Sometimes what you read about just makes you go, “Duh! Like this is something new.” For instance I just read an article titled “Fishing ban brings seas to life”. This article is all about how a no fish zone created 5 years ago and is now full of lobster and fish. Now what the hell do these people think. Humans have been hitting the oceans hard with commercial fishing and of course that has depleted stocks. Now common sense says if you stop the commercial fishing then the stocks, if not completely wiped out, will come back with time. Why do we need a scientist to tell us this?
In one article titled “Ban Spurs Dramatic Fish Recovery in Australia” , Sweatman, a reef ecologist at the Australian Institute of Marine Science, said "My 10-year-old son saw the graphs and said, If you stop fishing, don't you expect to find more fish?
If a 10 year old can come to that conclusion then what the hell is wrong with the policy makers.
Now I am an angler and a bit of a fanatic about it and as much as I don't like it, no take zones do help. The problem I see is that the no take zones usually affect the recreational angler and not the commercial angler. What kind of hog wash is that? Who does more damage, the angler with a rod taking home a feed or the trawler scraping the bottom of all life forms and taking tons of fish? Seems like a pretty easy question even for a policy maker. Ah, but then politics comes into play and of course with politics comes money and interest groups, and with money comes corruption. To bad for the fish and to bad for us anglers trying to get a feed and have some fun.
Maybe one day the people who make policies will hold an open discussion with a few 10 year olds and actually listen to what they have to say. And maybe, if that happens we might see our fish stocks come back. And maybe, if that happens, nah, that’s asking a little too much.
Tight lines and policy changes