<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Fishaholic:
<strong>More impact studies.
Collection impact on Kona Hawaii reefs
How is this Sustainable???????
[ January 19, 2002: Message edited by: Fishaholic ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Dear Fishaholic,
It should be no surprize that if you collect some fish the numbers of them will be measurably reduced. The sustainability of the practice is something to analyze though-
You must bear in mind that the harvested fish range in age from 3 months to 1 and 1/2 years. Therefore the harvested fish are being replaced at a very rapid rate. If harvest were to cease for 2 years, the natural numbers would return. In my opinion, this represents sustainable harvest, especially considering the fact that the targetted area is not the entire resource area, but only a fraction of it. That means that larvae come from a much wider area, and the natural stocks in a wider area are not impacted.
These numbers in the report may be valid, but the conclusions drawn from them can easily be distorted.
As a side note, natural numbers per acre is a variable thing- some places have unusually high numbers of a species compared with average for reefs in a region. Collectors do sometimes choose such areas. Sometimes the unusual population is focused on an area permanently, sometimes it moves, depending on weather conditions for the previous year or months.
Consider for a moment the potential harvest of angelfish on the northeast coast America. Off the Carolinas and New Jersey and Connecticut significant numbers sometimes appear in late Summer. From New Jersey Northward 100% of the recruits of these fish die in the winter, yet they appear again in the summer. If you were to harvest 50 % of them, would that represent overexploitation of the resource?
Sincerely,
Julian Sprung
<strong>More impact studies.
Collection impact on Kona Hawaii reefs
How is this Sustainable???????
[ January 19, 2002: Message edited by: Fishaholic ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Dear Fishaholic,
It should be no surprize that if you collect some fish the numbers of them will be measurably reduced. The sustainability of the practice is something to analyze though-
You must bear in mind that the harvested fish range in age from 3 months to 1 and 1/2 years. Therefore the harvested fish are being replaced at a very rapid rate. If harvest were to cease for 2 years, the natural numbers would return. In my opinion, this represents sustainable harvest, especially considering the fact that the targetted area is not the entire resource area, but only a fraction of it. That means that larvae come from a much wider area, and the natural stocks in a wider area are not impacted.
These numbers in the report may be valid, but the conclusions drawn from them can easily be distorted.
As a side note, natural numbers per acre is a variable thing- some places have unusually high numbers of a species compared with average for reefs in a region. Collectors do sometimes choose such areas. Sometimes the unusual population is focused on an area permanently, sometimes it moves, depending on weather conditions for the previous year or months.
Consider for a moment the potential harvest of angelfish on the northeast coast America. Off the Carolinas and New Jersey and Connecticut significant numbers sometimes appear in late Summer. From New Jersey Northward 100% of the recruits of these fish die in the winter, yet they appear again in the summer. If you were to harvest 50 % of them, would that represent overexploitation of the resource?
Sincerely,
Julian Sprung
