|
I have my problems with this so called science. Good science leaves little ambiguity, it should be definitive. At a minimum if a proper error analysis could be done you should hear we are 93.4% confident this is the cause....but you don't. Error analysis cant be done because there are too many inaccurate parameters. (How many fish are there, how many were caught, released, died of natural causes, how many fishermen are there and how often they actually catch fish etc) I think this rec lic was intended to be a step to help quantifying these parameters but it will take a long time to resolving this IMO.
The fact is at one time excess rain was the problem in the 80's now it is part of the solution it seems. This effects your credibility anyway you look at it.
So, what we have today is a educated guesstimate which is being labeled "the best science". I am an engineer not a scientist and even I find this insulting. This is not science. Where did they get these guys?
The proper thing to do is until we KNOW with say 95% confidence that XXXX is the problem is to err on the side of conservation and the fishery dept's are simply not doing this. If this means a if a cut back of 50%, stopping comm fishing, or a complete shut down is needed to INSURE the future, fine, do it, TAKE ACTION. What we have is a chubby old man (Diodati) driving the fishery bus by looking in the rear view mirror, telling everyone don't worry what the spawn was good 10 years ago while his engine is ablaze and he is headed into a brick wall.
|
Threaded Mode