Talk:Fisheries management

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fisheries, aquaculture and fishing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fisheries and FishingWikipedia:WikiProject Fisheries and FishingTemplate:WikiProject Fisheries and FishingFishing articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 14 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kacoba.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Adriannew92.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Types of yields

I added some of the content on types of yield (both in this article and in the individual yield articles), but I am not absolutely certain of the definitions:

So I need someone to verify the content I wrote as well as add more info. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 02:38, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

2006 economics fisheries management paper

I ran across Fisheries management with stock growth uncertainty and costly capital adjustment today. Like most economics papers, it's tough to interpret exactly. In its conclusion it says it "solves for the optimal management policy in a fishery [Alaska halibut] that is subject to stock growth uncertainty and costly capital adjustment". The optimal management is different from the current management in that, first of all, "fish stock is managed using a constant harvest rate (hereafter, CHR) rule, by which the catch is determined as a fixed percentage of the beginning period". They say that the "second obvious difference between the actual and optimal policy results from the restrictions placed on the consolidation of harvest quota; the number of boats in the pacific halibut fishery is bounded below". (Last clause seems like an error.) A bit later in the conclusion it says "Increased fleet size raises the immediate harvest value of the fish stock. All else equal, the fishery manager should increase current period catch if the fishing fleet is large, and leave more fish in the sea if the fleet is small. Leaving more fish for future harvest allows time to invest in more fishing boats which can harvest the surplus stock at lower cost and increase fishery value".

Anyway, if anyone wants to look at the article, shoot me an email. II | (t - c) 04:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Actually it is available as a pdf here --Geronimo20 (talk) 07:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Variety of mechanisms

The "mechanisms" section seems to be missing some types of regulations, like "days at sea" limits, limited fishing seasons, daily quotas, etc. It would be interesting to have more discussion of the different types of regulations used in practice, and the pros and cons. -- Beland (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Telemetry tags

Read an interesting press release on these tags [1]. The article doesn't seem to be out yet (journal homepage). II | (t - c) 16:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Epipelagic's reversions

In what sense is this "political" and in what sense is it weak? They could as easily be described as economic or general, which is why I removed the qualifier. I think both "objectives" sections need to be restructured to separate objectives from activities. Please back out or cite this uncited text that you restored:

"The political goal of resource use is often a weak part of the system of fisheries management, as objectives can conflict. "

You restored this misleading sentence:

" losing $50 billion USD each year through depleted stocks and poor fisheries management"

This implies that the industry is massively unprofitable, which the prior wording " depleted stocks and poor fisheries management are costing the world's fishing fleets $50 billion USD " does not. The prior wording was also shorter and eliminated the prepositional construction. Please reverse your change.

This sentence is not logical and its point is already captured in the text above it, that there aren't as many fish as there would be with better managed fisheries.:

"In addition, the biomass of global fish stocks have been allowed to run down to the point where it is no longer possible to catch the amount of fish that could be caught."

"the role of elderly maternal fish in not primarily a matter of size"

For a given species, size is the metric of age, which is why fisheries use size limits rather than (unmeasurable) age limits as a control mechanism.

You write, "this (uncited) addition in no way illuminates the point of this section)" about:

"Conversely, many species do not begin to reproduce until they have lived for years or decades. Harvesting young fish may mean that no individuals of a given generation survive long enough to begin reproducing."

What is the point of this section? It reads like a discussion of a fisheries management technique. If so, the paragraph is completely germane. I take your point about the cite, but the article has lots of uncited material in it.

Okay, I've cited the bit you wanted cited and reworded the World Bank passage so it quotes directly from the horses mouth. I have no idea what your issue is with elderly maternal fish. This is recent research which cuts across received wisdom in fisheries research. I put it in as an interesting example of the new ecosystem approach to fisheries. It does not particularly belong as a key point under "management mechanism" as you keep insisting. It is more a refinement which applies only to certain species. Nor is it primarily a matter of "size", which seems also such an issue with you. The main point is that the fish are elderly breeders. Why do you keep changing things that do not need changing, and are not improved by the changes? And I do not understand why you insist on adding your own, uncited thoughts on matters like this? Do you really have an expert background here? Even if you have, if you want to add stuff like that then make sure that it relates to the research on elderly maternal fish, and cite it appropriately. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the cite, although you didn't address my deeper issue, which is that the point isn't a good one. The issues it mentions aren't specifically political, although they may indeed conflict. Also, you picked your point from a sentence that doesn't recommend itself strongly. It's ungrammatical, possibly a poor xlation, suggesting that it may not be properly conveying its authors intent. To wit:

"The political goal of resource use is often a weak part of fisheries management system as conflicting objective is often found when exploiting a fish resource as to maximize sustainable biomass yield and sustainable economic yield, to increase employment in certain regions, to secure protein production, food supply and increase export income."

Your cites don't mention the word "elderly", which is an absolute measure, and which in reference to people means well past retirement. They do mention "older", which simply means not young. And the measure of "older", as I stated, is size! To wit:

"A 50 cm Boccacio rockfish, for example, will produce nearly 200,000 larvae, while an 80 cm fish will produce ten times that - nearly 2 million."

You don't address my other points, which is your choice. I don't fight reversion wars, so this is as good as we'll get. I am not an expert in the field, but I don't believe that my edits conveyed anything different. We may have to disagree on that, too. Lfstevens (talk) 04:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Fisheries management. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Fisheries management. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Better structure needed

This article needs a better structure and use of standard headings. EMsmile (talk) 06:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bit of work on this now; I have tried to move things to more logical places so that we have more Level-2 headings instead of everything as a Level-1 heading. EMsmile (talk) 14:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]