From: kjun@typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu (Pat Fitzpatrick)
Subject: Re: Oregon/Washington fishing trouble??
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 18:23:01 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Colorado State University -- Atmos Sci
Keywords: population

In article <5049@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> night@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM (Mark W Nightingale) writes:
>(Pat Fitzpatrick) writes:
>>dixon@spot.Colorado.EDUwrites:
>>>Yeah, I have to agree...population growth is the root of all the
>>>problems. 
>>
>>No, not necessarily. Lack of spawning grounds, wetlands, habitat is probably
>>more important. 
>
>Now, ask yourself why there is a lack of spawning grounds, wetlands and screwed
>up habitat...
>
>It comes from population growth.
>
>I think Dixon is right... Population growth is THE ROOT of it all.

I think there definitely is a correlation to people living on the coast, and
to pollution from these people and indirectly from dumping of chemicals and
such from companies. 

But if, by some magic, all coastal populations were zapped from the face of the earth, without the estuaries there STILL would be no fish for a long time.
The estuaries must be restored, either by nature (a SLOW process) or by man
himself. I used to subscribe to the theory that commercial and sports fishing
hurt fish populations, but with commericial fishing banned in Texas, and strict
limits imposed on sports fisherman, there still hasn't been any real improvement

I'm not saying that commericial fishing or sports fishing hasn't contributed
tothe mess -- it certainly has. But somebody has already noted that sports
fishing is decreasing, and commericalk fishing is now virtually gone. Yet,
the fishing has still not improved. Slowly but surely pollution is decreasing
also. But fishing still sucks in Galveston.

I maintain we have only addressed 50% of the problem. Making stricter regulations will not help, either. HELL, even a total ban on fishing for a couple of 
years probably wouldn't help (it could come to this -- see Florida's ban
on snook, Louisiana's ban on redfish for part of the year).

Without restoration of wetlands, undammed rivers, etc, the fishing will never 
considerably improve. 

Furthermore, I maintain that man CAN coexist with nature on the coast with
very WISE conservation efforts. Little things like not dumping car oil down
a drain (these draind almost always go into the water near the coast). 
Lake Ponchartrain in Louisiana amd Galveston Bay receive more oil from
this than a MAJOR OIL SPILL by a company. Hell, let's stop these drains
from going into the bays all together.

Let's try stopping fancy condo's from being built on the Gulf Coast unless
they are VERY conservation minded. It's stupid to build condo's anyway on the 
coast anyway because of hurricanes. There just has been a lack of hurricanes
the last twenty years because of the drought in Africa. Once this drought
ends, watch out for the hurricanes. LOTS of people will be in for a rude
awakening! (I'm a meteorologist, can you tell? :-) )

Anyway, with some common sense, people can live on the coast within certain
guidelines. Some kind of effort should be started to set these guidelines
(and not in Washington -- it wil never get done)

As for the restoration program, my wife, a biologist participated in such a
program one summer, with good results considering that she was the only one
that gave a damn. God forbid that anyone in the wildlife department in Texas
help her (Of course, they ultimately took credit for it). That is why this
would have to be a grass-roots project, not in the government

It has also been suggested that my wife and I help start such a project. This
is not possible now, seeing as we are both students and in Colorado. But I
encourage that someone else do this. Perhaps my wife and I can help, say
five years from now.....

With hope for the future....

Pat

(my apalogies for my earlier rude behavior, but hopefully everyone sees my 
point clearer now)

Newsgroups: alt.fishing