yes but by protecting the dogfish you will overpopulate the area wth undiserable species, causing other problems you can notforesee. One will be the rec fisherman not going fishing for the bottom fish that live in these waters as often....causing reduced revenue to the industry and lost taxes rev.
I have no problem catching a dogfish now and again...but when you reel up double headers with 4 or 5 following the two that are hooked all day...let tell you there is no shortage...the females are there somewhere and that there is no reason to protect them and PERHAPS the study that this entire thing is based on is flawed. The bottom is paved with dogs now. The females HAVE to be there someplace. Besides, who says there has to be the same number of males and females for the species to thrive? This is NOT a problem...and IMO this is a case of the state trying to fix something that is not broken. There are a lot of other more improtant things they need to concern themselves with. ...like foragefish, flounder, eels, tuna, weakfish, ect...
Bad science is worse then NO science...even if it is the best we have.
Last edited by Mr. Sandman; 06-20-2005 at 08:47 AM..
|
Threaded Mode