According to my CV some people would say I am, but you don't need to be a qualified biologist to digest the following info[b said:Quote[/b] ]I am no marine biologist
An understatement! Sharks reproduce very very slowly in comparison to other fish, a porbeagle will bear 2-4 live pups generally between 60 to 75 cm long at birth after a gestation periodd of 8-9 months. Female porbeagles reach sexual maturity at an age of 12 years or older, while the males are mature at age 7. Average natural lifespan is believed to be around 35 years, litters of pups are currently believed to occur on average every third year[b said:Quote[/b] ]
but I would guess that catching 129 porbeagle sharks would have more impact on their viability as a species than catching 129 mackerel.
Female Mackerel on the other hand are sexually mature at one year old and annually lay between 200 000 and 500 000 pelargic eggs 1 mm in diameter. Fry 3mm in size hatch at the end of an incubation period which lasts 6 days.
Many things that are now illegal used to be perfectly legal, such as drinking and driving, just because something is not illegal does not make it morally correct[b said:Quote[/b] ]To the YD conservationist crusaders I would say don't forget the man in question has done nothing illegal
No but I'm sure your maths is more than adequate to crunch the numbers I've given above a new born female pup today would need to survive about 12 years before it could even add an extra one to the population so the effect of losing over one hundered animals will be huge[b said:Quote[/b] ] I don’t know enough to know if 129 sharks are a large proportion or just a drop in the ocean
Yes perhaps, and struggling Captains of Industry could get the same financial lifeline if we relaxed laws designed to protect our fragile environment from unmitigated pursuit of Mammon[b said:Quote[/b] ]maybe he is a struggling fisherman who has just received a financial lifeline
Which is arguably the major challenge that our society faces today[b said:Quote[/b] ] It would seem that conservation and capitalism don’t work well together
Couldn't agree more, and due to our population densities and rapid intercontinental travel, our society has never in it's history been more vulnerable to Nature's answer to problem populations - disease! If the SARS virus had had the same capabilities as the Ebola or other haemorraghic fever viruses the world might be a very different place.[b said:Quote[/b] ] Mind you, from what I have learned, it is just humans that are the problem – whatever the system
Design only if you're a religous type (which believe it or not I don't have a problem with shock ! horror!)[b said:Quote[/b] (Finless @ Dec. 05 2003,11:51)]It is easy to imagine that outbreaks of disease etc are a design safety feature to stop excessive expansion of a species. By luck or by design I wonder?
But I am Dr Evil and one day you and your offspring will all serve me and my mini-me baw haw haw haw haw....[b said:
Well.... I suppose if I had sufficient spare time I could spend several days reading the latest data in the relevant journals, then a further day or two distilling the must know info into a form easily digested by members of the public who haven't been trained in: Accepted Methods of Scientific Investigation, Population Genetics, Fisheries Management, Behavioural Ecology etc etc etc and hopefully end up with a simple version of "Effects of unmanaged fisheries policies on the population dynamics of a West European squaline apex predator Lamna nasus (Bonnaterre) in UK Coastal waters"[b said:Quote[/b] (Finless @ Dec. 07 2003,23:20)]If you do not actually know the figures then I don't agree that this is a reasonable assumption. I spent 45 minutes on line trying to find figures on the UK annual Porbeagle catch without success. Either I can't find it (highly likely) or the info is not available on the web. 129 could be anywhere between insignificant to disastrous.