Quote:
Originally Posted by MathGeek
The GMFMC pseudo-science is driving this confrontation. Real science is about open debate and actually employing the best methods to understand the status of the stocks in support of policies based on the best available science. In contrast, the GMFMC pseudo-science seems pre-determined to support the Vision 2020 plan of marine fisheries being shifted to catch and release only by 2020.
There is a fantasy that originates in the PETA/Greenpeace mindset that less human involvement will always improve the environment and that the use of natural resources is always bad. In the snapper debate, this fallacy missed the key point that the increased production of snapper due to artificial reefs and nutrient loading in the Gulf of Mexico will create a red snapper population capable of itself causing environmental harm if allowed to become and remain overpopulated. The Gulf of Mexico is far from virgin waters, and there simply are not enough natural predators to control the population of snapper.
Just like deer have the potential to overpopulate, and without sufficient human harvest, they will eat themselves out of house and home and reach densities where disease propagation and vegetative regeneration are real problems. Without sufficient density of sharks and dolphins and other predators, humans have a key role to play preventing red snapper over population in the Gulf of Mexico. Over abundant red snapper will deplete their food sources as well as the food sources of other species with significant forage and habitat overlap. Just as man needs to harvest sufficient numbers of deer to maintain ecological balance on land, man needs to harvest sufficient numbers of red snapper to maintain ecological balance in the Gulf of Mexico.
|
Red Snapper are like loaded in the gulf beyond what Gov knows, I have yet to see a platform in 50-150ft of water not have more snapper than you would spend time fishing for ....