I would hope the species would be allowed to rebound more despite anecdotal "evidence" of them no longer being in short supply.
Anecdotal, really? Please enlighten me on your data source.
If enough true scientific studies show a significant rebound of a specific species of fish is present, then by all means consider a limited harvest. I am just not quick to jump the gun to opening it back up just because a few people here and there say they see goliaths "all the time". My sister and brother in law live in Punta Gorda
There is enough evidence to support a limited harvest according to research and the established MaxN and M used in present stock assessments.
Is your sister or brother in law working on goliath studies and if so, to what capacity?
I'm not very sensitive, otherwise I might remind people of their infancy in this sport.
Huh?
Like I said they are useless over 200 lbs But no one can tell me that a limited harvest would hurt anything.
Would disagree on the over 200 lb comment. Sounds as if you just need a few different reciepes.
As for the limited harvest, um, yes they can, their "production" you watched just did...........
It's sure to stir up the debate on the Goliath Grouper and get the conversation going in the right direction.
Let us know what you think!
I think you had participation in a show that took less of the scientific approach and more on the plagiarism side of an organization trying to convey a bias viewpoint. Clearly conjecture was part of the theme as there were personal interpretations and opinions expressed throughout the entire film without a scientific hypothesis or method mentioned. Nothing wrong with that, lets just call a spade a spade.....
Too many variables not mentioned about how the base line was established or defined. Not to mention leading comments and characteristics portrayed that aren't natural behavioral patterns.....
Filming was good, even got an announcer with a voice suited to the theme.
just more fisheries trickery. So much for unbiased opinions and real scientific data.
Did you really expect something different? Because they used Tony's boat, that they properly represented the "other sides" viewpoint? That is their big token on being equal and non bias? Yes I say other side since their motive is clearly to oppose a fishery for this species at all. So much for letting the data lead you to a conclusion.
Not having disclosed their financial grant money source or who they are working with will really produce questions about their bias and therefore the show's episode.
This was clear when all of the "scientists" were pro for not harvesting in any fashion..... Comments like "just big babies" and then the final straw....... petting one at the end....... yeah, that is a natural behavioral pattern of the species..... talk about taking something out of context and not keeping it data specific...... can you say agenda?
East coast, Jupiter and below does not see the numbers that the gulf side is seeing.
I have dove both sides quite a bit. I will say that although Jupiter appears to have a small stock, it to has really increased in the last 5-8 years overall.
I think a tag program is an excellent idea so size, stomach contents, and olith's can be studied.
Although for nothing more than a scientific application this would make sense, well....... how could you harvest an animal that you can clearly swim up to and pet?
jnicholson1437
Again, congrats on the videos. You made a good looking film that conveys the point you intended to communicate irrespective of it being a bit bias.
