Large fish availability next year

[ThrowingTimber]

I wont even bother giving a theory too much thought, that doesnt account for losses.

So if in 1989 there were x amount of yoy, and they should be x length and weight by x year.

Where are the losses factored in?

I like the theory dont get me wrong just trying to bring up another point of view. Its almost like an IF nothing goes wrong with these fish theory?

Factor in a few metric tons of lost fish for the nets off nc and I'd be more onboard with the theory.

[nightprowler]

Originally Posted by ThrowingTimber

I wont even bother giving a theory too much thought, that doesnt account for losses.

So if in 1989 there were x amount of yoy, and they should be x length and weight by x year.

Where are the losses factored in?

I like the theory dont get me wrong just trying to bring up another point of view. Its almost like an IF nothing goes wrong with these fish theory?

Factor in a few metric tons of lost fish for the nets off nc and I'd be more onboard with the theory.

I think that the theory is including that...if year x had y amount of fish. and year x+1 had y+75 fish, then 10 years down the road, more fish from year X+1 should be around.
did that make any sense?oke:

[Back Beach]

Originally Posted by nightprowler

I think that the theory is including that...if year x had y amount of fish. and year x+1 had y+75 fish, then 10 years down the road, more fish from year X+1 should be around.
did that make any sense?oke:

That's the theory exactly. Everything else would be the same, or normalized, with regard to attrition rates and nutrition levels.

IF: X=1
Y=X+75
Z= normalized mortality rate over given time frame.
THEN:
X-Z<Y-Z at the end of given time frame.

This is too F!@#@#$n deep.

[Canalman]

Originally Posted by ThrowingTimber

I wont even bother giving a theory too much thought, that doesnt account for losses.

So if in 1989 there were x amount of yoy, and they should be x length and weight by x year.

Where are the losses factored in?

I like the theory dont get me wrong just trying to bring up another point of view. Its almost like an IF nothing goes wrong with these fish theory?

Factor in a few metric tons of lost fish for the nets off nc and I'd be more onboard with the theory.

The losses are impossible to calculate, but if every year class is fished with the same pressure, lets say 70% of what's available dies before it reached 50# (I'm sure it's more like 85%) if year A has 100M and year B has 300M... you still have 3 times the leftovers from B to A. Whoa, that's a lot of thinking for friday afternoon.... knap time ni ni

[ThrowingTimber]

I just wanted to bring up the losses and how possible it is/would be to calculate them.

Take tuna for instance where they were doing all these studies based on yearly spawning, for quite some time.

Then someone said hey do these really spawn yearly??

They tracked ‘em then realized oooops… Some spawn ever few years… so how skewed were those numbers???