# Brookie Mount



## quest32a (Sep 25, 2001)

Nice fish, I deleted some of the off topic stuff that got piled on here.


----------



## sushiyummy (Jul 19, 2006)

ScienceDaily (Jan. 12, 2006) &#8212; Why does it take so long for fish stocks to recover from over-fishing? This problem has been worrying both scientists and fishery managers who expect stocks to quickly rebound when fishing stops.

Now a research team from Stony Brook University believes they have an answer: continually harvesting the largest and oldest fish (as fishing regulations typically require) alters not only size but also numerous other genetic characteristics that are harmful to the overall population.

As reported in Ecology Letters, the researchers experimentally harvested captive groups of a marine fish named the Atlantic silverside. Removing the largest fish over several generations gradually caused a "Darwinian debt": the fish that remained in these populations became progressively smaller but surprisingly many other traits also changed including fewer and smaller eggs with lower survival and growth.

Even behavioural traits like foraging and feeding rate declined. Collectively these changes hamper population recovery and because they are genetic, they don't immediately go away when fishing ceases. How long it would take to undo the debt is now being studied by the research team. 


Adapted from materials provided by Blackwell Publishing Ltd., via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.

For direct link: *
For story on above photo: *

*Haven't posted 15 entries, thus there is no hyperlink. PM me and I can send you links.

PS: Here is one of the responses from another forum that sheds light how other states/ fisheries have embraced this Darwinian Debt concept.

_I agree,but,it is the job of the managers to implement regulations that prevent the fishers/hunters/harvesters from going down that path[I know....there is pressure to bow towards policy that sells licenses.... which fund their paychecks].If they thought longer term they would sell plenty of licenses!Texas is the only state I have lived in that seems to understand that. Most Texas lakes and the Gulf have regulations that severely restrict[as in zero or 1 fish allowed to be kept above a certain size][usually determined considering the size they begin to be spawners] and liberal numbers of fish under that size which may be retained. A fisherman is only able to keep one Redfish over 28 " a year[with a special tag],but 5 every day between 20 & 28..On Lake Texoma ,you can keep 10 Stripers,but only two may be bigger than 20".
The deer management in Texas focuses on doe harvest and letting bucks reach a mature age with lots of competition for the does.All about buck/doe ratios and age. Arizona is superb in big game management.They sell lots of licenses for nice prices!!!
Washington has done a perfect job of selective breeding in reverse!_


----------

