Talk:Maximum sustainable yield

message: This article is not really a "stub about a fish" because it's about fishery economics in general. Also, should this article be made more general to talk about other resources? I am skeptical that MSY only applies to fisheries.
I'm pretty sure MSY can apply to any species, not just fish.
:Yep, definitely. Richard001 (talk) 06:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: will add sources, figures, and formatting to population growth and modeling MSY sections. B.A.D.oebeditors (talk) 23:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: About fish?

message: ::The picture about msy is mainly from a conversationists point of view. Most of the examples are about fish that were fished above their maximum sustainable yield. Lower yields then the MSY due to increased fishery pressure are also possible, which does not mean that these yields are not sustainable. This is the case with most established fisheries. The high reproductive rates allow for more fishing which is not beneficial for the fisherie (tragedy of the commons etc.) but nevertheless  following economics. In the case of North Sea fisheries catches have been above MSY for decennia, but still no species that are important to the fisheries have been exterminated and total catches have stabilized also.
Many species of fish prove to be resilient to this type of overfishing, especialy fish like the peruvian anchoveta which has large population fluctuations due to climatic factors. I don't think any of the examples have pointed out a fish stock that was exterminated because of fishing at MSY, because the recruitment of a fish population is not very dependent on the stock in most cases. 
The decline in fisheries is simply not there, at the eighties eighty million tonnes of fish were caught yearly, whereas now the total catch has come to a stable 100 million tonnes, so from a food perspective there is no overfishing.
The composition of the stocks has fallen to smaller sized fish that are more resistant to fishing and less resistant species have declined until dangerously low numbers. This is not due to catching these species at MSY however, but due to overfishing of that particular species (high demand and low resistance to overfishing). 
I don't think a stock harvested at MSY is in an unstable equilibrium, this could theoretically be the case, but in case of a catch that is too high in a particular year, there would be compensatory growth, other species entering the catch etc. and the stock would return to normal levels. The main problem is not the MSY but the increased fishing effort when catches are declining, this increased fishing effort (putting bigger fykes to compensate for the lower yields) is a cause of decline of fish populations, because it truly is a positive feedback loop. It can be stated that MSY is an agent here, because when the MSY is treated as a set value not dependent on the standing stock then the aforementioned positive feedback loop will be justified through such a MSY. In most cases MSY is a variable dependent on the stock that is estimated and will be like 30% of the standing stock biomass, depending on growth and reproduction rates.Viridiflavus (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Biased article?

message: Can anyone tell what are the differences between those two? Also some sources on OSY would be nice. I can only find vague stuff online. 141.53.222.245 (talk) 18:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  MEY vs. OSY 

message: The paragraph about the history is unsatisfying. It claims that the idea arose in New Jersey, but cites only three early articles: Two by British authors and one Norwegian. The link to New Jersey is not substantiated. The history seems to be biased towards the US American perspective. 
UffeHThygesen (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: The lead section is acceptable, however much of it seems somewhat redundant and could inhibit readers from wanting to read the rest of the article. The lead section defines what maximum sustainable yield is, but does it inefficiently. The content of the article is overall acceptable, but it does not cover problems with the maximum sustainable yield adequately in the criticism section which gives an overall impression of being slightly misleading. The tone is neutral but there is not enough weight given to criticisms section, and the models limitations are poorly highlighted. This leads to the reader believing that there is very limited criticisms. Some of the sources are modern, but most would be generally considered to be out of date given the advances in fisheries and forestry management strategies. The sources do appear to be reliable primary sources. Writing quality appears to be adequate with no glaring issues present. The media is uselessly captioned with the only way of understanding what it is being imbedded in the article itself. The media looks extremely unappealing and do not appear to have any sources. There are a few conversations about the bias in the article and also poorly defined terminology. The article is rated star class for fisheries and fishing, ecology, and economics. The article is overall ok, it needs improved media, and expanded criticism section. The article is strong in the modelling section, but needs some refinement of the lead. Maybe some more examples of the where this was used would be helpful to readers?
Alex Prieditis (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constructive critique/evaluation