|
I heard a report this morning concerning a study conducted at the Stoneybrook Institute in NY by a Fisheries Management specialist. The report found that when larger fish are kept, the avarage size in the remaining stocks decreases over time. By removing the larger fish from the gene pool, we are thus staging the future for more smaller fish. The study also showed that the removal of smaller fish from the population had the opposite affect. By removing smaller fish, there was a substantial increase in the numbers of larger fish. Also, it was observed that the fish achieved much greater growth rates and appeared to produce more offspring.
Why do we need to keep a large fish anyway. What is wrong with bringing a camera, taking a picture, and letting it go. Who wants to eat the large fish anyway. I have worked for the Department of Environmental Protection for a few years testing striped bass fillets. These large fish in the 36+ inch range are not healthy to eat. Fish of this size are in the 12-13year+ class and have bioaccumulated more heavy metals than anyone in thier right mind should really care to consume.
So, if keeping a smaller fish is beneficial for more larger fish and a healthier stock, and smaller/younger fish are much healthier to eat,.....what is the problem??? It really doesn't seem too hard to figure out. Think about the slot.(20-26")
|