Big ,Small and other storys -- Archive

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4 ]

Subject: Big ,Small and other storys

Author:
Jim Day

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 936870051PDT
In reply to: Steve 's message, "986 pound mako" on 936819310PDT

I just posted a pretty lashing post at Allcoast about this, I'll edit out the harsh stuff and repost it here:

"I'm not trying to encourage anyone to travel around the world taking breeder Mako's. I'm not saying this is how Mako's should be managed world wide. I'm saying Southern California should get it's S#it together and place some restrictions on the take of baby Mako's in the California bite. READ THE DFG DATA. 85% of the sharks taken in California waters are under 60 inches or about 75lbs. Let me refresh your memory: this is a line from Johns U's (the head of the shark program at the DFG) post about recreational catch numbers: "The 1997 number of sharks caught by sport fishermen was estimated at 5129 animals." Take a good look at that number, over 4000 of those sharks were small pups under 75 pounds. What does more damage to the local shark population. Taking ten large Makos (that's all the big breeder catches I've heard about) or taking 4000 small ones. That's more than four thousand baby Mako's taken in the California Bite in the year 1997 alone, a average year."

That said let me add a little more, I'm feeling particularly candid tonight, Here I'm going to pour myself
a brandy and really let it all hang out. The reason I'm encouraging People to take bigger sharks is there are so few big sharks here. If they target bigger sharks the take will go down plain and simple. Why they are not here well it's one of those mysteries. Some people think that shows that sharks are in trouble, I'm not to shure about that. Other things show sharks are in trouble. I think that the large breeders avoid this area. Years ago I read an article about shark Nurserys. It said that large sharks leave the area imediately after pupping, this is supposed to be one of those natural selection things. If they stayed they might eat their own pups. The big Mako's that come into this area could be considerd rogue Mako's. They're not really supposed to be here. I think this year they're here because the La Nin~a conditions have screwwed everything up. Large Mako's that should be chasing Tuna schools way offshore are chasing them inshore. In a year or two it should all return to normal. My friend Stu in Newzealand says that his waters are loaded with 200lb plus Mako's but
no pups. He respects Mako's but is tired of loosing fish to them. He's obviously not in the pupping grounds. Who knows how much trouble the Mako is in, probably no more or no less than 90% of the rest of the non humanoid creatures on this Planet.
I'm not a scientist, I just like to read their literature, the things their finding out today about the world are truly amazing, but what really amazes me is how little the average person knows about it. For instance did you know that in the last fifteen years there has been a massive extinction of Amphibians. In that short time a full third of the known species became extinct. A expert on mass extinction's says were in the middle of a huge one. The cause this time is not some catastrophic cosmic collision, or upheaval, but purely the result of one species. We are that species. The world changes slowly, climatic changes take thousands of years to run through their cycles. We exist outside those cycles, through our use of technology we've changed the planet more in a few decades then it would naturally change in thousands of years. The results of these changes alone will be felt for a long time. Tools are great things when properly used. I'm afraid we lack the knowledge and or wisdom to properly use the tools currently at our disposal. I don't know what is going to happen to sharks in the long run. I do know the worlds population will double in the next fifty years. That alone makes me pretty pessimistic.

Tight lines Jim

Ps thanks for coming by Steve

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject	Author	Date
Re: Big ,Small and other storys	Steve Ross/Bad Dog	936908121PDT
Good Dog..... Bad Dog -- Jim Day, 936937687PDT Re: Good Dog..... Bad Dog -- Bad Dog, 936989825PDT Re: Good Dog..... Bad Dog -- Jim Day, 937096582PDT