Science and the MPA's - Kayak Fishing Adventures on Big Water’s Edge

PAL · 05-10-2010, 04:51 PM

^ Sorry, I meant the panel you viewed as a spectator, not to imply you are part of the process. Any insight you can provide is much appreciated. Thanks for sharing your experiences, and hope to fish with you again sometime soon.

GregAndrew · 05-10-2010, 07:23 PM

Here is a question that no one seems to be able to answer. If 39% of species do better outside of reserves (PISCO Marine Reserves Handbook), then why was the reserve size science based on capturing 90% of the area species? They base their minimum and recommended reserve sizes on capturing 90% of the available species. This creates at least 2 problems: the costs associated with larger reserves than are necessary, and driving the 39% further from where they would want to be.

I would agree that there is a lot of science in the process on both sides, but little of it is being utilized in a scientific way by the powers that be.

05-10-2010, 04:51 PM	#1
PAL Senior Member Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 754	^ Sorry, I meant the panel you viewed as a spectator, not to imply you are part of the process. Any insight you can provide is much appreciated. Thanks for sharing your experiences, and hope to fish with you again sometime soon.

05-10-2010, 07:23 PM	#2
GregAndrew Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 2,384	Here is a question that no one seems to be able to answer. If 39% of species do better outside of reserves (PISCO Marine Reserves Handbook), then why was the reserve size science based on capturing 90% of the area species? They base their minimum and recommended reserve sizes on capturing 90% of the available species. This creates at least 2 problems: the costs associated with larger reserves than are necessary, and driving the 39% further from where they would want to be. I would agree that there is a lot of science in the process on both sides, but little of it is being utilized in a scientific way by the powers that be.