Re: Interesting Article
"Fishermen in our association question the constantly changing results of fisheries science," she said. "For example, just a few years ago, fisheries scientists and managers said that Gulf of Maine cod were at the highest biomass level in 30 years. The fishing industry fished within the scientifically set quotas, and despite that compliance, today the Gulf of Maine cod population is, according to the same scientists, at a record low. This volatility in advice makes business planning very difficult for fishermen, and not surprisingly leads to frustration and some level of disbelief about the quality of the science.
This part of the article begs for answers. If the once abundant cod had the highest biomass level in 30 years and then dropped to a record low, what happened? Overfishing was not the culprit. The commercial guys followed the regulations? Where did the record biomass go? It had to go somewhere, but not the Gulf of Maine. Even if the fishermen in the Gulf of Maine continued to catch their normal quota of cod, there still has to be a record number somewhere else. Why cut back the numbers from one place when the rest of the biomass is somewhere else not being caught? There are still record numbers of fish, just not in the Gulf of Maine. Cut off your nose to spite your face?
The same has to be said of the fluke in our area. There are more than anyone can remember. Some historical areas though, have not seen as many in recent years. That doesn't mean they are on the decline or should be more strictly regulated because the boats being monitored are catching bigger numbers in a different spot. If the boats which were fishing at some of the less productive areas were monitored, it would look like the numbers were on the decline. We can't win. If we catch alot in one monitored area, then we're overfishing and the season and bag limits are cut. if the area that is monitored does not produce too many fish, then we've overfished the area and the season and bag limits are cut. Imagine if everyone fished in the Reach when the fish were on the Knoll or fished along the beach when the fish were pouring out in Ambrose. Everyone would say the fishing was terrible and there were no fish to be caught! Wrong! They were just somewhere else. Tell that to a scientist!
Give the scientists another 200 years and they still won't have it figured out. Fish swim. Bait does too. Water temperatures vary. Currents change. Predation takes its toll. These are things that are variables which are not figured into the equation. All that is counted are the fish in the recreational coolers and the tonage in the holds of the commecial guys. Where's the science?
|
03-26-2013, 02:14 PM
Steve O'Connor
Linear Mode
