The science has caught up with the BS.
According to George Burgess, there are not 3-400, but at least 2,400 GWS off California.
Dunno if this even includes the Mexican GWS - but in any case, talk about the absolutely spectacular! vindication of Domeier who first pointed the finger at the flaws of the Chapple paper years ago (scroll down) and got shouted down by the sharktivists, and also of Chris Lowe's guest post on SFS!
Once published, this will be the best available science.
But NOAA is obviously already convinced and has declined the ESA listing, which is the correct decision.
As a reminder, this is not about GWS protection in general.
They are already a protected species, and may well warrant additional conservation/fisheries management measures to limit bycatch especially of the juveniles in the nursery area.
But the super stringent and wide reaching protection under ESA is clearly not warranted.
As a reminder, this is not about GWS protection in general.
They are already a protected species, and may well warrant additional conservation/fisheries management measures to limit bycatch especially of the juveniles in the nursery area.
But the super stringent and wide reaching protection under ESA is clearly not warranted.
And the CESA listing?
I'm inclined to change my prediction.
The flaws have turned out to be so egregious that the petitions have been deprived of any credibility and should actually be retracted. Not gonna happen I fear - but I just cannot anymore see the California Department of Fish and Wildlife exposing themselves to ridicule by confirming their provisional protection.
But then again... :)
PS interesting info here, indicating that NOAA did not see the Burgess draft paper, and that they themselves have come to the conclusion that the NE-Pacific GWS population may number as high as 3,000.
As for this editorial - not impressed!
No comments:
Post a Comment