluke because they had more fluke decades ago than any other state". Explain then how the first chart doesn't support that statement. North Carolina wasn't close to other states until the 70's when they started harvesting their offshore winter commercial fishery right around the same time the fishery started it's collapse into the early 80's. Numbers don't lie.
Apologies for the size font but read the second attachment about the NC commercial summer flounder fishery.
99% of their landings take place during winter trawls. Translated, 99% of the state with the largest commercial quota occurs during the summer flounder primary spawn. Absolutely smart fisheries management. That statement is followed up with "
It's not clear what's responsible for the decrease in age class fish 0-1 in NC's landings" You think maybe they ended white side up on the bottom of the ocean. Funny how when their's and Virginia's landings sky-rocketed in the mid 70's, the biomass began it's collapse in the early 80's.
To be clear, I believe climate change is happening and needs to be dealt with, you'd be a fool to believe otherwise. What I don't believe in is the extent of impact people are suggesting it's having on the fishery. I guess the BSB biomass and porgy populations migrated back south when regulations were established to address commercial over-harvest as we see those fisheries rebounding locally today. I believe in areas with less commercial pressure, expansion of fish stocks is happening which theorists will immediately attribute to climate change related movement north. I seem to remember you schooling the site about correlation and causation, you might consider heeding your own advice. I guess we should also believe climate change wasn't an issue between 1989 - 2002 when the biomass increased by 900% and the local fishery was in excellent condition because at that time recreational size increase legislation just started initiating an imbalance in the gender composition of SSB and an unprecedented decrease in recruitment strength we've been living the negative impacts of for almost two decades.
The facts speak for themselves. If you can't wrap your head around that or support your positions with data from fisheries management.......sorry.
07-19-2019, 12:30 PM
Re: Fishery Management
Re: Fishery Management
Hybrid Mode
