Quote:
Originally Posted by dos ballenas
The real solution is to try and change the way fishermen are surveyed. This is difficult and very complicated due to the fact that it could be extremely biased (sound familiar?).
|
Sounds very familiar...
My concern is how the data will be twisted by the enviro-nazis.
Not bashing anybody, nor am I trying to be argumentative or sway anyone, just stating my opinion.
Either way you look at it, we are damned if we do, damned if we don't.
We tell them we caught nothing, then according to their agenda, said area should be protected since we have depleted that area.
We tell them that, wow, fish were on the chew, then according to their agenda, we are potentially going to deplete the fish population and therefore said area should be protected.
Reminds me of when that kook claiming he was a diver said that he had dove the LJ reserve and saw no fish...obviously he was telling the truth,
regardless of whether he actually dove that area, re-phooking-gardless if he actually knew what he was doing, according to him, no fish to be seen.
He then suggested extending the reserve.
Wait a minute...my thoughts, if he saw no fish, and based on his statement of how experienced he was, would that not justify that the reserve was a lesson in futility and we should seek other methods to increase the fish population, instead of extending the reserve, or implementing more reserves?
Unfortunately, they do have their agenda, regardless of how we respond.