quote:
Originally posted by Post Quartermasterquote:
Originally posted by natureboyIts hard to prove that something didn’t happen. This is why I asked for data and facts about sword pop numbers.They don’t exist. The sword scare was started in 1997 by some NC sport fishers that thought that long liners were catching “their” fish. There was huge publicity occuring at the time by enviro groups about the supposed horror of long line fishing. Peta, ED, and PEW were more than happy to jump on the bandwagon and exploit this fracture in the fishing community. Interestlingly, this was about the same time that the eternal mayor Rieley of Charleston SC wanted to establish a long liners dock near the SC aquarium — until his lefty support slapped his hand. ICCAT has no data or numbers until years after this scare. Check out http://ca-seafood.ucdavis.edu/news/swftruth.htm
I’m confused, your source seems to contradict what you are saying, note the bolded text below.
Your ca-seafood.ucdavis.edu source acknowledges that overfishing and susequently, population recovery occurred:
Prior to 1996, the ICAAT had not established an effective compliance program to ensure that nations honored their harvest quotas in the Atlantic. A few nations ignored their allotted quotas and minimum size regulations, resulting in overfishing. These few nations undermined conservation efforts in the Atlantic.
Recognizing this enforcement loophole, ICCAT officials established a formal compliance system. Beginning in 1997, countries that violate ICCAT conservation measures face substantial reductions in future quotas and possible multi-national trade sanctions. With stringent enforcement measur
A “FACT” does not necessarily imply that you “provide evidence”. It only implies that it’s something that CAN be verified.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
“A fact (derived from the Latin factum, see below) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be proven to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable experiments.”
As far as “scientific” studies, in fisheries management, I doubt many of them can be taken as 100% “fact”. They can only make observations about a fishery and report them. Usually these observations come from data points that they must INTERPRET at some point. Just because a source like ICCAT or SAMFC puts out a statement does not necessarily mean that it is a FACT… It’s just their interpretation of the data as they see it.
I fully understand your point. And I appreciate your knowledge much more than someone that has time to sling bull**** yet no time to research. The devil is in the data. Being that I have commercial fished & rec fished I am aware that the effort was made to obtain data in 63. ICCAT determined that the population was affected by a few non compliant nations - but its still just numbers on paper. Its all about where the numbers come from. From a fishermans point of view , however, I do know that the data provided by fishers in those days was very suspect, and there was no true accountability. I remember what a joke those log books were. We were afraid to provide true data because the feeling was that it would be used to harm the business.(not the exact term we used) The point I was making was that the 97 sword scare was not something imposed by ICCAT - but by a group of rec fishers and enviro groups and chefs in a harmful and very successful campaign.
Speaking again about the swords in the Med- I remember seeing fishermen in the Strait of Messina which is probably the worlds largest rip, hand line catch boat loads - tons of 5-to 10 lb baby swords and beach the boat and sell everything to the locals in minutes. Do you think ICCAT got those numbers? I would love to know if this is still happening today.
I do recognize the work done to restore red drum to the present numbers. One of my difficulties with present snapper/grouper regs and data is the quantity of fish the council attrubutes to rec fishing. Rec fishing & commercial are very different. Today with 24 kt winds and snotty conditions all the rec guys are on the hill relaxing - but offshore the comm boats are likely having a good day. They bite very well when the boat bounces the baits around. When the rec guys do get a perfect day , many still have difficulty filling the box. Its like golf - you gotta play every day to be good at it. My feelings about this almost boiled over when Cupka stated that part of the BSB assesment was made by "random res
All this talk about the ICCAT surprised nobody has mentioned how about they are effing up with regards to the tuna quotas/stocks etc.
BAD = best available data. BAS = best available science
Who decides what info is “best”? Sounds like were still guessing.
ICCAT relys almost completely on landing data - obtained from fishermen ? From the market data from Japan? The Europeans? Mexicans? Iceland?
Like the line from the movie “Saving Arizona” The parole hearing scene : “Are you telling us what we want to hear”? (Nic Cage) “well I hope so!”
quote:
Originally posted by skinneejA “FACT” does not necessarily imply that you “provide evidence”. It only implies that it’s something that CAN be verified.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
“A fact (derived from the Latin factum, see below) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be proven to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable experiments.”
So if you’re not going to use the data available to prove facts or a hypothesis, what do you use? The only surefire 100% way to confirm the data was to count and measure every swordfish swimming between say…1950-1980, then do the same thing between 1980-2010 (I’m just using random dates). Well, that’s not gonna happen, so therefore, you have to really on the available data which should be representative of the population in general.
As far as “scientific” studies, in fisheries management, I doubt many of them can be taken as 100% “fact”. They can only make observations about a fishery and report them. Usually these observations come from data points that they must INTERPRET at some point. Just because a source like ICCAT or SAMFC puts out a statement does not necessarily mean that it is a FACT… It’s just their interpretation of the data as they see it.
[quote]Originally posted by natureboy
“And I appreciate your knowledge much more than someone that has time to sling bull**** yet no time to research.”
Well, it looks like you’re agreeing that I was right, or at least as you put it, ‘slinging bull***’.
Like I said, you believe what you want to believe and I’ll do the same. We don’t have to agree and I don’t care if we do or not. It seems to bother you much more than it bothers me.
But you still didn’t answer my questions about whether quotas, catch limits, slot size, etc are necessary and if so, why?
Another great trip on Earle Bird last week… 14 BFT with one pushing 40 lbs and 4 wahoo!
Nauti Girl
¸.·´¯`·.¸¸><((((º>
Nauti Girl
¸.·´¯`·.¸¸><((((º>
Nauti Girl kicked this monster’s A$$!!
Nauti Girl
¸.·´¯`·.¸¸><((((º>
quote:What exact data are you talking about? The government pretty much proved to us that when it comes to red snapper and black sea bass that they don't know the difference between their butthole and a hole in the wall...
Originally posted by bonecrusherSo if you’re not going to use the data available to prove facts or a hypothesis, what do you use? The only surefire 100% way to confirm the data was to count and measure every swordfish swimming between say…1950-1980, then do the same thing between 1980-2010 (I’m just using random dates). Well, that’s not gonna happen, so therefore, you have to really on the available data which should be representative of the population in general.
My point is that, sure there is “data”, but the way that someone INTERPRETS the data is not always a “FACT”… That is why it is an “interpretation” of data.
And to further your example, you don’t have to count every fish in the ocean. You just have to take a large enough sample size of a population using an unbiased manner and compare the two time periods. And there are several data points that you would want to capture. I would imagine that a few of interest would be: average age, average size, Catch Per Unit… And even after all of those data points, you can’t necessarily interpret that FISHERMEN are the root of the cause of a change in the population, no more than you can prove that they are the cause of the extinction of the dinosaur.
Again, those data points are “facts”… One’s interpretation of the data is NOT necessarily a fact, and more often than not, an OPINION…
Way to go Angie!! Fish like a Girl