Some very strong thoughts from 23 years ago which, given the increase in population in California in the intervening years, might see some even stronger opinions today?
Date: December 10, 2001
To: PFIC Message Board
From: Nufo
Subject: Catch & Release. Sturgeon — Good Idea Wrong Fish.
Whenever I hear or think of catch and release it is most commonly associated with black bass. To me black bass are a waste. They don’t taste that good and don’t fight very hard and a majority of the folks who fish for them use gear that give the fish very little chance for escape. Now wild trout and steelhead are definitely a strongly conserved fish where catch and release is vitally necessary and commonly practiced if not already law.
The point I am trying to get at are other species such as striped bass, salmon, and sturgeon. The three S’s if you will. It is not common to hear of any of these fish being caught and released. Not all but a majority of the people who fish for these three species keep everything they catch. Maybe my memory is failing but I don’t recall ever hearing of a keeper sturgeon under the slot size being caught and released. There are people out there including myself and other members of this board who do practice catch and release on the 3 S’s but I am afraid we are the minority. I do believe in keeping fish if you intend to eat it. But truthfully how much fish can a person or his family possibly eat?
Sorry to push my opinions but I'm tired of guys complaining that “the fishing ain’t what it used to be” and then seeing that very same guy keep his limit of stripers and then continue fishing giving away the rest of his catch to other less successful anglers.
Don’t get me wrong I love to eat fish and stripers are my favorite. Every time I catch one and throw it back and some one says I would have taken that, I say “catch your own!”
I believe that if we fishermen and fisherwomen want to show how strongly we want to conserve our fish and wild life that we should practice catch and release to show the rest of the world that we will sacrifice our beloved table fair for the betterment of fishing in the future. If we can put aside our greed and accomplish this then we can really put pressure on the commercial fishing industry and the rest of the industries that harm our wild life.
Once again I appologize for pushing my opinion but conservation starts with us. Nufo
Name: Songslinger
Right on!
Name: stinkyfingers
Ditto. I started a war with one like this on AllCoast. Some people just can’t take the truth. Others have such a damn ego and Cro-Magnon mentality that they think that in order to be a successful angler, they think that they ALWAYS have to bring fish home... as if the family (kids, etc.) would think they are a loser if they came home with nothing...
Hell, my girl knows that one of the best fishing days of my entire life was when I came home with but one single pretty fish. Yup - that was one of the best fishing days of my life. And then there are those other SUPER times, when I catch and release EVERY single Halibut. I love it! What do I love? I love taking the hook out of a fish! I love watching it swim away! THAT, my friends, makes me feel GOOD.
Name: neptune1234
We would have only kept one yesterday. Who needs 2 100+ lb. fish? If I had been coherent enough to realize to put the lasso over the line we would have landed two giant sturgeon. Bye the time he got there I would have had mine on deck. I would have cut it in half and given him a good portion. I’m sure we would have released his. I helped a guy catch and release one about the same size off the end of McNears about a four years ago. Should have heard all of the regular Korean guys offering him big bucks. It was like an auction. He simply ignored them and hoisted it over the side. I was very impressed... I think sharks should be caught and released too. I have only kept one leopard shark in my whole life and it was the second biggest I have caught. Other than that I have released all the others... Part of the reason is that I don’t eat fish. Except for halibut. Yummy! An occasional striper is tasty if you cook it right. I always keep stripers because they are actually a non-native species. I consider them a stocked fish. Other than that if I don’t want it I don’t keep it.
Unfortunately there are many pier fisherman out there that treat the water poorly. In a sense they’re main goal is to rid the waters of fish. Giving bullheads to the birds. Killing anything without a limit for fun. That pis... me off. Every fish in the sea is there for a reason. Not just to be entertainment for drunken ...holes. So do me a big favor and let everything that you don’t want go. Please... That way the next person that catches that fish will have a chance to see an amazing creature from the deep. That’s what I love about fishing. Fish oN!
Name: striperkiller
I release over 95% of the fish I catch. I've got no problem with people keeping fish, but I like to release and I would like other fisherman to respect that. I find it hard to let fish go when it means I’m going to get harassed by people for it. People can be very rude, snatching a fish away from you before you can release another. On party boats the staff wants to keep their fish count high for the reports so they kill all legal fish... Party boats need to start being more tolerant of release. -joe
Name: Corbinaman1
I also catch/release about 95% of the fish I catch while surf fishing. Mostly get surfperch, corbina, small sharks, etc. In fact, this summer, I only kept two (bigger ones) out of 25 corbina, and a 25-pound shovelnose that I unexpectedly caught from shore. Fishing to me is a hobby as much as a sport... I enjoy the solitude of standing on the beach, watching the sunset, watching the birds, seeing whales/dolphins offshore, being outside, and as a bonus... catching and releasing fish!
Name: surffly
Spoken like a true surf fisherman. The view is half of the reward. Don’t forget the girls in the summer time. fishjunky
Name: gyozadude
And bring a camera... Another great reason to bring a camera, digital or otherwise. For me, it's one of the best conservation tools around.- Gyozadude, “Yes - I can roll my own potsticker skins”
Name: The_Dude
Just to let you guys know, I have released more fish this year than ever. A lot of them was due to the fact that they was about 1/2-1/4 inch from legal. Ask bigdaddycat... lol. Pictures my friends, they last forever, supper lasts for about an hour or two. Me and BDC took a lot pics this summer. Now that I look back I am glad. We had a lot of fun catching them big guys, and we still have fun remembering those almost big enough fish... lol. I am a former largemouth fisherman. I have a really big thing about catch and release, but didn’t really worry too much about it in saltwater. Now that I have learned about our waters out here, and the fish resources, I have a new respect for catch and release. Who would ever think that in this great ocean, fishing populations are starting to dwindle. I have stories, and seen pics of monsters taken “back-in-the-day,” but none recently, or at least as common. Next year will be great, because I know that the fish I released this year will be bigger, and then the year after they will be even bigger and more fun to catch. But on a side note, I love to eat fish too. I don’t take what I won’t eat, but I also limit my catch. I know that I will never be able to eat a whole freezer full of fish. Even fish get old... lol. Well I hope that someone gets something out of this, and if not oh well, it is nice to reflect and realize sometimes that all those “almost” keepers are still out there and bigger and stronger. Tight lines,TK
Name: kelp
“Whenever I hear or think of catch and release it is most commonly associated with black bass. To me black bass are a waste. They don’t taste that good and don’t fight very hard and a majority of the folks who fish for them use gear that give the fish very little chance for escape.”
Ok, I’m sure you knew you were going to get a reaction to this part of your post. Black Bass are nothing close to a “waste”. They are very tasty, you must have just had a terrible cook. I am a very avid black bass fisherman who looks forward to the spring bite every year. I release probably over 98% of my fish maybe only keeping a male for dinner every now and then. If there is any reason to believe it may be a female with eggs I will release her without hesitation regardless of how long it has been since my last fish dinner.
To say black bass don't fight very well shows you have never been into the species because if you were you would be hooked for life. I’m not one of those guys driving my $25,000 boat up and down the lake at 60 mph looking for fish, I’m the guy pounding the shore looking for those feisty fighters. What other fish do you hook in the lake that give you the aerial displays that bass do? Pound for pound this fish is probably the most aggressive thing in the lake.
As far as gear, a lot of fisherman use heavier line because of the structure that is fished. Not like trout fishing were you can cast into open water were 4# test is no problem. A black bass fisherman would have to mortgage his home to pay for his lures if using 4# test. The real challenge in bass fishing is getting them to bite, not preventing them from busting your line. It is a challenge to know what lures to work what time of the day and what time of the year not to mention colors and presentation. Anyway, just thought I would stick up for myself and fellow bass fisher people out there. Most of all Nufo, give it a shot and you to may be hooked too. -Kelp
Name: nufo
Kelp you missed my point. I’m not picking on bassers and furthermore I was an avid black bass fishermen from the age of 12 up until 22. Black bass are one of the easiest fish to catch. Learn the patterns and they are no problem. Here are a few black bass patterns for the delta: in hot conditions they will head into thick structure such as weeds. They will also move out to deeper water. In cold weather they tend to move deep as well. On a slow bite in cloudy weather switch to black & blue jig n pigs and work heavy cover, in sunny weather switch to brown. In muddy water fish really slow. One of the best ways to find black bass when they aren’t actively feeding is to slow roll a spinner bait. Of course there is a lot more to it but these are a few of the simple rules to black bass on the California delta.
Different areas have different rules but in the most part black bass are easy to find and fairly easy to entice once you do find them. My biggest black bass was 9-lbs caught at Don Pedro lake and didn’t fight nearly as hard as the 100’s of 3-5-lb striped bass that I have caught. Black bass suck. They don’t peel off line and hardly jump. Now Smallmouth on the other hand are awesome. Those suckers hit the lure and then go straight up out of the water. My biggest smallie was 4.5-lbs at Folsom Lake. Not to mention that all the black bass I have caught are from the shore not a boat. One of my spots one the big delta tournament back in like 95 or 96. If you ever head up this way let me know and I will show you a thing or two about black bass. And then when I'm done schooling you on black bass we will go and catch some real fish (stripers) about a mile from where we caught the black bass.
Also black bass aren’t bad tasting but definitely not the top of my list. I would take pan fish over blackies any day. Everyone has there own opinions so don’t jump down my back for stating mine and please don’t judge me or jump to conclusions about what you do not know. You assumed that I didn’t now anything about black bass and we all now how we look when we assume things right. I did not mean to offend you with my original post sorry that you did not understand the point I was trying to make. Nufo
Name: kelp
No I saw your point. Nufo as tempting as it is for me to come up there and have you show me a thing or two and school me on black bass and stripers, I think I’ll stick to my fishing locations and patterns that I already have. I’ve put a lot of hours in at the Delta, and have probably fished “your spot” just like everyone else. There is no unchartered water up there with the tournaments and all. Plus why would you go fishing with me for black bass when you dislike it so much? As far as missing your point I read your whole post but just felt like responding to the part that was interesting to me. I wasn't trying to follow up to a question you asked or anything. Also if black bass fishing sucks so bad and is such a waste of time why did you do it for ten years? It seems a trip or two would have been enough time to decide if you liked it or not, not a decade. It sounds to me as you never were an avid black bass fisherman in my opinion because you wouldn't act like you have such animosity towards the species, it's just a fish! It sounds to me like you might have a level of frustration working from lack of catching the linesiders. Lastly I don’t think I jumped down your throat I merely responded to your post. And you are right we all do have our own opinions. Later
Name: nufo
No you were trying to pick an argument! And as far as fishing for black bass goes, I love fishing for all species of fish. Black bass is no longer on the top of my list but I still fish for them on occasion. And I catch them often on accident while fishing for stripers. I never said Black bass fishing was a waste of time so don’t put words into my mouth. Catch and release of black bass is a waste. The only reason people push catch and release of black bass is so that they can have their prestigious tournaments. The reason I got out of black bass fishing was that it became to commercialized. Now it’s just like golf. You need a different rod for every type of lure. 30 different shades of color for every lure and so forth. Black bass fishing isn’t about the fish it’s about money! After catching many large striped bass I decided to give up black bass which don’t fight nearly as hard. As far as you fishing my spots I highly doubt that. No boats can get into most of my spots and many people aren’t willing to put in the work to find them so dream on. Next time you pick an argument try one you have a chance at winning. Nufo
Name: gyozadude
Kelp: FW bass rods for sale...I grew up largemouth fishing because as a kid, the only places I could go were local lakes, and the only fish species were trout, bass, bluegill, catfish, and crappie. Actually, since moving to saltwater, and hooking into ocean run salmon, stripers, bat rays, rockfish,.. largemouth are pretty much sprinters and not the triathletes. Black bass are no longer my first choice for good fighting and good eating.
Don’t get me wrong. Black bass fishing is loads of fun. But they are renowned for their fight as much as their aggressiveness. Yes, I agree they are aggressive, but as fighters, they don’t compare pound-for-pound to the aerobic capabilities of other species. Both my father and I have caught some big bass in local lakes. One topping 11 lbs. Not really a challenge. Played them in on 4 lb. test for about 4 minutes and then brought it up. I’ve had 5-lb. Lake Merced rainbows strip 50 yards of 4 lb. test out three or four times and take 15 minutes to haul in. I've lost more 7–9-lb. spring salmon up in B.C. on 6-lb. test than I’ve landed because they really know how to fight. And a 20-lb. carp will out fight most bass in any size on light line. So there are lots of species that fight harder. And I’ve never hooked a bonito... which are legendary in their fight...
As for tactics to catch bass... I don't agree that it takes a lot of skill to catch bass. Perhaps at the tournament level, yes, but for enthusiasts like myself, it’s not as hard as you make it out. My secret is “sonar-gps.” You gotta find the fish first, then the fishing is easy. Bass are structure fish and they are predators. They hit just about anything that is lively and looks wounded and natural that passes by their lairs. I see lots of people pitching lures and various patterns to bass. And getting frustrated with zero hits, even though they can practically see the fish under the boat. Well, this is an easy problem to solve. Get a 4+” live shiner, hook it through the back, toss it into the lair, with a bobber on top and wait less than two minutes for the bobber to sink. Even in the middle of winter, we can do this on most southern US lakes that allow live bait fishing. I've fished Lake Jackson quite a few times. It's just 10 minutes north of Tallahassee, FL. I use shiners each time and have just about limited out each time, even in heavy pressure zones or zones where folks previously fished with lures.
So while black bass are great sport fish and drive some big revenues as far as the economy goes, Nufo’s point about conservation and the three “S” species does make lots of sense, and I didn’t see it as dissing black bass or black bass fishermen. He was just being mostly factual.
And saltwater fish, tend to taste better than freshwater species, but many fish do taste okay and black bass aren’t too bad either. I prefer crappie slabs personally for the best tasting freshwater fish. Trout comes in second. Gyozadude, “Yes - I can roll my own potsticker skins”
Name: nufo
I'm glad somone feels me. Black bass fishing went from a redneck sport to a yuppie sport. Not that I'm a redneck but I had more respect for it when it was a redneck thang. Now you practically have to have reservations to go black bassing anywhere but the delta. Nufo
Name: stinkyfingers
Black Bass = action. Well, most of the time hopefully. That’s the main reason why it is the fish of tournaments and the “mainstream” fisherman's fish. If you had to watch a 30 minute TV show on other fish like the three S's, you probably wouldn't see much ACTION. Not like with the bigmouths. Anyway that's my take on it. The Bigmouth is a fish that you can almost bet on. The three S’s are a gamble. Wait, did I just repeat myself? Surely not, boys. I don't gamble to bet, I bet to gamble...
Name: kelp
No you were trying to pick an argument! Nufo I simply replied to a part of your opinionated post with some opinions of my own. Not looking to “win” an argument with you. As far as I’m concerned if you have an opinion on something cool, and I have mine too. This is a fishing discussion board and I don’t feel as though I strayed off the beaten path. Just having a discussion, sorry if you took offense to my words but that’s that. But as far as black bass fishing being about the money, not the sport, I think it is whatever you make of it. I could care less about what the guys are doing in the bass boats and how many rods they have in the boat they are actually pretty amusing to me. Oh and I did misquote you about the waste of time, you just stated it was a waste, so I apologize for that. Who knows I might run in to you up there in the Delta at your spot (hehehe) and we can have a beer together. No secret spots on the delta. Furthermore I did respect your post about Sturgeon, Stripers, and Salmon and actually spend 75 percent of my fishing time targeting stripers and sturgeon in the bay. Good luck out there. See I'm not a bad guy, was just getting some chatter going. -Later
Name: stinkyfingers
Wow, I’m impressed. Very well put forth thoughts, with no offense and utmost respect. Nufo, I think this guy is cool. Very mature response here. Just to let both of you know, I’ve enjoyed your “debate.” Cheers, boys. Let's fish.
Name: nufo
Thank you. I am sorry for going off. I’m wound a little tight this week with finals and all. I'd be glad to share my spots with ya. Shoot me an email if you are ever coming up this way. We can also hit del Valle (right in my back yard) for some smallies. Sincere Appologies, Nufo
Name: aafrench
Catch & Release. Good Idea wrong fish. The DFG has set the limits so low for the three S’s that you are already doing your part for conservation even if you keep a limit! If the limit was 10 fish, and I kept 2, and released 8 you would think I was pretty great! When the limit is 2 and I keep 2, you would say he doesn’t practice catch and release, even if I released 10 more due to the limit being 2. 98% of fish caught on the West Coast are by commercial fisherman. It is great to practice catch and release for fish you don’t intend to eat, but if I catch my limit every time, keep it, and eat it and feed my family with it, there is nothing wrong with that. I enjoy eating the fish I catch, as much as I do catching them.
I freeze what I don’t eat right away. When the fishing slows down in the winter, I don’t have to buy fish at the store, because I have enough saved in the freezer. Why should I catch and release, only to have to spend money later to buy the fish from the market that I could have kept? Tight Lines, Andrew
Name: lucy
It’s an Exercise in Futility. It's all very well to talk about “showing the world” what good conservationists we are but the trouble is, “the world” consists mostly of non-fishermen who aren’t paying the slightest attention to us and couldn't care less whether we have fish to catch. Moreover, they're largely responsible for the problem.
Everything I’ve read indicates that the primary cause of declining fish populations in the bay is POLLUTION, not fishing, and certainly not sport fishing. And guess what the primary source of all that pollution is? Not big polluters like chemical companies and refineries, but PEOPLE and their automobiles dripping oil and other contaminants into the watershed, their lawns and gardens leaching fertilizer and pesticides into the watershed, their obnoxious habit of leaving non-biodegradable crap everywhere they go, etc., etc.
A while back, somebody posted a link to a series of articles about that; I believe the articles originally ran in the S.F. Chronicle. The Bay ends up with all the gluck from nearly half the state and this state is grossly overpopulated with millions and millions of two-legged pollution producers. Catch and release? Sure but how about we also require that all those idiot yuppies who drive big-ass SUVs just because they can afford them (and for no other reason) give them up and buy electric cars instead, or hybrid cars? How about we put a moratorium on building new housing developments (all those lawns and gardens, all that fertilizer and pesticide, all those people, all those cars)? How about we start doing what many other countries have done, and start seriously promoting population control?
Until the real problem is addressed, nothing else will make any difference, simply because the number of fish killed by sport anglers is insignificant compared to the number killed by pollution. Trying to protect the fish population by catch-and-release is about like trying to put out a forest fire by spitting on it.
Name: gyozadude
Lucy: Pointing the finger at pollution is very P.C. Sounds logical... but is it factual? Toxic waste is undeniably a source of fish kill in Bay waters, when it actually gets released. But can toxic pollution do long term, slow chronic damage to the fishery and makes it decrease over time? If we examine the effect of DDT and other toxins on bird populations, it nearly decimated many species by 90% of their populations in just a decade. But what is happening in our CA fisheries does that follow that pathology. I would clarify your argument and state that it is in fact overpopulation which causes over fishing. Not human pollution, which occasionally kills fish. But most pollutants, hydrocarbons included eventually breakdown in the environment. With exposure to water, sunlight, and bacteria, the biological half-life for most things is a few months. Some inert materials can last much longer, but these are often so inert, that they do not pose significant hazards to fish populations.
If you just take an estimate... on average, CA residents consume 20 lbs. of fish per person (before cleaning) per year (maybe much more). Multiply by 31 million people. That's 620 Million pounds of fish for this state alone. If 1/3rd of that comes from in-state saltwater fisheries that means over 200 million pounds of fish taken from CA waters. Do this year after year after year....
A typical Salmon run in Alaska or B.C. runs 200,000 fish to 1.5 million fish (according to some PBS documentary). At an average of 10 lbs. per fish, that's still 2 Million to 15 million pounds of fish. If salmon consisted of 30% of the consumed fish in CA, we’d need 70 million pounds of salmon a year. We’d need to decimate at least five major salmon runs in California waters to achieve that. That's clearly not sustainable. In fact, quite a bit of salmon at markets like Costco is actually farmed Atlantic salmon from WA state or B.C.
The math points to complete non-sustainability of any fishing in state waters with our current population. Not because of pollution, but because of too much consumption. And I’m just doing an estimate. If we actually found out how much waste of fish occurred with commercial fisheries, these estimates would be conservative. Gyozadude, “Yes - I can roll my own potsticker skins”
Name: baitfish
Most fish that is eaten in this state is not caught in this state. The Alaskan Halibut, The tropical Mahi Mahi, Atlantic Salmon, Cod, Freshwater fish are almost completely farmed fish. The only locally caught fish that sells with any regularity are Rockfish, Thresher and Albacore. Cod makes up the main staple of the diet of the United States. It is in your Filet o fish, in your fish and chips, basically if it is frozen first and it is white, it is Cod.
As for the pollution issue, even though it is PC, Lucy does have a point. Yes, Hydrocarbons do breakdown over time, but when there is no stop to the influx of pollution, even though it breaks down, it is constantly being replenished. This is not scientific, but fish spawns come as the rain comes. The rain comes and pushes the city pollution into the rivers and bays right on top of the spawning fish. I can’t ever remember a doctor’s note that said take two teaspoons of 20w50 and suck a tail pipe for a healthy baby.
But it is pretty hard to MAKE Americans DO anything. They have to be coaxed and fooled into it. Tell the average 18 year old driving an electric car will get him laid and see how many EV1’s start popping up all over the place. Adam, Will work for fish!
Name: gyozadude
Adam: You speak of “mumbo jumbo” science, not real science. That’s the problem. You’re talking about pollutants getting into the Bay but not breaking down fast enough, and being replenished... How does pollution exactly kill fish? Does it cause mutations? Does it cause sterility? Does it cause death before ability to spawn? What's the pathology? and can you estimate that quantities? Can you estimate the amount of pollution that serves as food for plankton and bacteria? Can you estimate the quantity flushed into the Bay that is left to affect fish? How much is suspended in Bay water? How much is adsorbed into sediment? I’m asking about science, not conjecture and politically correct propaganda. Show me some estimates of quantities if you can.
Nuclear power plants are supposed to be bad for the environment, right? That’s popular thinking. It's thought that radioactivity will leak and get into the environment. Ironically, the NRC is so strict that some nuclear facilities actual must emit gases that are cleaner than the environment which they get it from. And as for effect on fishing, the higher sustained temperatures attract most species and spurs growth rates.
I would say that the pollution amounts are currently manageable, and the large fish kills that sometimes occur are from oxygen depletion due to accidents where too much food (fertilizers) gets flushed into the water causing an outburst of bacteria that consume all the available oxygen. Not a problem in most ocean waters with tidal forces, but inside the Bay, and in many sloughs, this is the primary cause of fish kill. I don’t think current pollution levels are as harmful as they were 50 years ago when there were no restrictions on industrial pollution, so conditions have improved, as has the air quality in the state.
Sure, lots of doctors wouldn't recommend taking two tablespoons of sludge for a newborn. But fish aren’t humans. As well, the sludge may not be harmful. We eat plenty of chemicals daily, and supposedly some of it is supposed to be carcinogenic... well, if you hadn't noticed lately, we're living longer and longer. If we’re consuming so much nasty carcinogens, how is this possible?
Don't take this as a personal attack. I'm agreeing with Lucy that too many people affects fishing. However, she argues that pollution is a big factor. But I’m arguing that if you just do an estimate of the pounds of fish consumed, there’s no way our fisheries could support such consumption in the state. It is inevitable that we need to import most of the fish consumed in CA. Regardless of whether it’s the commercial or the recreational fishing that depletes the resource, there's just too many people fishing a limited resource, and -that- is the primary reason the coastal fishing isn't as good as it used to be. – Gyozadude, “Yes - I can roll my own potsticker skins”
Name: lucy
Hi, Gzyozadude: I found the URL to the series of articles referenced: http://www.sfgate.com/cgibin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1999/08/02/MN14115.DTL
PC? Me? You have GOT to be kidding!!! I don't think I could be PC if I tried, and I make a serious point of not trying. Anyhow, according to this series of articles, there are a number of pollutants that seriously interfere with fish reproduction or with the viability of hatchlings. See the articles for more on that.
Whether the decline is caused by too much pollution resulting from too many people, or too much consumption resulting from too many people, the bottom line is still the same: TOO DAMN MANY PEOPLE. And who’s doing anything about THAT? Nobody! Instead, we have doctors shooting up women with fertility drugs so that they can have their “own” child instead of adopting one of the millions of homeless children. (In my book, that’s a crime!) We have prison inmates suing the state for the “right” to father children. We have lawyers and judges bending over backward to protect the reproductive “rights” of people who shouldn’t have a right to live, much less reproduce.
Name: nufo
I would voice my opinion on how I feel about the population problem in California but I don’t have the time to type it out nor the time to respond to all the new enemies that I would make. But I feel where you’re coming from. STOP BUILDING ALL THE GO HOUSES!!!! Nufo
Name: stumpysez
I’d like to quickly point out that not building houses doesn’t solve the population problem. It just means that people don’t have anyplace to live. At best, it solves OUR population problem, because those people will move somewhere else... but make no mistake, that’s not solving the problem in the long run. Those people will still buy fish farmed by California commercial fisheries, they’ll demand products made by California industries, etc. We’ve gotta control the population, not the housing. Unless the rationale is that people who don’t have houses are less likely to have kids, but I don’t think that bears out. Perhaps, we could reduce the number of houses and then release wild wolves to consume the weak and stupid. Any takers?
Name: nufo
When I speak of the affect of housing. It not only affects the fishing and water resources it affects habitat! There is a lot more to it than just building houses. Think of how much water a family of four uses in the course of a year. Now multiply that by a million new homes and a million new families moving into California every year. Get the point? There ain’t much open land in the Bay Area anymore and it really sucks! This means less habitat for animals and so forth that’s what really bothers me. I am not just a fisherman but an outdoorsmen. I love the outdoors. I hate to see it being ruined. Nufo
Name: lucy
I like it! You're not related to me by any chance, are you?
Name: stumpysez
The only point I was trying to make was that opposing housing is a classic example of NIMBYism (Not In My Back Yard). The PROBLEM is overpopulation. One of the symptoms of that problem is that more housing is needed, which has a terrible impact on the environment. If we don’t build houses here, those houses will be built somewhere else, and they’ll destroy the environment somewhere else. See the problem with that?
You could argue that we should get over the idea of having a “house” in the classic sense, that all of us should live in high-rise apartment buildings. That would minimize the amount of environmental impact caused by people living in a certain area. But my bet is that most of the devout fisherpeople on this web site who own a house wouldn’t be all that keen on up and giving it away for the goal. I’d like a house some day, so I'm going to stick with my argument that overpopulation is the problem. There are only two solutions to overpopulation: birth control, and wolves (or the equivalent).
Name: gyozadude
Still skeptical... The 2.97 million gallons per year cited in the first article is a nice try at an estimate. But how much of that goes into the water and how much is suspended in the air. It assumes it all goes into the Bay. That’s not necessarily true.
Some species are more susceptible to toxins than others. Some just store the toxins but function and reproduce just fine with. The studies they talk about should be cited, not quoted. Most studies I’ve observed, have never been performed with “background” abundance of pollutants. Instead, they jack the quantities up really high to cause fish mortality, then use linear extrapolation to claim that these pollutants cause fish mortality. So I still don’t buy it.
Occum’s statement is that “the simplest solution is usually the correct one.” Well, while marine biologists are searching for pollution as a cause, there are folks at our local fishing spots catching and keeping everything and doing this day-in, day-out. In the pollution case, the fish mortality may jump from 15% to 25%, which is significant. But in the catch and keep case, mortality is 100% for the fish caught. So, we come down to which is the higher order of magnitude effect?
B.C. has some great fisheries, and with very low population and not so much heavy industry, they have great fishing. But places close to population centers and with easy access are rarely good fishing... why? Because people catch and keep fish and soon, there are few fish left. In Howe Sound, B.C., environmentalists claim that there is N. America’s biggest toxic copper mine leaching heavy metals into the water. But that mine was polluting since 1904 and finally shutdown in 1970. It’s still leaching toxins into the Sound, and the marine biologists claim that it’s bad for the fish. Well, better tell the salmon, rockfish, greenling, halibut, crabs, etc. that because I can get them a block away from my house up there, and fishing’s been good for a century or so in that area.
I’m not being anti-environmental. But I'm just saying that if we want to replenish a fishery, it may require moratoriums on keeping of fish by both commercial and recreational fishermen, and to emphasize farming for consumption and lots of catch-n-release fishing using barbless hooks, single hooks, etc. Telling society to cut back pollution is a much harder, longer-term thing that won't necessarily bring back the fishery.- Gyozadude
Name: chum buddy
Hypoxia = “Dead Zone” Yes, over fishing is a problem. In my opinion, over fishing is the largest factor to declining fish population. Yes, our planet is over populated! (my opinion)
Name: gyozadude
How long has dead zone existed? The NY Times story by Carol Yoon again is alarmist. It cites algae formation going back as far as 200 years. But it fails to address how long this “dead zone” has existed. I would argue that it’s probably been there for quite some time, perhaps going back as far as 200 years. I would also argue that dead zones are frequent in tidal and near offshore areas of shallow seas near mouths of large rivers in warm climate zones. I don’t think this is a new catastrophe we’re making, but we may be helping it get bigger.
I believe that dead zones are a combination of stratification, warm weather, geologic structure and influx of river runoff draining into the ocean. Certainly, addition of too much fertilizers isn’t helping, but the fact is this happens yearly and has been for quite some time, in fact, could have been happening before we got there. It could be that housing construction along the shores of Mississippi and Louisiana have resulted in lost wetlands that act as a buffer zone, but also, construction changes shoreline topology, which may create some adverse geology that doesn't help circulation of water.
The way I see it, this hypoxia problem is primarily a fluid mechanics problem - oxygen gets depleted because ocean water isn’t mixing enough and is stratified. It happens in many East Bay lakes and reservoirs here in the Bay Area. Almost always, this occurs during the summer when stratification sets in and algae blooms fall and decay on the bottom. A way to fix the depletion problem is to increase circulation of water. In the past, the shoreline may have been conducive to better circulation, but today, it may not be occurring due to new construction, or erosion by frequent hurricanes and the like. One way to solve the circulation problem (albeit expensive) would be to build tidal pumps that use tidal forces to actively circulate water in the dead zone. A pump positioned every 20 square miles might be beneficial. - Gyozadude
Name: Chum Buddy
Gyozadude, I agree that “dead zones” are NOT a phenomena caused solely by industrialized man (recently). I also think that problems with water being stratified and not mixing are among many other factors, which accompany the problem of hypoxia. Some sources I have found indicate that the “dead zone” which plagues the Gulf of Mexico is primarily caused by the run-off of nitrogen and phosphorous (between 30% and 60%). The source for the run-off of these elements was a combination of many things, but seemed to be narrowed down by 3 main contributors: fertilizers, livestock waste and acid-rain. Certainly, the “dead zone” within this region would still exist even if we eliminated all 3 factors, but theoretically the hypoxia should be greatly reduced as a result.
The main point I am trying to make here is that in many ocean areas where a “dead zone” exists, a major contributing cause to their size and severity is often the result of some form of pollution, i.e., fertilizers, acid-rain, etc. The topology of shoreline and ill conditioned wetlands, (or lack of them) as you commented, are also factors that increase the damage of pollutant runoff...
There are so many references that are dedicated to this ongoing problem. Many do seem like ‘PC’ garble and do not have the Science to tie-in their claims on the effects of pollution regarding this matter and many others. I do feel that, in many cases, the Scientific garble that is used to explain many of the oceans problems being the result of pollution does logically fit in my opinion, but as to what degree will take years of meticulous studies, surveys and money! Brian
Name: gyozadude
Okay, so the argument comes down to size and severity of dead zones. I agree that it would take a lot money to do exhaustive research on the dead zone problems. I would suspect that fertilizers, farm animal excrement and other forms may increase the size and severity of dead zones. The question though, is “how much?”
Ice ages are mysterious in some aspects because we aren’t certain why they occur. Many speculate that it’s a catastrophe like an asteroid collision that kicks up lots of dust, or that the earth’s magnetic field inverts itself every so many tens of thousands of years and this causes major climatic changes. But we still aren’t sure. But we think global warming is happening.
So the question is whether or not the algae blooms and deaths leading to anaerobic bacterial consumption is occurring due to higher nitrogen levels. The way to prove this is to analyze the difference in dissolved nutrient levels in gulf waters near the coast versus those far off the coast and to use those levels with sea water to culture algae. The difference in bloom rates with the same amount of Sun should be significant and clear. If they can show a small percentage increase in percentage rate that exceeds the oxygen diffusion rates in seawater, then we can be fairly certain that the larger dead zone areas are caused by fertilizers.
However, my suspicion is that fertilizers are not the primary cause. I believe C02 absorption in the oceans is the primary cause of algae blooms. The basic block of photosynthesis is C02 and we've doubled historical C02 levels in air relative to 1902 data. The oceans absorb most of this providing more abundant base materials for algae. In locations where sea floor geometries are conducive to high growth and rapid cycle rates of photosynthesizing plants, AND stratification, there are bound to be cycles were chances are high for dead-zones to occur.
Another solution may be to investigate whether it is in fact the algae bloom which decays and causes the oxygen depletion in late summer, or is it another species of bottom flora that thrives in shallow seas? If we can introduce different plant species into the aquatic environment that can metabolize the C02 better during the dead zone times and free up oxygen into the water, then this may manage the dead zone's size. The only problem then would be what happens to the biomass of these other plants. If the biomass can float and wash up onto shore as seaweed, and not get in the way of too many boaters, that may be ideal. Just as many organic farmers plant legumes in plots they plan to leave fallow, we can plant certain species of ocean flora to bypass the dead zone. - Gyozadude
Name: Mikey
Exercise in Futility. Good points, unfortunately we all know it doesn’t work that way. If someone stands the chance of making a buck, they're gonna take it, period.
Name: Leapin Bass
Mike, I know we don't see eye to eye on the catch and release issue. You are right about the stricter laws and keeping the same amount of fish. One thing you need to keep in mind is this. When you say that commercial fishing accounts for 98% of the fish caught on the West Coast you have to remember that the 98% includes all fish - even baitfish. Take baitfish away from the mix and the percentages change dramatically (more like 60-40 or 70-30). On top of that realize that the primary reason commercial “bait” fishermen are taking baitfish is to provide recreational fishermen with bait. My point is that recreational fishing has a much greater impact than you realize and that is one of the reasons I feel catch and release is so important.
Name: aafrench
I think it is funny that we go through this catch and release debate about once every 2 months! And my point of view still hasn't changed! Fish On! Andrew
Name: nufo
Stubborn people never do. That’s not a bad trait. What kind of world would we have if everyone was open minded? It’s all good frenchy I respect everyone’s point of view as long as they don’t step on my toes. Keep on keepin on.
Name: Capt Bags
Preaching “catch and release” is like preaching religion. It’s good. A lot of folks will like it, but not all. It takes time. Attitude is everything. Some folks just don’t want to be preached to. I really think you would be amazed about how many fish are let go. And the number gets higher every year. How many TV fishing shows show fish being kept. None that I see. A lot of fish now are kept because the fish would not survive being let go, or simply the angler after trying for so long finally got his fish. Talk to most anglers, most do let their fish go. The ones that keep all those fish are getting fewer every year. Like you said, you can’t eat all that fish, and giving it away is not as easy. So in the end most anglers let the fish loose or go on to other challenges. Finally, study after study shows that survival of released fish is not high. Fish stand the greatest chance if they are quickly brought in; before they have a chance to battle. I don't know about you, but reeling in a fish at a high rate of speed , without a battle, is kinda like premature. I love to take my time. Bags
Name: nufo
Once again I am not picking on anyone individual. I am also not putting anyone down for keeping a fish. For I myself have kept fish so that would be like kicking myself in the head. As a catch and release angler I am a minority and just as any other minority group you either stand up and be heard or get pushed aside and abused. Nufo
Name: stinkyfingers
What IF? WHAT IF THIS WAS TRUE: I’m a guy, about 30-40 years old. I don’t work, or if I do, it’s not much and never during weekdays. I spend every minute (from waking up until dark) fishing for stripers and keep every single on I catch. I keep them small, I keep them long. I keep them ALL. WAY more than 2. Oh, did I mention I take them all home to feed the house? Yup - you see, in my house - we have 5 or 6 family members living there. Yup - grandpa, kids, everyone is in that shack. You see - we are poor. That white 15’ surf rod I bought at Walmart for $15 just HAS to make itself worth it... My bait of choice is anchovies, I fish the shore. Where do I fish? I fish wherever I’ve had the best luck, and I fish there everyday. I will never try another spot, and I will never throw back a fish - PERIOD! WE NEED IT! And we are above the law because we are poor! Ha! And you white-collar men thought you knew it all...
Name: Mikey
I agree with you... but harsh words man, haha. I agree more has to be done to protect the industry, and educate the fishermen. Now, step into their shoes (of course no one will be able to fully). They might not know any better (I agree most do though, hehe). But I mean I’ve known plenty of wealthy guys that do the same thing... Mike
Name: stinkyfingers
Wealthy are WORSE!!They actually do it and think they can get away because they are better than the rest!! Just ask anyone that has a CCW license in CA - they paid their way into it...
Name: lucy
Vasectomy time!!! People who breed responsibly (one child, and then only when they're in a good financial position) don’t need to break the law to feed their house-apes and in-laws. I say it’s time we took away the “right” to reproduce (and where does it mention that in the constitution, anyway?) and started requiring that people EARN the PRIVILEGE of reproducing.
Name: baitfish
The home of the free indeed... Can you imagine a world where the government was in charge of family planning? Makes me want to vomit. Actually I wonder what Congress would decide would be the requirements for receiving an authorized breeding identification card. The government can’t manage a healthy fishery imagine how screwed up a kid would be if your kid was born because Strom Thurman said this family gets my seal of approval.
Name: gyozadude
Are we related? LOL!
Gee. Lucy, you must have come from the same school I came from. Those are certainly bold words and words that ring true to my ears. I've never figured out how to implement such regulations without resorting to tactics like those used in China, but the idea is very intriguing. - Gyozadude
Name: lucy
H Social pressure is the key. Gyoze, we might be related — mentally if not genetically. Of course, if you trace it back far enough, EVERYbody is related. We don't need government to do the job, all we need is to make it socially unacceptable to have more than one child. Again, as I did with littering, I’ll use the nose-picking example: very few people pick their noses in public because it’s so widely considered disgusting, unacceptable, etc., etc. If people widely held a similar view toward littering, there would be VERY little littering. Same with producing too many children. Make it socially unacceptable to have more than one child. Look at what they did in Japan — I've read that in Japan, people with TWO children are looked at askance, and people with more than two hardly dare to go out in public for the open scorn and disapproval. (Is that true? You’ve lived there, I haven’t.)
And take comfort, baitfish — with all the religious goonies dominating our society and government, the government won’t do a thing until the situation is so bad that “Soylent Green” looks like a pleasant travelogue. The government would much rather mess with all your OTHER rights.
Name: Songslinger
Population control is the one issue conspicuously absent from most allegedly “green” concerns. But it is the most important. More people = more consumption and more pollution. This in itself is a no-brainer, yet somehow this nation cannot make the call. We are too afraid of the so-called Christians, be they right-wing fundamentalists or Pope-fearing Catholics. I doubt it is a question of Law so much as it is a principle of Direction. Lucy is right about attitudes and norms, reinforcing ethical notions and social responsibilities through example and determination.
But these have to begin as individual processes that are practiced by the many until they catch on as normative behavior. We were almost there on April 22, 1970, when the first Earth Day was celebrated. “Stop at two,” was a wise slogan that should have become creed, or at least promoted with the same fervor as recycling.
I must say that both concepts had a huge impact on me. My wife and I have one child that we planned (and we were together for 10 years beforehand). However, this was our choice, and that is key. If one tries to legislate population control, the law will be subverted and subsumed into something far worse and draconian. Best now to encourage smart family planning and contraception, instead of this vicious and mindless tendency to damn all attempts at Choice. Choice is everything. Even if it’s a choice we don’t agree with.
What’s probably going to happen is that the educated will continue to have less offspring while the ignorant produce more. We don't require a crystal ball to see how that affects the future. So fish now, enjoy it, try to be a force for good, cross your fingers, and prepare for some weird times ahead. To misquote Haldane: “The future is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we CAN imagine.”
Name: baitfish
I definitely agree with Slinger, Choice is the issue. But I don’t necessarily agree that religion is the driving force behind lack o population control. This is a very moral and personal issue. It would never work just because this is a freedom that you can't take away. Blame will go somewhere else, because the American Public will not agree that they have to limit themselves as to how many children, all that will create is a whole new breed of racisim...Why can’t I have a child, when we are letting all these foreigners in... etc..
There will always be a scapegoat for anything that people do not want to take responsibility with, plus I don’t think the general populous will view this as a problem until we are at a point where this is in the news and is a tragedy. People will always respond well to a tragedy and balk at a rule that is for the future, but creates a large loss now.
Personally I see nothing wrong with having 2 children that can be brought up in a healthy environment. And as wonderful as it sounds that there be parent training and home conditioning or whatever, there will never be a utopia of enlightened humans. There are far too many people that are screwed up in the world, and the driver behind that wheel is child abuse, verbal, sexual, physical and mental. Developing a person in twisted ways makes for a twisted person. Developing a child in a positive reinforced way with responsibility, love, compassion and understanding will in the long run solve the woes of the world, all of them. People that disrespect these simple values have to pay for their actions.
Once people develop a respect for their fellow man and develop a sense of responsibility, population control will just fall into place. Now We just need to find a way to get the people of the world to get their $h!t together, until then we will all be ranting and raving about how screwed up this or that is. Well that is enough ranting for one day Adam
Name: stumpysez
I got into this above, and now see it's gone waaaay on here. The greatest predictive factors for family size are economic status and education level. Since I’d say that economic status is a fair predictor of education level, I'd feel safe assuming that in fact economic status alone has the greatest impact on reproductive choice. If industrialized nations are threatened by the population growth in third-world countries, the most clear-cut way to deal with that problem is to work toward improving the economies of those countries. That is, of course, incredibly difficult to do, and will certainly come at a cost to our own economies. But ultimately, it’s the only solution to our problems. Once people have to start thinking about putting their kids through college, they're a lot less likely to have seven or eight of ‘em.
Limiting people to one kid is a little extreme... that’s actually a negative population growth, at that point. I suppose the argument is that since other parts of the world have many more than one kid, people who know better should stick to having one kid. And I think that’s a fine argument, very noble. But ultimately 2 kids would be zero population growth in theory, and probably 3 kids would be zero population growth in reality, since not all kids survive to have kids of their own, some choose not to have kids of their own, some are sterile, etc. Then again, perhaps a little negative population growth wouldn’t be such a bad thing.
I haven't yet decided whether I would be in favor of governmental restrictions. My gut says no. On the other hand, I’ve not been terribly impressed with the ability of people to act responsibly. A prime example is fishing regulations. Why do we need fishing regulations? Can’t we just educate everyone and then everybody will play nice and only keep the right amount of fish? Obviously, that doesn’t work. So we, as a society, have decided that there are times and places where a governmental body steps in and lays down the law. It’s terribly sad, and I agree that it should be avoided wherever possible. But population growth is a far, far bigger problem than fish populations, don't you think? Ultimately, I think it would be a mess. Better to leave it to individuals, and, as Songslinger suggested, try to be a force for good. Live a good life, stand by your choices, lead by example, and hope.
Name: Nopal
A huge part of the problem is population density. California has been hit hard by this. Too many people squeezing into too few areas. Around where I live houses are being built at a dizzying pace, and people move in from all over the country. Still, the demand for houses is much greater than the rate at which they are being built. Since the Mid 1990s, the early days of the “dot-com era” (or dot-com hype, as I used to call it), things have been getting particularly bad. Since then, the southern California economy has become sufficiently diversified that it took much less of a hit from the dot-com bubble burst than many other areas around the country. Large corporations still set up shop here, which means more people squeezing in and turning wild lands into valuable real estate. My commute used to be about 15-18 minutes. Now its 40, and I travel the same distance as before. All of the while things like miles-per-gallon drop for the average vehicle sold each year.
Population growth rates both nationally and world-wide have been steadily declining for decades now. Check the many resources available via a simple Google search. Still, its not enough, but I doubt that legislation is the option. Technology may be. Industrialized nations have typically smaller growth rates (in some cases, negative). Third world countries have to invest in large families just to ensure survival of kin. We can feed all of the world. We have the technology. We can be much, much better to the environment. We have the technologies. We can educate the general population in a much better fashion (something desperately needed even here). Now, please allow me to be a cynic for a second: It all costs money and may shift the balance of power, which is dangerous indeed. Too many people benefit from the status quo (this is also a barrier against population control legislation, and all of the other warm and fuzzy things that you guys have mentioned).
As far as the educated having less children than the ignorant, you’d may have stumbled into a bit of a fallacy. You see, the bulk of the educated are mediocre just as much as the bulk of the ignorant, and this does not take into account the fact that brilliant people are born to the ignorant just as much as to the educated, if not more (they have after all, more children). I believe that the trick is to eradicate the ignorant element via education. The bulk of the people reproducing will still be, as it has always been, the mediocre, but most will be educated (and hopefully, produce less offspring per capita).
Name: Songslinger
Good Points, You Guys! Gives me hope when I'm in my dotage! Oops, too late...
Name: gyozadude
Kids are okay in Japan. I never sensed any scorn in Japan for having children. It’s a luxury to have children in Japan. While a segment of the genX population in Japan perceives kids as unfashionable, it’s a cyclical thing, I would think. Those young adults hanging out in Shibuya or Tamachi and partying up the wazoo aren’t probably interested in kids, but when they turn 31... there’s some urgency to get married and settled down with kids. But because Japanese couples are marrying older these days, there’s probably less time to have more children. Furthermore, the truth is that many Japanese are learning to cope with job insecurity, something their parents didn’t worry about. This has made children a very costly luxury. I think economic necessity, more than anything else, has made children unfashionable in Japan. I'll note that in Asian societies, besides your family, there is very little gov’t welfare. So if you have children out of wedlock, don’t count on welfare to save you. But fishing ain’t that great in Japan either. Talk about over fishing. Not only do they love to eat fish, but they do make some outstanding tackle to catch fish! - Gyozadude
Name: Corbinaman1
Economic Necessity=Less Kids Not Only In Japan. Gyoza, I agree with you that economic necessity is part of the reason people have less kids in Japan. It is the most expensive country (and one of the most homogeneous) countries in the world. In most developed (non 3rd world) countries, the population growth is less than 3rd world countries due to economic necessity. While I agree there is rampant population growth in California (which adversely affects quality of life, pollution, resources, etc.), the population density is NOTHING compared to Japan. I taught English there for a year and have some observations... most people don’t drive much... they take PACKED (like sardines in a can) trains to and from work (1-2 hrs. each way), most wives of salarymen (who work 60-80 hr. weeks) don’t work if they have children, MANY Japanese families live in “tenement style apartment buildings,” that are very crowded. Owning a standard California subdivision house on a “tiny” lot would be considered a luxury by most Japanese and would cost millions. I had a tiny one room apartment that was new and considered “luxurious”... the bathroom was literally the size of one of those airplane bathrooms! Most children go to school 6 long and rigorous days a week there... no “dumbing-down” of schools there! I also heard a crowding statistic that is interesting... Japan has the population of HALF the continent of America crammed into a country the size of California! If California ever became that crowded, we would probably all kill each other due to our selfish individualistic ways! In conclusion, while Japan is crowded, the culture, social mores, “team-oriented”, unselfish, non-individualistic ways, and a little less freedom, lead to less crime (you can safely walk just about anywhere in Japan) and have some positive benefits in society. I would recommend anyone on this board go to Japan to see how crowds and population growth are managed, and can only HOPE that if America ever gets as crowded as Japan, we can manage the growth in a similar way. And no... I never fished while I was in Japan... did see some kid catch (not release) some small perch off a small pier in Tokyo Bay. When I first arrived in Japan, I spent an hour at a 7-Eleven looking at all of the different kinds of fish/seafood (weird stuff) in the aisles, but that is another subject!!
Name: gyozadude
BTW, a clarification: Japan’s population is only about 100 Million +/- 10 million. The N. American continent hosts about 400+ Million. So they cram about 1/4 of the population into an area about the size of California. But they do eat lots of fish. Small pier fishing is fairly productive in off shoot towns along the coastline. But the danger of course is the industrial pollutants. Japan has been known in the past for mass deaths due to methyl mercury in the waters.
I think Japan is exceptional in its ability to cope with large population density. They use it to drive environmental initiatives like mass transit, recycling, and co-generation. They also have near zero illiteracy in their country. They also have some of the most developed wireless networks because of that density. Their strength is in their racial and cultural homogeneity. Ironically, the US claims that its strength is in its diversity... and for us, it perhaps is. But Japan leverages its homogeneity to raise awareness of issues and to drive eco-environmental-fashion trends and surprisingly, Japan adopts these trends much more rapidly than other nations; it’s part of their culture that drives for incremental improvement. We in the US, on the other hand, have lots of retro-grouches that often claim “if it ain’t broke, why fix it.”
The one problem however is the amount of seafood the Japanese consume. Much of their seafood is caught in international waters, and satellite photos show clearly the thousands of lights of trawlers fishing far off the coast in Pacific waters at night for quite a few species. I'm certain that if this became a more scare resource, the Japanese would find a way to leverage aqua-culture, just as Mikimoto perfected the cultured pearl cultivation technique.
I wish we could take a leap forward in commercial fisheries and have DFG subsidize more programs to support aqua-culture for the 3 or 4 “S” species. British Columbia does quite a bit of management in this respect, so it isn’t something we need to create ourselves. They have hatcheries that target specific species. Hatchery fish can be taken and possessed by fishermen while wild run fish must be released. They do this by marking fish at birth. For example, Salmon have their smaller dorsal fin, which is basically useless, clipped off prior to release into streams and rivers. When they grow to legal size in the ocean, it is easy to spot these hatchery fish. Some hatchery fish do survive to spawn and help add to the natural stocks. Those considered “natural” tend to be stronger fish which help keep the natural population healthier (via natural selection), and it’s hard to clip the smaller dorsal off after a catch to fake it since actual hatchery salmon have at least 2 years of growth and healing at the wound site. The system appears to be working. In some spots off Vancouver Island, the runs are so strong with natural salmon that more than half the hook ups are natural salmon that must be released. The last 3 or 4 small (10”) salmon I've hooked up with there were natural. Very cool to know that this system is working. - Gyozadude
Name: Corbinaman1
Interesting Points Gyoza About Japan. I stand corrected on that statistic of half of America's population crammed into an area the size of California. A quarter of America's population however, is still some serious density! Also, recycling, etc. is promoted there (which is good), however, when I was there I remember that they “wrapped” everything in plastic or Styrofoam. Even apples, etc. in the stores were individually wrapped in Styrofoam... seems pretty wasteful. Also, they burn a lot of their garbage over there. Now... back to fishing!
Date: December 10, 2001
To: PFIC Message Board
From: Nufo
Subject: Catch & Release. Sturgeon — Good Idea Wrong Fish.
Whenever I hear or think of catch and release it is most commonly associated with black bass. To me black bass are a waste. They don’t taste that good and don’t fight very hard and a majority of the folks who fish for them use gear that give the fish very little chance for escape. Now wild trout and steelhead are definitely a strongly conserved fish where catch and release is vitally necessary and commonly practiced if not already law.
The point I am trying to get at are other species such as striped bass, salmon, and sturgeon. The three S’s if you will. It is not common to hear of any of these fish being caught and released. Not all but a majority of the people who fish for these three species keep everything they catch. Maybe my memory is failing but I don’t recall ever hearing of a keeper sturgeon under the slot size being caught and released. There are people out there including myself and other members of this board who do practice catch and release on the 3 S’s but I am afraid we are the minority. I do believe in keeping fish if you intend to eat it. But truthfully how much fish can a person or his family possibly eat?
Sorry to push my opinions but I'm tired of guys complaining that “the fishing ain’t what it used to be” and then seeing that very same guy keep his limit of stripers and then continue fishing giving away the rest of his catch to other less successful anglers.
Don’t get me wrong I love to eat fish and stripers are my favorite. Every time I catch one and throw it back and some one says I would have taken that, I say “catch your own!”
I believe that if we fishermen and fisherwomen want to show how strongly we want to conserve our fish and wild life that we should practice catch and release to show the rest of the world that we will sacrifice our beloved table fair for the betterment of fishing in the future. If we can put aside our greed and accomplish this then we can really put pressure on the commercial fishing industry and the rest of the industries that harm our wild life.
Once again I appologize for pushing my opinion but conservation starts with us. Nufo
Name: Songslinger
Right on!
Name: stinkyfingers
Ditto. I started a war with one like this on AllCoast. Some people just can’t take the truth. Others have such a damn ego and Cro-Magnon mentality that they think that in order to be a successful angler, they think that they ALWAYS have to bring fish home... as if the family (kids, etc.) would think they are a loser if they came home with nothing...
Hell, my girl knows that one of the best fishing days of my entire life was when I came home with but one single pretty fish. Yup - that was one of the best fishing days of my life. And then there are those other SUPER times, when I catch and release EVERY single Halibut. I love it! What do I love? I love taking the hook out of a fish! I love watching it swim away! THAT, my friends, makes me feel GOOD.
Name: neptune1234
We would have only kept one yesterday. Who needs 2 100+ lb. fish? If I had been coherent enough to realize to put the lasso over the line we would have landed two giant sturgeon. Bye the time he got there I would have had mine on deck. I would have cut it in half and given him a good portion. I’m sure we would have released his. I helped a guy catch and release one about the same size off the end of McNears about a four years ago. Should have heard all of the regular Korean guys offering him big bucks. It was like an auction. He simply ignored them and hoisted it over the side. I was very impressed... I think sharks should be caught and released too. I have only kept one leopard shark in my whole life and it was the second biggest I have caught. Other than that I have released all the others... Part of the reason is that I don’t eat fish. Except for halibut. Yummy! An occasional striper is tasty if you cook it right. I always keep stripers because they are actually a non-native species. I consider them a stocked fish. Other than that if I don’t want it I don’t keep it.
Unfortunately there are many pier fisherman out there that treat the water poorly. In a sense they’re main goal is to rid the waters of fish. Giving bullheads to the birds. Killing anything without a limit for fun. That pis... me off. Every fish in the sea is there for a reason. Not just to be entertainment for drunken ...holes. So do me a big favor and let everything that you don’t want go. Please... That way the next person that catches that fish will have a chance to see an amazing creature from the deep. That’s what I love about fishing. Fish oN!
Name: striperkiller
I release over 95% of the fish I catch. I've got no problem with people keeping fish, but I like to release and I would like other fisherman to respect that. I find it hard to let fish go when it means I’m going to get harassed by people for it. People can be very rude, snatching a fish away from you before you can release another. On party boats the staff wants to keep their fish count high for the reports so they kill all legal fish... Party boats need to start being more tolerant of release. -joe
Name: Corbinaman1
I also catch/release about 95% of the fish I catch while surf fishing. Mostly get surfperch, corbina, small sharks, etc. In fact, this summer, I only kept two (bigger ones) out of 25 corbina, and a 25-pound shovelnose that I unexpectedly caught from shore. Fishing to me is a hobby as much as a sport... I enjoy the solitude of standing on the beach, watching the sunset, watching the birds, seeing whales/dolphins offshore, being outside, and as a bonus... catching and releasing fish!
Name: surffly
Spoken like a true surf fisherman. The view is half of the reward. Don’t forget the girls in the summer time. fishjunky
Name: gyozadude
And bring a camera... Another great reason to bring a camera, digital or otherwise. For me, it's one of the best conservation tools around.- Gyozadude, “Yes - I can roll my own potsticker skins”
Name: The_Dude
Just to let you guys know, I have released more fish this year than ever. A lot of them was due to the fact that they was about 1/2-1/4 inch from legal. Ask bigdaddycat... lol. Pictures my friends, they last forever, supper lasts for about an hour or two. Me and BDC took a lot pics this summer. Now that I look back I am glad. We had a lot of fun catching them big guys, and we still have fun remembering those almost big enough fish... lol. I am a former largemouth fisherman. I have a really big thing about catch and release, but didn’t really worry too much about it in saltwater. Now that I have learned about our waters out here, and the fish resources, I have a new respect for catch and release. Who would ever think that in this great ocean, fishing populations are starting to dwindle. I have stories, and seen pics of monsters taken “back-in-the-day,” but none recently, or at least as common. Next year will be great, because I know that the fish I released this year will be bigger, and then the year after they will be even bigger and more fun to catch. But on a side note, I love to eat fish too. I don’t take what I won’t eat, but I also limit my catch. I know that I will never be able to eat a whole freezer full of fish. Even fish get old... lol. Well I hope that someone gets something out of this, and if not oh well, it is nice to reflect and realize sometimes that all those “almost” keepers are still out there and bigger and stronger. Tight lines,TK
Name: kelp
“Whenever I hear or think of catch and release it is most commonly associated with black bass. To me black bass are a waste. They don’t taste that good and don’t fight very hard and a majority of the folks who fish for them use gear that give the fish very little chance for escape.”
Ok, I’m sure you knew you were going to get a reaction to this part of your post. Black Bass are nothing close to a “waste”. They are very tasty, you must have just had a terrible cook. I am a very avid black bass fisherman who looks forward to the spring bite every year. I release probably over 98% of my fish maybe only keeping a male for dinner every now and then. If there is any reason to believe it may be a female with eggs I will release her without hesitation regardless of how long it has been since my last fish dinner.
To say black bass don't fight very well shows you have never been into the species because if you were you would be hooked for life. I’m not one of those guys driving my $25,000 boat up and down the lake at 60 mph looking for fish, I’m the guy pounding the shore looking for those feisty fighters. What other fish do you hook in the lake that give you the aerial displays that bass do? Pound for pound this fish is probably the most aggressive thing in the lake.
As far as gear, a lot of fisherman use heavier line because of the structure that is fished. Not like trout fishing were you can cast into open water were 4# test is no problem. A black bass fisherman would have to mortgage his home to pay for his lures if using 4# test. The real challenge in bass fishing is getting them to bite, not preventing them from busting your line. It is a challenge to know what lures to work what time of the day and what time of the year not to mention colors and presentation. Anyway, just thought I would stick up for myself and fellow bass fisher people out there. Most of all Nufo, give it a shot and you to may be hooked too. -Kelp
Name: nufo
Kelp you missed my point. I’m not picking on bassers and furthermore I was an avid black bass fishermen from the age of 12 up until 22. Black bass are one of the easiest fish to catch. Learn the patterns and they are no problem. Here are a few black bass patterns for the delta: in hot conditions they will head into thick structure such as weeds. They will also move out to deeper water. In cold weather they tend to move deep as well. On a slow bite in cloudy weather switch to black & blue jig n pigs and work heavy cover, in sunny weather switch to brown. In muddy water fish really slow. One of the best ways to find black bass when they aren’t actively feeding is to slow roll a spinner bait. Of course there is a lot more to it but these are a few of the simple rules to black bass on the California delta.
Different areas have different rules but in the most part black bass are easy to find and fairly easy to entice once you do find them. My biggest black bass was 9-lbs caught at Don Pedro lake and didn’t fight nearly as hard as the 100’s of 3-5-lb striped bass that I have caught. Black bass suck. They don’t peel off line and hardly jump. Now Smallmouth on the other hand are awesome. Those suckers hit the lure and then go straight up out of the water. My biggest smallie was 4.5-lbs at Folsom Lake. Not to mention that all the black bass I have caught are from the shore not a boat. One of my spots one the big delta tournament back in like 95 or 96. If you ever head up this way let me know and I will show you a thing or two about black bass. And then when I'm done schooling you on black bass we will go and catch some real fish (stripers) about a mile from where we caught the black bass.
Also black bass aren’t bad tasting but definitely not the top of my list. I would take pan fish over blackies any day. Everyone has there own opinions so don’t jump down my back for stating mine and please don’t judge me or jump to conclusions about what you do not know. You assumed that I didn’t now anything about black bass and we all now how we look when we assume things right. I did not mean to offend you with my original post sorry that you did not understand the point I was trying to make. Nufo
Name: kelp
No I saw your point. Nufo as tempting as it is for me to come up there and have you show me a thing or two and school me on black bass and stripers, I think I’ll stick to my fishing locations and patterns that I already have. I’ve put a lot of hours in at the Delta, and have probably fished “your spot” just like everyone else. There is no unchartered water up there with the tournaments and all. Plus why would you go fishing with me for black bass when you dislike it so much? As far as missing your point I read your whole post but just felt like responding to the part that was interesting to me. I wasn't trying to follow up to a question you asked or anything. Also if black bass fishing sucks so bad and is such a waste of time why did you do it for ten years? It seems a trip or two would have been enough time to decide if you liked it or not, not a decade. It sounds to me as you never were an avid black bass fisherman in my opinion because you wouldn't act like you have such animosity towards the species, it's just a fish! It sounds to me like you might have a level of frustration working from lack of catching the linesiders. Lastly I don’t think I jumped down your throat I merely responded to your post. And you are right we all do have our own opinions. Later
Name: nufo
No you were trying to pick an argument! And as far as fishing for black bass goes, I love fishing for all species of fish. Black bass is no longer on the top of my list but I still fish for them on occasion. And I catch them often on accident while fishing for stripers. I never said Black bass fishing was a waste of time so don’t put words into my mouth. Catch and release of black bass is a waste. The only reason people push catch and release of black bass is so that they can have their prestigious tournaments. The reason I got out of black bass fishing was that it became to commercialized. Now it’s just like golf. You need a different rod for every type of lure. 30 different shades of color for every lure and so forth. Black bass fishing isn’t about the fish it’s about money! After catching many large striped bass I decided to give up black bass which don’t fight nearly as hard. As far as you fishing my spots I highly doubt that. No boats can get into most of my spots and many people aren’t willing to put in the work to find them so dream on. Next time you pick an argument try one you have a chance at winning. Nufo
Name: gyozadude
Kelp: FW bass rods for sale...I grew up largemouth fishing because as a kid, the only places I could go were local lakes, and the only fish species were trout, bass, bluegill, catfish, and crappie. Actually, since moving to saltwater, and hooking into ocean run salmon, stripers, bat rays, rockfish,.. largemouth are pretty much sprinters and not the triathletes. Black bass are no longer my first choice for good fighting and good eating.
Don’t get me wrong. Black bass fishing is loads of fun. But they are renowned for their fight as much as their aggressiveness. Yes, I agree they are aggressive, but as fighters, they don’t compare pound-for-pound to the aerobic capabilities of other species. Both my father and I have caught some big bass in local lakes. One topping 11 lbs. Not really a challenge. Played them in on 4 lb. test for about 4 minutes and then brought it up. I’ve had 5-lb. Lake Merced rainbows strip 50 yards of 4 lb. test out three or four times and take 15 minutes to haul in. I've lost more 7–9-lb. spring salmon up in B.C. on 6-lb. test than I’ve landed because they really know how to fight. And a 20-lb. carp will out fight most bass in any size on light line. So there are lots of species that fight harder. And I’ve never hooked a bonito... which are legendary in their fight...
As for tactics to catch bass... I don't agree that it takes a lot of skill to catch bass. Perhaps at the tournament level, yes, but for enthusiasts like myself, it’s not as hard as you make it out. My secret is “sonar-gps.” You gotta find the fish first, then the fishing is easy. Bass are structure fish and they are predators. They hit just about anything that is lively and looks wounded and natural that passes by their lairs. I see lots of people pitching lures and various patterns to bass. And getting frustrated with zero hits, even though they can practically see the fish under the boat. Well, this is an easy problem to solve. Get a 4+” live shiner, hook it through the back, toss it into the lair, with a bobber on top and wait less than two minutes for the bobber to sink. Even in the middle of winter, we can do this on most southern US lakes that allow live bait fishing. I've fished Lake Jackson quite a few times. It's just 10 minutes north of Tallahassee, FL. I use shiners each time and have just about limited out each time, even in heavy pressure zones or zones where folks previously fished with lures.
So while black bass are great sport fish and drive some big revenues as far as the economy goes, Nufo’s point about conservation and the three “S” species does make lots of sense, and I didn’t see it as dissing black bass or black bass fishermen. He was just being mostly factual.
And saltwater fish, tend to taste better than freshwater species, but many fish do taste okay and black bass aren’t too bad either. I prefer crappie slabs personally for the best tasting freshwater fish. Trout comes in second. Gyozadude, “Yes - I can roll my own potsticker skins”
Name: nufo
I'm glad somone feels me. Black bass fishing went from a redneck sport to a yuppie sport. Not that I'm a redneck but I had more respect for it when it was a redneck thang. Now you practically have to have reservations to go black bassing anywhere but the delta. Nufo
Name: stinkyfingers
Black Bass = action. Well, most of the time hopefully. That’s the main reason why it is the fish of tournaments and the “mainstream” fisherman's fish. If you had to watch a 30 minute TV show on other fish like the three S's, you probably wouldn't see much ACTION. Not like with the bigmouths. Anyway that's my take on it. The Bigmouth is a fish that you can almost bet on. The three S’s are a gamble. Wait, did I just repeat myself? Surely not, boys. I don't gamble to bet, I bet to gamble...
Name: kelp
No you were trying to pick an argument! Nufo I simply replied to a part of your opinionated post with some opinions of my own. Not looking to “win” an argument with you. As far as I’m concerned if you have an opinion on something cool, and I have mine too. This is a fishing discussion board and I don’t feel as though I strayed off the beaten path. Just having a discussion, sorry if you took offense to my words but that’s that. But as far as black bass fishing being about the money, not the sport, I think it is whatever you make of it. I could care less about what the guys are doing in the bass boats and how many rods they have in the boat they are actually pretty amusing to me. Oh and I did misquote you about the waste of time, you just stated it was a waste, so I apologize for that. Who knows I might run in to you up there in the Delta at your spot (hehehe) and we can have a beer together. No secret spots on the delta. Furthermore I did respect your post about Sturgeon, Stripers, and Salmon and actually spend 75 percent of my fishing time targeting stripers and sturgeon in the bay. Good luck out there. See I'm not a bad guy, was just getting some chatter going. -Later
Name: stinkyfingers
Wow, I’m impressed. Very well put forth thoughts, with no offense and utmost respect. Nufo, I think this guy is cool. Very mature response here. Just to let both of you know, I’ve enjoyed your “debate.” Cheers, boys. Let's fish.
Name: nufo
Thank you. I am sorry for going off. I’m wound a little tight this week with finals and all. I'd be glad to share my spots with ya. Shoot me an email if you are ever coming up this way. We can also hit del Valle (right in my back yard) for some smallies. Sincere Appologies, Nufo
Name: aafrench
Catch & Release. Good Idea wrong fish. The DFG has set the limits so low for the three S’s that you are already doing your part for conservation even if you keep a limit! If the limit was 10 fish, and I kept 2, and released 8 you would think I was pretty great! When the limit is 2 and I keep 2, you would say he doesn’t practice catch and release, even if I released 10 more due to the limit being 2. 98% of fish caught on the West Coast are by commercial fisherman. It is great to practice catch and release for fish you don’t intend to eat, but if I catch my limit every time, keep it, and eat it and feed my family with it, there is nothing wrong with that. I enjoy eating the fish I catch, as much as I do catching them.
I freeze what I don’t eat right away. When the fishing slows down in the winter, I don’t have to buy fish at the store, because I have enough saved in the freezer. Why should I catch and release, only to have to spend money later to buy the fish from the market that I could have kept? Tight Lines, Andrew
Name: lucy
It’s an Exercise in Futility. It's all very well to talk about “showing the world” what good conservationists we are but the trouble is, “the world” consists mostly of non-fishermen who aren’t paying the slightest attention to us and couldn't care less whether we have fish to catch. Moreover, they're largely responsible for the problem.
Everything I’ve read indicates that the primary cause of declining fish populations in the bay is POLLUTION, not fishing, and certainly not sport fishing. And guess what the primary source of all that pollution is? Not big polluters like chemical companies and refineries, but PEOPLE and their automobiles dripping oil and other contaminants into the watershed, their lawns and gardens leaching fertilizer and pesticides into the watershed, their obnoxious habit of leaving non-biodegradable crap everywhere they go, etc., etc.
A while back, somebody posted a link to a series of articles about that; I believe the articles originally ran in the S.F. Chronicle. The Bay ends up with all the gluck from nearly half the state and this state is grossly overpopulated with millions and millions of two-legged pollution producers. Catch and release? Sure but how about we also require that all those idiot yuppies who drive big-ass SUVs just because they can afford them (and for no other reason) give them up and buy electric cars instead, or hybrid cars? How about we put a moratorium on building new housing developments (all those lawns and gardens, all that fertilizer and pesticide, all those people, all those cars)? How about we start doing what many other countries have done, and start seriously promoting population control?
Until the real problem is addressed, nothing else will make any difference, simply because the number of fish killed by sport anglers is insignificant compared to the number killed by pollution. Trying to protect the fish population by catch-and-release is about like trying to put out a forest fire by spitting on it.
Name: gyozadude
Lucy: Pointing the finger at pollution is very P.C. Sounds logical... but is it factual? Toxic waste is undeniably a source of fish kill in Bay waters, when it actually gets released. But can toxic pollution do long term, slow chronic damage to the fishery and makes it decrease over time? If we examine the effect of DDT and other toxins on bird populations, it nearly decimated many species by 90% of their populations in just a decade. But what is happening in our CA fisheries does that follow that pathology. I would clarify your argument and state that it is in fact overpopulation which causes over fishing. Not human pollution, which occasionally kills fish. But most pollutants, hydrocarbons included eventually breakdown in the environment. With exposure to water, sunlight, and bacteria, the biological half-life for most things is a few months. Some inert materials can last much longer, but these are often so inert, that they do not pose significant hazards to fish populations.
If you just take an estimate... on average, CA residents consume 20 lbs. of fish per person (before cleaning) per year (maybe much more). Multiply by 31 million people. That's 620 Million pounds of fish for this state alone. If 1/3rd of that comes from in-state saltwater fisheries that means over 200 million pounds of fish taken from CA waters. Do this year after year after year....
A typical Salmon run in Alaska or B.C. runs 200,000 fish to 1.5 million fish (according to some PBS documentary). At an average of 10 lbs. per fish, that's still 2 Million to 15 million pounds of fish. If salmon consisted of 30% of the consumed fish in CA, we’d need 70 million pounds of salmon a year. We’d need to decimate at least five major salmon runs in California waters to achieve that. That's clearly not sustainable. In fact, quite a bit of salmon at markets like Costco is actually farmed Atlantic salmon from WA state or B.C.
The math points to complete non-sustainability of any fishing in state waters with our current population. Not because of pollution, but because of too much consumption. And I’m just doing an estimate. If we actually found out how much waste of fish occurred with commercial fisheries, these estimates would be conservative. Gyozadude, “Yes - I can roll my own potsticker skins”
Name: baitfish
Most fish that is eaten in this state is not caught in this state. The Alaskan Halibut, The tropical Mahi Mahi, Atlantic Salmon, Cod, Freshwater fish are almost completely farmed fish. The only locally caught fish that sells with any regularity are Rockfish, Thresher and Albacore. Cod makes up the main staple of the diet of the United States. It is in your Filet o fish, in your fish and chips, basically if it is frozen first and it is white, it is Cod.
As for the pollution issue, even though it is PC, Lucy does have a point. Yes, Hydrocarbons do breakdown over time, but when there is no stop to the influx of pollution, even though it breaks down, it is constantly being replenished. This is not scientific, but fish spawns come as the rain comes. The rain comes and pushes the city pollution into the rivers and bays right on top of the spawning fish. I can’t ever remember a doctor’s note that said take two teaspoons of 20w50 and suck a tail pipe for a healthy baby.
But it is pretty hard to MAKE Americans DO anything. They have to be coaxed and fooled into it. Tell the average 18 year old driving an electric car will get him laid and see how many EV1’s start popping up all over the place. Adam, Will work for fish!
Name: gyozadude
Adam: You speak of “mumbo jumbo” science, not real science. That’s the problem. You’re talking about pollutants getting into the Bay but not breaking down fast enough, and being replenished... How does pollution exactly kill fish? Does it cause mutations? Does it cause sterility? Does it cause death before ability to spawn? What's the pathology? and can you estimate that quantities? Can you estimate the amount of pollution that serves as food for plankton and bacteria? Can you estimate the quantity flushed into the Bay that is left to affect fish? How much is suspended in Bay water? How much is adsorbed into sediment? I’m asking about science, not conjecture and politically correct propaganda. Show me some estimates of quantities if you can.
Nuclear power plants are supposed to be bad for the environment, right? That’s popular thinking. It's thought that radioactivity will leak and get into the environment. Ironically, the NRC is so strict that some nuclear facilities actual must emit gases that are cleaner than the environment which they get it from. And as for effect on fishing, the higher sustained temperatures attract most species and spurs growth rates.
I would say that the pollution amounts are currently manageable, and the large fish kills that sometimes occur are from oxygen depletion due to accidents where too much food (fertilizers) gets flushed into the water causing an outburst of bacteria that consume all the available oxygen. Not a problem in most ocean waters with tidal forces, but inside the Bay, and in many sloughs, this is the primary cause of fish kill. I don’t think current pollution levels are as harmful as they were 50 years ago when there were no restrictions on industrial pollution, so conditions have improved, as has the air quality in the state.
Sure, lots of doctors wouldn't recommend taking two tablespoons of sludge for a newborn. But fish aren’t humans. As well, the sludge may not be harmful. We eat plenty of chemicals daily, and supposedly some of it is supposed to be carcinogenic... well, if you hadn't noticed lately, we're living longer and longer. If we’re consuming so much nasty carcinogens, how is this possible?
Don't take this as a personal attack. I'm agreeing with Lucy that too many people affects fishing. However, she argues that pollution is a big factor. But I’m arguing that if you just do an estimate of the pounds of fish consumed, there’s no way our fisheries could support such consumption in the state. It is inevitable that we need to import most of the fish consumed in CA. Regardless of whether it’s the commercial or the recreational fishing that depletes the resource, there's just too many people fishing a limited resource, and -that- is the primary reason the coastal fishing isn't as good as it used to be. – Gyozadude, “Yes - I can roll my own potsticker skins”
Name: lucy
Hi, Gzyozadude: I found the URL to the series of articles referenced: http://www.sfgate.com/cgibin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1999/08/02/MN14115.DTL
PC? Me? You have GOT to be kidding!!! I don't think I could be PC if I tried, and I make a serious point of not trying. Anyhow, according to this series of articles, there are a number of pollutants that seriously interfere with fish reproduction or with the viability of hatchlings. See the articles for more on that.
Whether the decline is caused by too much pollution resulting from too many people, or too much consumption resulting from too many people, the bottom line is still the same: TOO DAMN MANY PEOPLE. And who’s doing anything about THAT? Nobody! Instead, we have doctors shooting up women with fertility drugs so that they can have their “own” child instead of adopting one of the millions of homeless children. (In my book, that’s a crime!) We have prison inmates suing the state for the “right” to father children. We have lawyers and judges bending over backward to protect the reproductive “rights” of people who shouldn’t have a right to live, much less reproduce.
Name: nufo
I would voice my opinion on how I feel about the population problem in California but I don’t have the time to type it out nor the time to respond to all the new enemies that I would make. But I feel where you’re coming from. STOP BUILDING ALL THE GO HOUSES!!!! Nufo
Name: stumpysez
I’d like to quickly point out that not building houses doesn’t solve the population problem. It just means that people don’t have anyplace to live. At best, it solves OUR population problem, because those people will move somewhere else... but make no mistake, that’s not solving the problem in the long run. Those people will still buy fish farmed by California commercial fisheries, they’ll demand products made by California industries, etc. We’ve gotta control the population, not the housing. Unless the rationale is that people who don’t have houses are less likely to have kids, but I don’t think that bears out. Perhaps, we could reduce the number of houses and then release wild wolves to consume the weak and stupid. Any takers?
Name: nufo
When I speak of the affect of housing. It not only affects the fishing and water resources it affects habitat! There is a lot more to it than just building houses. Think of how much water a family of four uses in the course of a year. Now multiply that by a million new homes and a million new families moving into California every year. Get the point? There ain’t much open land in the Bay Area anymore and it really sucks! This means less habitat for animals and so forth that’s what really bothers me. I am not just a fisherman but an outdoorsmen. I love the outdoors. I hate to see it being ruined. Nufo
Name: lucy
I like it! You're not related to me by any chance, are you?
Name: stumpysez
The only point I was trying to make was that opposing housing is a classic example of NIMBYism (Not In My Back Yard). The PROBLEM is overpopulation. One of the symptoms of that problem is that more housing is needed, which has a terrible impact on the environment. If we don’t build houses here, those houses will be built somewhere else, and they’ll destroy the environment somewhere else. See the problem with that?
You could argue that we should get over the idea of having a “house” in the classic sense, that all of us should live in high-rise apartment buildings. That would minimize the amount of environmental impact caused by people living in a certain area. But my bet is that most of the devout fisherpeople on this web site who own a house wouldn’t be all that keen on up and giving it away for the goal. I’d like a house some day, so I'm going to stick with my argument that overpopulation is the problem. There are only two solutions to overpopulation: birth control, and wolves (or the equivalent).
Name: gyozadude
Still skeptical... The 2.97 million gallons per year cited in the first article is a nice try at an estimate. But how much of that goes into the water and how much is suspended in the air. It assumes it all goes into the Bay. That’s not necessarily true.
Some species are more susceptible to toxins than others. Some just store the toxins but function and reproduce just fine with. The studies they talk about should be cited, not quoted. Most studies I’ve observed, have never been performed with “background” abundance of pollutants. Instead, they jack the quantities up really high to cause fish mortality, then use linear extrapolation to claim that these pollutants cause fish mortality. So I still don’t buy it.
Occum’s statement is that “the simplest solution is usually the correct one.” Well, while marine biologists are searching for pollution as a cause, there are folks at our local fishing spots catching and keeping everything and doing this day-in, day-out. In the pollution case, the fish mortality may jump from 15% to 25%, which is significant. But in the catch and keep case, mortality is 100% for the fish caught. So, we come down to which is the higher order of magnitude effect?
B.C. has some great fisheries, and with very low population and not so much heavy industry, they have great fishing. But places close to population centers and with easy access are rarely good fishing... why? Because people catch and keep fish and soon, there are few fish left. In Howe Sound, B.C., environmentalists claim that there is N. America’s biggest toxic copper mine leaching heavy metals into the water. But that mine was polluting since 1904 and finally shutdown in 1970. It’s still leaching toxins into the Sound, and the marine biologists claim that it’s bad for the fish. Well, better tell the salmon, rockfish, greenling, halibut, crabs, etc. that because I can get them a block away from my house up there, and fishing’s been good for a century or so in that area.
I’m not being anti-environmental. But I'm just saying that if we want to replenish a fishery, it may require moratoriums on keeping of fish by both commercial and recreational fishermen, and to emphasize farming for consumption and lots of catch-n-release fishing using barbless hooks, single hooks, etc. Telling society to cut back pollution is a much harder, longer-term thing that won't necessarily bring back the fishery.- Gyozadude
Name: chum buddy
Hypoxia = “Dead Zone” Yes, over fishing is a problem. In my opinion, over fishing is the largest factor to declining fish population. Yes, our planet is over populated! (my opinion)
Name: gyozadude
How long has dead zone existed? The NY Times story by Carol Yoon again is alarmist. It cites algae formation going back as far as 200 years. But it fails to address how long this “dead zone” has existed. I would argue that it’s probably been there for quite some time, perhaps going back as far as 200 years. I would also argue that dead zones are frequent in tidal and near offshore areas of shallow seas near mouths of large rivers in warm climate zones. I don’t think this is a new catastrophe we’re making, but we may be helping it get bigger.
I believe that dead zones are a combination of stratification, warm weather, geologic structure and influx of river runoff draining into the ocean. Certainly, addition of too much fertilizers isn’t helping, but the fact is this happens yearly and has been for quite some time, in fact, could have been happening before we got there. It could be that housing construction along the shores of Mississippi and Louisiana have resulted in lost wetlands that act as a buffer zone, but also, construction changes shoreline topology, which may create some adverse geology that doesn't help circulation of water.
The way I see it, this hypoxia problem is primarily a fluid mechanics problem - oxygen gets depleted because ocean water isn’t mixing enough and is stratified. It happens in many East Bay lakes and reservoirs here in the Bay Area. Almost always, this occurs during the summer when stratification sets in and algae blooms fall and decay on the bottom. A way to fix the depletion problem is to increase circulation of water. In the past, the shoreline may have been conducive to better circulation, but today, it may not be occurring due to new construction, or erosion by frequent hurricanes and the like. One way to solve the circulation problem (albeit expensive) would be to build tidal pumps that use tidal forces to actively circulate water in the dead zone. A pump positioned every 20 square miles might be beneficial. - Gyozadude
Name: Chum Buddy
Gyozadude, I agree that “dead zones” are NOT a phenomena caused solely by industrialized man (recently). I also think that problems with water being stratified and not mixing are among many other factors, which accompany the problem of hypoxia. Some sources I have found indicate that the “dead zone” which plagues the Gulf of Mexico is primarily caused by the run-off of nitrogen and phosphorous (between 30% and 60%). The source for the run-off of these elements was a combination of many things, but seemed to be narrowed down by 3 main contributors: fertilizers, livestock waste and acid-rain. Certainly, the “dead zone” within this region would still exist even if we eliminated all 3 factors, but theoretically the hypoxia should be greatly reduced as a result.
The main point I am trying to make here is that in many ocean areas where a “dead zone” exists, a major contributing cause to their size and severity is often the result of some form of pollution, i.e., fertilizers, acid-rain, etc. The topology of shoreline and ill conditioned wetlands, (or lack of them) as you commented, are also factors that increase the damage of pollutant runoff...
There are so many references that are dedicated to this ongoing problem. Many do seem like ‘PC’ garble and do not have the Science to tie-in their claims on the effects of pollution regarding this matter and many others. I do feel that, in many cases, the Scientific garble that is used to explain many of the oceans problems being the result of pollution does logically fit in my opinion, but as to what degree will take years of meticulous studies, surveys and money! Brian
Name: gyozadude
Okay, so the argument comes down to size and severity of dead zones. I agree that it would take a lot money to do exhaustive research on the dead zone problems. I would suspect that fertilizers, farm animal excrement and other forms may increase the size and severity of dead zones. The question though, is “how much?”
Ice ages are mysterious in some aspects because we aren’t certain why they occur. Many speculate that it’s a catastrophe like an asteroid collision that kicks up lots of dust, or that the earth’s magnetic field inverts itself every so many tens of thousands of years and this causes major climatic changes. But we still aren’t sure. But we think global warming is happening.
So the question is whether or not the algae blooms and deaths leading to anaerobic bacterial consumption is occurring due to higher nitrogen levels. The way to prove this is to analyze the difference in dissolved nutrient levels in gulf waters near the coast versus those far off the coast and to use those levels with sea water to culture algae. The difference in bloom rates with the same amount of Sun should be significant and clear. If they can show a small percentage increase in percentage rate that exceeds the oxygen diffusion rates in seawater, then we can be fairly certain that the larger dead zone areas are caused by fertilizers.
However, my suspicion is that fertilizers are not the primary cause. I believe C02 absorption in the oceans is the primary cause of algae blooms. The basic block of photosynthesis is C02 and we've doubled historical C02 levels in air relative to 1902 data. The oceans absorb most of this providing more abundant base materials for algae. In locations where sea floor geometries are conducive to high growth and rapid cycle rates of photosynthesizing plants, AND stratification, there are bound to be cycles were chances are high for dead-zones to occur.
Another solution may be to investigate whether it is in fact the algae bloom which decays and causes the oxygen depletion in late summer, or is it another species of bottom flora that thrives in shallow seas? If we can introduce different plant species into the aquatic environment that can metabolize the C02 better during the dead zone times and free up oxygen into the water, then this may manage the dead zone's size. The only problem then would be what happens to the biomass of these other plants. If the biomass can float and wash up onto shore as seaweed, and not get in the way of too many boaters, that may be ideal. Just as many organic farmers plant legumes in plots they plan to leave fallow, we can plant certain species of ocean flora to bypass the dead zone. - Gyozadude
Name: Mikey
Exercise in Futility. Good points, unfortunately we all know it doesn’t work that way. If someone stands the chance of making a buck, they're gonna take it, period.
Name: Leapin Bass
Mike, I know we don't see eye to eye on the catch and release issue. You are right about the stricter laws and keeping the same amount of fish. One thing you need to keep in mind is this. When you say that commercial fishing accounts for 98% of the fish caught on the West Coast you have to remember that the 98% includes all fish - even baitfish. Take baitfish away from the mix and the percentages change dramatically (more like 60-40 or 70-30). On top of that realize that the primary reason commercial “bait” fishermen are taking baitfish is to provide recreational fishermen with bait. My point is that recreational fishing has a much greater impact than you realize and that is one of the reasons I feel catch and release is so important.
Name: aafrench
I think it is funny that we go through this catch and release debate about once every 2 months! And my point of view still hasn't changed! Fish On! Andrew
Name: nufo
Stubborn people never do. That’s not a bad trait. What kind of world would we have if everyone was open minded? It’s all good frenchy I respect everyone’s point of view as long as they don’t step on my toes. Keep on keepin on.
Name: Capt Bags
Preaching “catch and release” is like preaching religion. It’s good. A lot of folks will like it, but not all. It takes time. Attitude is everything. Some folks just don’t want to be preached to. I really think you would be amazed about how many fish are let go. And the number gets higher every year. How many TV fishing shows show fish being kept. None that I see. A lot of fish now are kept because the fish would not survive being let go, or simply the angler after trying for so long finally got his fish. Talk to most anglers, most do let their fish go. The ones that keep all those fish are getting fewer every year. Like you said, you can’t eat all that fish, and giving it away is not as easy. So in the end most anglers let the fish loose or go on to other challenges. Finally, study after study shows that survival of released fish is not high. Fish stand the greatest chance if they are quickly brought in; before they have a chance to battle. I don't know about you, but reeling in a fish at a high rate of speed , without a battle, is kinda like premature. I love to take my time. Bags
Name: nufo
Once again I am not picking on anyone individual. I am also not putting anyone down for keeping a fish. For I myself have kept fish so that would be like kicking myself in the head. As a catch and release angler I am a minority and just as any other minority group you either stand up and be heard or get pushed aside and abused. Nufo
Name: stinkyfingers
What IF? WHAT IF THIS WAS TRUE: I’m a guy, about 30-40 years old. I don’t work, or if I do, it’s not much and never during weekdays. I spend every minute (from waking up until dark) fishing for stripers and keep every single on I catch. I keep them small, I keep them long. I keep them ALL. WAY more than 2. Oh, did I mention I take them all home to feed the house? Yup - you see, in my house - we have 5 or 6 family members living there. Yup - grandpa, kids, everyone is in that shack. You see - we are poor. That white 15’ surf rod I bought at Walmart for $15 just HAS to make itself worth it... My bait of choice is anchovies, I fish the shore. Where do I fish? I fish wherever I’ve had the best luck, and I fish there everyday. I will never try another spot, and I will never throw back a fish - PERIOD! WE NEED IT! And we are above the law because we are poor! Ha! And you white-collar men thought you knew it all...
Name: Mikey
I agree with you... but harsh words man, haha. I agree more has to be done to protect the industry, and educate the fishermen. Now, step into their shoes (of course no one will be able to fully). They might not know any better (I agree most do though, hehe). But I mean I’ve known plenty of wealthy guys that do the same thing... Mike
Name: stinkyfingers
Wealthy are WORSE!!They actually do it and think they can get away because they are better than the rest!! Just ask anyone that has a CCW license in CA - they paid their way into it...
Name: lucy
Vasectomy time!!! People who breed responsibly (one child, and then only when they're in a good financial position) don’t need to break the law to feed their house-apes and in-laws. I say it’s time we took away the “right” to reproduce (and where does it mention that in the constitution, anyway?) and started requiring that people EARN the PRIVILEGE of reproducing.
Name: baitfish
The home of the free indeed... Can you imagine a world where the government was in charge of family planning? Makes me want to vomit. Actually I wonder what Congress would decide would be the requirements for receiving an authorized breeding identification card. The government can’t manage a healthy fishery imagine how screwed up a kid would be if your kid was born because Strom Thurman said this family gets my seal of approval.
Name: gyozadude
Are we related? LOL!
Gee. Lucy, you must have come from the same school I came from. Those are certainly bold words and words that ring true to my ears. I've never figured out how to implement such regulations without resorting to tactics like those used in China, but the idea is very intriguing. - GyozadudeName: lucy
H Social pressure is the key. Gyoze, we might be related — mentally if not genetically. Of course, if you trace it back far enough, EVERYbody is related. We don't need government to do the job, all we need is to make it socially unacceptable to have more than one child. Again, as I did with littering, I’ll use the nose-picking example: very few people pick their noses in public because it’s so widely considered disgusting, unacceptable, etc., etc. If people widely held a similar view toward littering, there would be VERY little littering. Same with producing too many children. Make it socially unacceptable to have more than one child. Look at what they did in Japan — I've read that in Japan, people with TWO children are looked at askance, and people with more than two hardly dare to go out in public for the open scorn and disapproval. (Is that true? You’ve lived there, I haven’t.)
And take comfort, baitfish — with all the religious goonies dominating our society and government, the government won’t do a thing until the situation is so bad that “Soylent Green” looks like a pleasant travelogue. The government would much rather mess with all your OTHER rights.
Name: Songslinger
Population control is the one issue conspicuously absent from most allegedly “green” concerns. But it is the most important. More people = more consumption and more pollution. This in itself is a no-brainer, yet somehow this nation cannot make the call. We are too afraid of the so-called Christians, be they right-wing fundamentalists or Pope-fearing Catholics. I doubt it is a question of Law so much as it is a principle of Direction. Lucy is right about attitudes and norms, reinforcing ethical notions and social responsibilities through example and determination.
But these have to begin as individual processes that are practiced by the many until they catch on as normative behavior. We were almost there on April 22, 1970, when the first Earth Day was celebrated. “Stop at two,” was a wise slogan that should have become creed, or at least promoted with the same fervor as recycling.
I must say that both concepts had a huge impact on me. My wife and I have one child that we planned (and we were together for 10 years beforehand). However, this was our choice, and that is key. If one tries to legislate population control, the law will be subverted and subsumed into something far worse and draconian. Best now to encourage smart family planning and contraception, instead of this vicious and mindless tendency to damn all attempts at Choice. Choice is everything. Even if it’s a choice we don’t agree with.
What’s probably going to happen is that the educated will continue to have less offspring while the ignorant produce more. We don't require a crystal ball to see how that affects the future. So fish now, enjoy it, try to be a force for good, cross your fingers, and prepare for some weird times ahead. To misquote Haldane: “The future is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we CAN imagine.”
Name: baitfish
I definitely agree with Slinger, Choice is the issue. But I don’t necessarily agree that religion is the driving force behind lack o population control. This is a very moral and personal issue. It would never work just because this is a freedom that you can't take away. Blame will go somewhere else, because the American Public will not agree that they have to limit themselves as to how many children, all that will create is a whole new breed of racisim...Why can’t I have a child, when we are letting all these foreigners in... etc..
There will always be a scapegoat for anything that people do not want to take responsibility with, plus I don’t think the general populous will view this as a problem until we are at a point where this is in the news and is a tragedy. People will always respond well to a tragedy and balk at a rule that is for the future, but creates a large loss now.
Personally I see nothing wrong with having 2 children that can be brought up in a healthy environment. And as wonderful as it sounds that there be parent training and home conditioning or whatever, there will never be a utopia of enlightened humans. There are far too many people that are screwed up in the world, and the driver behind that wheel is child abuse, verbal, sexual, physical and mental. Developing a person in twisted ways makes for a twisted person. Developing a child in a positive reinforced way with responsibility, love, compassion and understanding will in the long run solve the woes of the world, all of them. People that disrespect these simple values have to pay for their actions.
Once people develop a respect for their fellow man and develop a sense of responsibility, population control will just fall into place. Now We just need to find a way to get the people of the world to get their $h!t together, until then we will all be ranting and raving about how screwed up this or that is. Well that is enough ranting for one day
AdamName: stumpysez
I got into this above, and now see it's gone waaaay on here. The greatest predictive factors for family size are economic status and education level. Since I’d say that economic status is a fair predictor of education level, I'd feel safe assuming that in fact economic status alone has the greatest impact on reproductive choice. If industrialized nations are threatened by the population growth in third-world countries, the most clear-cut way to deal with that problem is to work toward improving the economies of those countries. That is, of course, incredibly difficult to do, and will certainly come at a cost to our own economies. But ultimately, it’s the only solution to our problems. Once people have to start thinking about putting their kids through college, they're a lot less likely to have seven or eight of ‘em.
Limiting people to one kid is a little extreme... that’s actually a negative population growth, at that point. I suppose the argument is that since other parts of the world have many more than one kid, people who know better should stick to having one kid. And I think that’s a fine argument, very noble. But ultimately 2 kids would be zero population growth in theory, and probably 3 kids would be zero population growth in reality, since not all kids survive to have kids of their own, some choose not to have kids of their own, some are sterile, etc. Then again, perhaps a little negative population growth wouldn’t be such a bad thing.
I haven't yet decided whether I would be in favor of governmental restrictions. My gut says no. On the other hand, I’ve not been terribly impressed with the ability of people to act responsibly. A prime example is fishing regulations. Why do we need fishing regulations? Can’t we just educate everyone and then everybody will play nice and only keep the right amount of fish? Obviously, that doesn’t work. So we, as a society, have decided that there are times and places where a governmental body steps in and lays down the law. It’s terribly sad, and I agree that it should be avoided wherever possible. But population growth is a far, far bigger problem than fish populations, don't you think? Ultimately, I think it would be a mess. Better to leave it to individuals, and, as Songslinger suggested, try to be a force for good. Live a good life, stand by your choices, lead by example, and hope.
Name: Nopal
A huge part of the problem is population density. California has been hit hard by this. Too many people squeezing into too few areas. Around where I live houses are being built at a dizzying pace, and people move in from all over the country. Still, the demand for houses is much greater than the rate at which they are being built. Since the Mid 1990s, the early days of the “dot-com era” (or dot-com hype, as I used to call it), things have been getting particularly bad. Since then, the southern California economy has become sufficiently diversified that it took much less of a hit from the dot-com bubble burst than many other areas around the country. Large corporations still set up shop here, which means more people squeezing in and turning wild lands into valuable real estate. My commute used to be about 15-18 minutes. Now its 40, and I travel the same distance as before. All of the while things like miles-per-gallon drop for the average vehicle sold each year.
Population growth rates both nationally and world-wide have been steadily declining for decades now. Check the many resources available via a simple Google search. Still, its not enough, but I doubt that legislation is the option. Technology may be. Industrialized nations have typically smaller growth rates (in some cases, negative). Third world countries have to invest in large families just to ensure survival of kin. We can feed all of the world. We have the technology. We can be much, much better to the environment. We have the technologies. We can educate the general population in a much better fashion (something desperately needed even here). Now, please allow me to be a cynic for a second: It all costs money and may shift the balance of power, which is dangerous indeed. Too many people benefit from the status quo (this is also a barrier against population control legislation, and all of the other warm and fuzzy things that you guys have mentioned).
As far as the educated having less children than the ignorant, you’d may have stumbled into a bit of a fallacy. You see, the bulk of the educated are mediocre just as much as the bulk of the ignorant, and this does not take into account the fact that brilliant people are born to the ignorant just as much as to the educated, if not more (they have after all, more children). I believe that the trick is to eradicate the ignorant element via education. The bulk of the people reproducing will still be, as it has always been, the mediocre, but most will be educated (and hopefully, produce less offspring per capita).
Name: Songslinger
Good Points, You Guys! Gives me hope when I'm in my dotage! Oops, too late...
Name: gyozadude
Kids are okay in Japan. I never sensed any scorn in Japan for having children. It’s a luxury to have children in Japan. While a segment of the genX population in Japan perceives kids as unfashionable, it’s a cyclical thing, I would think. Those young adults hanging out in Shibuya or Tamachi and partying up the wazoo aren’t probably interested in kids, but when they turn 31... there’s some urgency to get married and settled down with kids. But because Japanese couples are marrying older these days, there’s probably less time to have more children. Furthermore, the truth is that many Japanese are learning to cope with job insecurity, something their parents didn’t worry about. This has made children a very costly luxury. I think economic necessity, more than anything else, has made children unfashionable in Japan. I'll note that in Asian societies, besides your family, there is very little gov’t welfare. So if you have children out of wedlock, don’t count on welfare to save you. But fishing ain’t that great in Japan either. Talk about over fishing. Not only do they love to eat fish, but they do make some outstanding tackle to catch fish!
- GyozadudeName: Corbinaman1
Economic Necessity=Less Kids Not Only In Japan. Gyoza, I agree with you that economic necessity is part of the reason people have less kids in Japan. It is the most expensive country (and one of the most homogeneous) countries in the world. In most developed (non 3rd world) countries, the population growth is less than 3rd world countries due to economic necessity. While I agree there is rampant population growth in California (which adversely affects quality of life, pollution, resources, etc.), the population density is NOTHING compared to Japan. I taught English there for a year and have some observations... most people don’t drive much... they take PACKED (like sardines in a can) trains to and from work (1-2 hrs. each way), most wives of salarymen (who work 60-80 hr. weeks) don’t work if they have children, MANY Japanese families live in “tenement style apartment buildings,” that are very crowded. Owning a standard California subdivision house on a “tiny” lot would be considered a luxury by most Japanese and would cost millions. I had a tiny one room apartment that was new and considered “luxurious”... the bathroom was literally the size of one of those airplane bathrooms! Most children go to school 6 long and rigorous days a week there... no “dumbing-down” of schools there! I also heard a crowding statistic that is interesting... Japan has the population of HALF the continent of America crammed into a country the size of California! If California ever became that crowded, we would probably all kill each other due to our selfish individualistic ways! In conclusion, while Japan is crowded, the culture, social mores, “team-oriented”, unselfish, non-individualistic ways, and a little less freedom, lead to less crime (you can safely walk just about anywhere in Japan) and have some positive benefits in society. I would recommend anyone on this board go to Japan to see how crowds and population growth are managed, and can only HOPE that if America ever gets as crowded as Japan, we can manage the growth in a similar way. And no... I never fished while I was in Japan... did see some kid catch (not release) some small perch off a small pier in Tokyo Bay. When I first arrived in Japan, I spent an hour at a 7-Eleven looking at all of the different kinds of fish/seafood (weird stuff) in the aisles, but that is another subject!!
Name: gyozadude
BTW, a clarification: Japan’s population is only about 100 Million +/- 10 million. The N. American continent hosts about 400+ Million. So they cram about 1/4 of the population into an area about the size of California. But they do eat lots of fish. Small pier fishing is fairly productive in off shoot towns along the coastline. But the danger of course is the industrial pollutants. Japan has been known in the past for mass deaths due to methyl mercury in the waters.
I think Japan is exceptional in its ability to cope with large population density. They use it to drive environmental initiatives like mass transit, recycling, and co-generation. They also have near zero illiteracy in their country. They also have some of the most developed wireless networks because of that density. Their strength is in their racial and cultural homogeneity. Ironically, the US claims that its strength is in its diversity... and for us, it perhaps is. But Japan leverages its homogeneity to raise awareness of issues and to drive eco-environmental-fashion trends and surprisingly, Japan adopts these trends much more rapidly than other nations; it’s part of their culture that drives for incremental improvement. We in the US, on the other hand, have lots of retro-grouches that often claim “if it ain’t broke, why fix it.”
The one problem however is the amount of seafood the Japanese consume. Much of their seafood is caught in international waters, and satellite photos show clearly the thousands of lights of trawlers fishing far off the coast in Pacific waters at night for quite a few species. I'm certain that if this became a more scare resource, the Japanese would find a way to leverage aqua-culture, just as Mikimoto perfected the cultured pearl cultivation technique.
I wish we could take a leap forward in commercial fisheries and have DFG subsidize more programs to support aqua-culture for the 3 or 4 “S” species. British Columbia does quite a bit of management in this respect, so it isn’t something we need to create ourselves. They have hatcheries that target specific species. Hatchery fish can be taken and possessed by fishermen while wild run fish must be released. They do this by marking fish at birth. For example, Salmon have their smaller dorsal fin, which is basically useless, clipped off prior to release into streams and rivers. When they grow to legal size in the ocean, it is easy to spot these hatchery fish. Some hatchery fish do survive to spawn and help add to the natural stocks. Those considered “natural” tend to be stronger fish which help keep the natural population healthier (via natural selection), and it’s hard to clip the smaller dorsal off after a catch to fake it since actual hatchery salmon have at least 2 years of growth and healing at the wound site. The system appears to be working. In some spots off Vancouver Island, the runs are so strong with natural salmon that more than half the hook ups are natural salmon that must be released. The last 3 or 4 small (10”) salmon I've hooked up with there were natural. Very cool to know that this system is working. - Gyozadude
Name: Corbinaman1
Interesting Points Gyoza About Japan. I stand corrected on that statistic of half of America's population crammed into an area the size of California. A quarter of America's population however, is still some serious density! Also, recycling, etc. is promoted there (which is good), however, when I was there I remember that they “wrapped” everything in plastic or Styrofoam. Even apples, etc. in the stores were individually wrapped in Styrofoam... seems pretty wasteful. Also, they burn a lot of their garbage over there. Now... back to fishing!