NC Angler Forums banner
1 - 20 of 37 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
768 Posts
While it may have some truth to it, it's more about political agenda. And I'll leave that there. But don't put to much into a study fueled by some tree hugging NOAA scientist.......trust me. I can't get to much into it on this site.

And yea, they will find the worst looking picture of a fish massacre to post up along with the story.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,624 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
While it may have some truth to it, it's more about liberal agenda.(something we all need to be concerned about) And I'll leave that there. But don't put to much into a study fueled by some tree hugging NOAA scientist(or NBC).......trust me. I can't get to much into it on this site.

And yea, they will find the worst looking picture of a fish massacre to post up along with the story.
It's a Canadian & European study; NBC is just where a liberal news reader would be likely to find a report on it... :D

EDIT - despite my politics, those are some tasty looking swordfish. Because of the decline, everyone but me needs to quit eating them though...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,375 Posts
While it may have some truth to it, it's more about liberal agenda.(something we all need to be concerned about) And I'll leave that there. But don't put to much into a study fueled by some tree hugging NOAA scientist(or NBC).......trust me. I can't get to much into it on this site.

And yea, they will find the worst looking picture of a fish massacre to post up along with the story.
Just wondering if the report was the opposite, whether you would post that it is just some conservative agenda? Or is it just too easy to blow off science with a ridiculous comment?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jackson

·
Registered
Joined
·
768 Posts
Just wondering if the report was the opposite, whether you would post that it is just some conservative agenda? Or is it just too easy to blow off science with a ridiculous comment?
Well, I would splain it to you since you obviously don't know. But it would be politically based.... And I'm pretty sure politics are not allowed.

Just saying, don't take it to serious there buddy. Seems I said something ruffle some feathers so I edited post.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,624 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
If I search for info on worldwide fish stocks:

https://www.google.com/?q=worldwide fish stocks&gws_rd=ssl#q=worldwide+fish+stocks

I don't see anything but pretty gloomy reports. I see several of those from many different sources. There doesn't seem to be disagreement that they are in decline. If we get into how quickly we should do what to address it, there will be some disagreement. But there is no need to get political. If Phil or someone else wants to post up links to other studies that show this isn't happening, I would like to see them. I am just trying to promote awareness.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
768 Posts
Like I said in my first post there is truth to it. But there is a political agenda (a certain party) out there to stop fishing in several countries. 10 years a go this reality was far fetched, not so much now.

In other words you will find many stories (paid for stories) that will back the decline. So after they have people panicking enough about fish populations, the plan gets put into motion.

None of this is my opinion, its something that I know is going on. They even have our president buying into it.

All I'm saying is most everything you find on this subject.....can't trusted. And reason being there is a certain crowd trying to put an end to what we love to do.......FISH.

Not sure that you can, but try and really deepen your research, and not just some Google searches.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,624 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
I do see some bias out there. It's interesting that the UN report uses the term "fully exploited" and then explains it means harvested at the maximum sustainable level. Sustainable is the what I think the goal should be. A lot of stocks are being fished at levels that aren't sustainable, or so it appears.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,375 Posts
I do agree that not all true scientific studies are correct, just do not buy into the agenda theories, think it is more times bad method and occasionally bias does play into it. There are plenty of bogus studies out there, but I do not consider those science. Typically you need to see where the funding came from and who the experts are. If the funding comes from an organizations with bias, then usually it is not worth reading, another warning sign is when the experts are retired professors, this means they are paid experts, not non-partial participants.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rmar and boredgunny

·
Registered
Joined
·
768 Posts
I do agree that not all true scientific studies are correct, just do not buy into the agenda theories, think it is more times bad method and occasionally bias does play into it. There are plenty of bogus studies out there, but I do not consider those science. !!Typically you need to see where the funding came from and who the experts are!!. If the funding comes from an organizations with bias, then usually it is not worth reading, another warning sign is when the experts are retired professors, this means they are paid experts, not non-partial participants.
Lot of truthful statements right there.

Yes, a lot of what you will find is paid by and for an agenda.

Again this is not an opinion. Oh and BTW ******, nice photo. :D But I'm neither, I'll stay independent, and lean conservative.


And even though I've known about this for years and before I knew some of my neighbors. I actually have neighbors that are ill willed to anybody that goes anywhere near the water with a fish hook. And have bought into this whole no fishing idea....
 
1 - 20 of 37 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top