Ocean News

I'm not saying, "It's not a lack of fish", I'm saying the comparison, as presented, can't stand alone.
I know there's a lack of fish, at least in the local Gulf Coastal waters my family made their living fishing in, but there are other reasons, unrelated to the fish population, that the above quote by SamSam hides.

Exactly!

-Will (Dragonfly)

 

Red Snapper https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/red-snapper

Fishing Status
At recommended level in the Gulf of Mexico. Reduced to end overfishing in the South Atlantic.

Status

• According to the 2018 stock assessment of Gulf of Mexico red snapper

the stock is not overfished. The stock is rebuilding and a rebuilding plan is in place. Regulations are in place to ensure that the combined commercial and recreational catches are low enough to prevent overfishing.

Red Snapper WERE depleted, but not now, Will (Dragonfly)

Along with grouper, Red Snapper were the favorite quarry of head boats.
Landed many white snapper and Mingo, and trigger fish, too.

Actually, I like trigger fish filets. Three filets on every fish. The middle one is a bit boney.

When my dad was alive, we went on a head boat together once a year. Fill up the bed of the pickup truck.
One entire day for two of us to catch them. Two days work for me to filet them all. Filled freezer for a years worth of weekly fish frys.

 

Oh, come on. Just clearly say what it is you mean. Are you saying less regulations and less government interference in commercial fishing will amount to more fish stocks? What exactly do you mean when you say Exactly! ?
What is it the above quote by SamSam hides?

 

somebody has reading comprehension problems, and this isn't the first time, either

 

I'm sorry I'm not making myself clear.
You quoted,

It's mostly the last part that obfuscates, but the quoted facts that catch sizes have declined since the 1950's, without any other context, is likely a misrepresentation of what is causing the decline.

I know there is no mention of cause, other than the last line, and you are just posting an article of fact. I'm not trying to impune you or your reputation or even discredit the fact. I'm just pointing out that without understanding the complete picture, in the context of a discussion about anthropogenic climate change, the stated fact sounds like it is meant to accuse over-fishing of the decline in commercial catches.
Just the fact that catch sizes have shrunk over the last 70 years isn't evidence of any cause. That's what I'm saying.

Obviously something is causing that decline, but for the author of this statement to make it, without further explanation, is misleading. It might be true that over-fished World fisheries are the cause of the reduced catches, I believe that is happening, but if I didn't, that statement is no arguement to sway me. I do know that fishing has declined since the 1950s and a world wide effort to regulate fishing to prevent over-fishing, has also been going on.

So, if those regulations have been successful at all, it stands to reason that the catch sizes have gone down, at least in part, because of the success of those regulations.

You see, if the world's governments were to impose a complete moratorium on commercial fishing, to preserve the world's fisheries, the author could truthfully point out that, 'currently, the world's commercial catch size has dropped so dramatically, that this year, no fish were caught.' It would be truth, but in the context in which it was presented, it is alarming, rather than hopeful.

I hope you, SamSam, don't think I am trying to call you a liar. I am not. I have radd a number of your posts and agm fully impressed. I'm merely pointing out, how a statement like the one you quoted, can be misleading. It might be true, but it is not a good logical syllogism.

-Will (Dragonfly)

 

That would be me. I just realized, the quoted author actually did state a cause, but it was only an assertion, no logical connections were drawn. I stand by my point, but I did make a mistake in my arguement.


-Will (Dragonfly)

 

got any photos. love to see proof of that.

 

have any of you come across air quality figures for the last 3 months. it would be interesting to know how much cleaner the atomsphere is without jet aircraft flying.

 

asked brendan gardam

Sorry, we ddn't take photos, it wasn't a sports outing fishing trip, more like grocery shopping. Exhausting day! Dad died about thirty years ago, but it was a annual thing for many years
We also bought a 200 lb lean hog at the livestock auction once a year, had it butchered and entire hog ground into sausage. Spiced hot. Didn't take pictures. Just loading the freezers. Same with the fish.

The bottom rigs on our poles had three hooks. squid cut up as bait. Fishing about 100 ft depth. Hook a fish, wait, hook another, wait, hook the third fish and reel them up. Efficiency!
Takes awhile to reel in from 100 ft down.
Port sailed from, Destin, Fla Boat left 5 am, returned 5 pm. Took about an hour out to fishing grounds. We also lived about an hour away from Destin,, in Milton, Fla. Cost 25$ each to go on head boat.
About 80 passengers total.

 

It must have been one hell of a job to fillet that many fish. 2 days. I get sick of filleting after 1 hour.

 

Where did you and your dad go fishing?

-Will (Dragonfly)

 

We always use 2 hooks for reef fishing. It's called the paternoster rig. We don't use 3 hooks because we would never be able to wind up 3 aussie fish at once.

 

Here is an interesting article about how the shutdown of human activities due to COVID has improved air quality in cities -- though ozone levels actually went up in some areas.

Pandemic’s Cleaner Air Could Reshape What We Know About the Atmosphere

 

Polar Bears Could Face Extinction By 2100 Due To Climate Change, Study Says

All but a few of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears scattered across the coldest reaches of the globe could be wiped out by 2100 as the warming climate continues to erode sea ice, according to the study.

Although polar bears can fast for months by relying on stored body fat from eating seal, calculations assuming high greenhouse-gas emissions by the study’s authors showed that the loss of ice projected through the end of the century would outlast the bears’ fasting ability and mothers’ ability to nurse cubs, meaning they would likely starve.

At least two polar bear populations—one off the coast of northeastern Alaska, and one in Canada’s Hudson Bay—already have been impacted by melting sea ice.

The study was published in the journal Nature Climate Change.

 

Destin, Fla. Calls itself Red Snapper Capital of the world.