[jhook]

Originally Posted by Stan K G

Most of these are weak or aren't specific to south CA MPAs



He says the US MPA isn't a general result that would be the same in the rest of the world....which isn't the issue here...we are talking about another US MPA so the study is relevant

No. What he says is "Before implementing new reserves, it would be wise to ask whether a reserve is the best strategy for managing a particular fishery..." He also points out that less extreme measures are also working.

He also admits that, yeah, it might have increased the size of catches near the area (which you decided not to bold, convenient)

You caught me! Cleverly trying to hide the truth by posting his entire response.

The Fishing magazine writer (no conflict of interest there!) decided to ignore the statistic of biomass inside the MPA surpassing outside biomass in the same time frame.

And what about the interests of the authors of the original article? Do you think they would have been published in one of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world if their results would have found no effect?
In fact "the fishing magazine writer" addresses the point you accuse him of ignoring, directly: "However, before being closed to the public, the reserve waters (part of what was established as the Cape Kennedy security zone) were already known to harbor record specimens of certain species because of prime habitat." Which illustrates one of the biggest flaws of the study. No controls.

Also, yellowstone is heavly regulated, some rivers are closed to fishing year round, some are fly fishing only, there is no fishing for several months every year, and yellowstone isn't fished as heavly as our coastal waters simply due to population density, being a state park, and freshwater anglers these days being more likely to practice C&R.

All measures that are short of MLPA-style outright bans.

This guy doesn't seem to know that biomass isn't fish count....fish grow bigger every hour of every day...they don't need to spawn to grow bigger.

He seems to know it quite well, which is why he says: "Regarding the second point, proponents of marine protected areas argue that spawning stock will build up inside reserves and eggs, larvae, and juveniles will then be exported to areas outside the reserves."
The whole point is more fish, right? Not an equal number of bigger fish (that will then be caught outside the MPA).

Aww, don't like it when the enviromentalists you guys like to talk smack about so much give it back a little?

Everyone was more than civil with you before (and even after) you starting implying that they were racist, islamaphobic, homophobic, extremists. One guy even gave you his phone number! It's pretty clear who's doing the smack talking.