Quote:
Originally Posted by stuppid
What one has to worry about in my opinion is who is going to interpret the data and how are they going to use it. I can imagine two ways. High fish counts can help you and hurt you. If they are using fish counts to estimate the total fish population then high fish counts can help because high fish counts would equate to a healthy fishery. If they already have an estimate of the fish population by some other means then high fish counts could be interpreted as over take. If they have a low estimate of the fish population and the take is high they will have to take measures to reduce the take. I don't have any idea how they use the data but it is the pits when you feel that you cant trust the government to do the right thing whatever that might be.
|
The DFG, like many state's wildlife departments, has really done a great job managing take and balancing a habitat so it reaches is optimal population / carrying capacity. This is true for big game as well as fish. The are using REAL science and fixing problems before they get out of control.
The problem is when other government/legislation comes in and tries to "fix" existing policies that DFG has spent decades working on to find the best solution. We've already fixed it. DFG has done a great job and if we would just let them continue doing their job we would be just fine and everyone would be much happier. But that's just too darn non-dramatic and makes too much sense for a state like California to fathom.
Anyway, generally higher take figures are indicative of a thriving population.