09-05-2014, 03:15 PM
[quote wormandbobber]Again, you are forgetting about the number of fish/deer being added to the population through natural reproduction. The problem is that if you try to protect fish when natural reproduction is increasing the fish numbers exponentially, you will end up hurting the same fish you are trying to help. In other words, pressure/harvest can remain constant and even increase twofold and you can still end up with a lot more fish.
In your deer analogy, if we did have a 2 deer limit and the number of hunters increased from 20 thousand to 100 thousand hunters, we could feasibly keep the same regulations without hurting the population....IF deer bred like fish do and gave birth to thousands of viable offspring. We both know that they don't....so, the analogy doesn't work because you are comparing apples to oranges.
Also, even if Yuba has had poor spawns the past two years, the sheer numbers of fish produced prior to that will still lead to a lot more young fish even during poor spawning conditions....so, your population is still increasing exponentially.[/quote]
so forget yuba, like I stated before. In your analogy, increased harvest at even an exponential rate, has very little negative effect on fish population. So why increase limits or advertise harvest if it has very little effect whatsoever? Aren't we just screwed? It seems harvest isn't a management tool like we're all led to believe in your blanket statement that because fish succeeded under little harvest, it should do so at even greater harvest. Can you ever fish a place out? If a pond has a handful of anglers with a liberal limit,, increased harvest by thousands of new anglers shouldn't matter and the liberal limit doesn't need to be changed. That's what I'm hearing hear.
[signature]
In your deer analogy, if we did have a 2 deer limit and the number of hunters increased from 20 thousand to 100 thousand hunters, we could feasibly keep the same regulations without hurting the population....IF deer bred like fish do and gave birth to thousands of viable offspring. We both know that they don't....so, the analogy doesn't work because you are comparing apples to oranges.
Also, even if Yuba has had poor spawns the past two years, the sheer numbers of fish produced prior to that will still lead to a lot more young fish even during poor spawning conditions....so, your population is still increasing exponentially.[/quote]
so forget yuba, like I stated before. In your analogy, increased harvest at even an exponential rate, has very little negative effect on fish population. So why increase limits or advertise harvest if it has very little effect whatsoever? Aren't we just screwed? It seems harvest isn't a management tool like we're all led to believe in your blanket statement that because fish succeeded under little harvest, it should do so at even greater harvest. Can you ever fish a place out? If a pond has a handful of anglers with a liberal limit,, increased harvest by thousands of new anglers shouldn't matter and the liberal limit doesn't need to be changed. That's what I'm hearing hear.
[signature]