Corpusfishing.com

[grasscutter]

Mr. Central Scrutinizer, I cannot take credit for the below answer to the debatable problem you so eloquently presented to the board, but this a response I received from someone where I work.

"Almost a perfect proof. Only problem happens on the line where you divide both sides by (a-b). Since you claimed that a = b, then a - b = 0, and division by zero is not defined. You can not divide by a - b."

[Central Scrutinizer]

grasscutter, you are exactly correct. Dividing by 0 is undefined, thus the proof is invalid. It is the classic example of a mathematical fallacy. On the surface, it looks to defy logic, but closer inspection reveals some algebra that looks O.K., but clearly can not happen. Good for you for finding out the answer.

Kinda like the Missing Dollar informal fallacy!

[mesquitecountry]

Here is a math equation that everyone gets.

If you have a 1000 and add back 500, and subtract 500, you still get a 1000. But if you add 500, then start taking 600, you get to zero pretty quickly.

It's pretty clear the only people posting positively for this are the ones that gain to profit from it.

To be clear I wish there were no limits and everyone self governed themselves, but like everything in life the bad apples spoil the batch.

[Rebecca of Sunnybrookfarm]

responses in italics below.....

http://www.caee.utexas.edu/prof/maidment/giswr2011/TermPaper/Linn.pdf

If you take the time to read this article and still challenge the presence OR importance of seagrasses in CC Bay then I don't care to discuss it any further because it spells it out pretty well.

its a fine article, and you evidently didn't read it at all....it proves everything I was trying to tell you, and yet you still argue? wow....I don't care to discuss it anymore either, and it's even something you found.....ltorna showed the map of where the samples were taken, and NONE were taken where shrimpers drag their nets (in CC bay proper, and the ICWW_....light attenuation vs. depth (Figure 10).....it also resounds exactly what I was telling you about the predominance of phytoplankton/algae, which is the main source of chlorophyll in the bay (Figure 11).....high numbers of chlorophyll result in low levels of seagrass.....its what I was trying to tell you, what the Armstrong paper says, and what this paper by Ken Dunton says.....you're the only one out there by yourself on that issue, sir....

If your scientific bible is from 1987 it is time to update and I can never once recall a research assignment that asked for or allowed only 1 source much less a 20+ year old one. There is of course great value in using multiple sources instead of basing your ideas on one document.

see comment above; all evidence points to "my idea" being correct....well, except your opinion that I'm wrong, which the scientific evidence proves I'm not...

The Chesapeake Bay article was from a .gov website instead of a wiki like you claim but we can all see your reading is shaky at best. I can see why you tried to discount it after you claimed that seagrass couldn't provide a significant amount of energy conversion for a bay ecosystem and the article stated as high as 70%. I of course understand that phytoplankton is also a major contributor but trying to write off seagrass in this department all together is a huge error. I would probably try to hide it myself if I had made it.[/quote]

MY reading is shaky? no one reading this in their right mind would agree with the body of evidence I"ve put forward, and that you helped prove....and I'm not trying to hide anything....in fact, THANK YOU for finding a source that proves exactly what I was saying....

now, no doubt seagrasses are important, that's not arguable.....my premise this that an overwhelming majority of shrimping does NOT occur in areas with "70% seagrass coverage".....
becky
_________________

[Rebecca of Sunnybrookfarm]

[Rebecca of Sunnybrookfarm]

[Rebecca of Sunnybrookfarm]

[Rebecca of Sunnybrookfarm]

[Jason Slocum]

I'll kick the ant bed one more time....

What if all the reduced by-catch (pin-fish, spot, and croaker) from the 70% reduction in shrimpers (shrimp license by-back program) is consuming more shrimp?

Less shrimping = more predators = less shrimp.

As to the seagrass around CCB it cant really exist in areas where sunlight cant reach the bottom on a regular basis. the ICWW, and CC ship channel, and 80% of CCB are too deep for seagrass to live. 90% of the boats that shrimp in CCB draft 6' or more so their boats cant even run shallow enough to pull the nets through seagrass areas.

[Rebecca of Sunnybrookfarm]

[greenhornet2]

quote]

MY reading is shaky? no one reading this in their right mind would agree with the body of evidence I"ve put forward, and that you helped prove....and I'm not trying to hide anything....in fact, THANK YOU for finding a source that proves exactly what I was saying....

now, no doubt seagrasses are important, that's not arguable.....my premise this that an overwhelming majority of shrimping does NOT occur in areas with "70% seagrass coverage".....
becky[/quote]

To be clear I never said anything about 70% seagrass coverage, 70% was referencing their portion of the primary productivity in a bay ecosytem. This was obviously misunderstood and it's also a misunderstanding if you think that article contradicts any of my statements.

[Rebecca of Sunnybrookfarm]

[Rebecca of Sunnybrookfarm]

[lifeaquatic]

Becky,

I think I know what you are after. For Bay the annual increase is basically 1/3 of the delta used for the single season - without counting actual days, and much less of an affect for Bait.

25% increase of limits = 8.3% annual change
80% increase in hours = 26.7% annual change

Did I do that right?
_________________
kick your shoes off and cast a line

[Blast-n-Cast]

Funny how those for this want to hang on the Sea Grass point. Like I said I don't agree that it doesnt deserve consideration, but take it out of the equation and tell me how increasing the bag limit and increasing the legal hours fixes a declining shrimp fishery.