freediver wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 3:26pm:


Really? Have you even tried asking him?

It didn't take me long to find this (little gem):

Yield comparisons: Several estimates of actual fisheries yield per unit area of reef have been made (see Table 1), but studies that indicate the sustainable capacity of coral reef fisheries are rare. Jennings and Polunin (1995) have suggested, based on observations at different sites in Fiji subject to different levels of fishing activity, that a yield of at least 10 tonnes of fin-fish per square kilometre of reef is sustainable, at least where reefs are subject to low influence from human land-based activities. The overall average for the 43 Pacific Island fisheries detailed in Table 1 is 7.7 tonnes per square kilometre of reef.

http://www.spc.int/coastfish/Reports/ICFMAP/statreef.htm

PS: The GBR take is around 9kg per square km per year, ie 100 times less!

So what is the difference in methods FD? What could be simpler than kg per square km per year?

There may be some differences in target species but how significant would they be when we are talking about 100x less than the sustainable limit?

PS: It didn't take long for you to resort to the same scurrilous personal attacks you leveled at Prof Kearney and Prof Hilborn.

You still haven't said how the methods are different FD.

Your other explanations also amount to unconvincing attempt to obfuscate the issue. 

Eg which reef is the 'arid' one and which is the 'dairy farm'. The GBR is if anything more productive than other pacific reefs with more nutrients leading to more large fish at the top of the food chain.

The GBR is if anything more productive than other pacific reefs with more nutrients leading to more large fish at the top of the food chain.

Not on a per unit area basis. Or do you think we should be able to get away with increasing the catch of coral trout by a factor of over 1000?

No its scurrilous (and lazy). If you wanted to challenge their authority you would give evidence from their peers and demonstrate why their conclusions and observations are of more merit.

That demand would be reasonable if his peers took him seriously enough to rebut him. They don't. The only place these absurd claims are taken seriously is on internet forums.

If someone tried to convince you that an outback cattle farm was understocked by comparing stocking rates with an English dairy farm you would think they were a lunatic. You wouldn't bother going beyond stating the obvious to point out why he was wrong. You wouldn't expect an article in Nature explaining the flaws in his approach. Walter Starck made an equally absurd comparison with fish. He made no attempt to address the obvious flaws in the approach, but took the first (only?) numbers he came across. Why then do you assume his approach is valid until proven otherwise? Just how much effort do you expect me to go to to show that it is nothing more than quackery?

Walter put almost no effort into his flawed analysis. Neither he nor you are justified in expecting any more effort from those who rebut it. The flaws are obvious.

You making a strawman to suggest that the catch per are comparison is the only evidence of light fishing pressure.

I am not arguing that at all.

Adams, Dalzell and Farman made the comparison of various reefs using catch per area. Are they quacks too?

I would have to see what they said before commenting.

I meant his approach of comparing on a catch per unti area basis. He made no attempt to address the obvious flaws in it.

I don't think you understand his points Tallowood.

Eg:

That the duration of the studies is not sufficent to allow the claims of increased nos to be valid.

Longer running studies don't show much of an increase inside the green zones.

The object of fisheries management is not to maximise the fish population (there will always be more fish around if you don't fish them).