Quote:
Originally Posted by numbskull
As for your lame faith in fishery "science" that is nothing but self-serving dishonesty. Everyone involved in counting striped bass knew their margin of error was enormous as was their estimates of recreational catch and kill. Even their technical committee reports told them this. They ignored it because the science was inconvenient.
Good science would have taken into account the poor quality of the available data and pointed towards a more conservative management plan. Furthermore, good science would continuely be checking the accuracy of its conclusions and adjusting them based on real world feedback.
In fisheries driven by commercial pressures that doesn't happen........and you know it full well. Managers are pressured for short term economic yield and when it all goes bad everybody blames the "science".
Fishery management is not about science, it is about gambling and hoping for the best then blaming someone else when it all goes bad.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
Self-serving? How so, I rarely fish for striped bass.
As for the "poor quality of available data" that is taken into account. Have you ever read a stock assessment in detail? The scientists use what is called the "precautionary principle" in making the assessments and often IMHO are overly cautious in the resulting assessment. That's what's killing us with BSB right now, the stock is supposedly waaaay over the target SSB but the ABC is set very low because of the "data poor" state of the stock.
I guess you are unaware that in most fisheries management its the scientists that set the ABCs and the "managers" really just try to figure out how to stay within those numbers.
You're about 20 years behind the times in your attitudes and thinking.
Threaded Mode