Georgia's redfish population

[boatbuilder]

Just my personal opinion but I think they Need to tighten the limits.

Trout limits too.

 

[boatbuilder]

I hope so. But I wonder if they are just assessing redfish stocks or if they are collecting data needed to determine if the ecosystem can support a significant increase in the stocks. Doubling the cattle on a pasture won't produce more beef without the grass needed to feed them.

Reviewing the primary production data for Georgia inshore and nearshore waters suggests that the region is much less fertile in 2020 than it was in 1990. This means the same water may not be able to feed as many redfish as in the past. One way to get a handle on that question is to measure lengths and weights for lots of fish. If the redfish are underpopulated and plump, this suggests the population can be increased and there will be enough forage. If the redfish are underpopulated and skinny, tighter harvest restrictions is like adding more cattle to a pasture full of skinny cattle with insufficient grass.

Harvest regulations for species near the top of the food chain usually amount to dividing a fixed pie among stakeholders. A preferable approach would be to figure out how to make a bigger pie. Just like more grass can produce more beef, there are ways to increase the available forage for the redfish in the ecosystem. More forage means more redfish.

Do we really want to make the water more fertile?

The bass fishing in West Point has declined since atlanta started fixing the sewer overflows.

 

[LittleDrummerBoy]

Do we really want to make the water more fertile?

The bass fishing in West Point has declined since atlanta started fixing the sewer overflows.

Sewer overflow is pollution, but not every source of nitrogen and phosphorus is pollution. Overly tight environmental regulations on N and P are hurting Georgia's fishery productivity in lots of places.

The big difference between the Louisiana gulf fishery and Georgia's salt water fishery is Louisiana waters are fertilized by all the agricultural runoff coming down the Mississippi River, which has not been reduced significantly by environmental regulations. Unfortunately, the N and P flowing into Georgia's nearshore waters have been significantly reduced by environmental regulations.

It is well known that fisheries production increases with N and P levels up to a point above which it begins to decline. Louisiana waters are near the peak of the response, so cutting N and P levels would hurt, but significantly increasing them would also likely reduce production. In contrast, Georgia waters are nowhere near the peak of fishery response to N and P levels, so the response of the fisheries to N and P would certainly be positive and approximately proportional to the additional fertilizer.

If you want more cattle on the same pasture, you have to fertilize the grass. No, don't let raw sewage into the water upstream, but let in a lot more N and P. You can't have fisheries production return to what it was in the 1990s without fertility and primary production levels returning to what they were in the 1990s.

 

[boatbuilder]

Sewer overflow is pollution, but not every source of nitrogen and phosphorus is pollution. Overly tight environmental regulations on N and P are hurting Georgia's fishery productivity in lots of places.

The big difference between the Louisiana gulf fishery and Georgia's salt water fishery is Louisiana waters are fertilized by all the agricultural runoff coming down the Mississippi River, which has not been reduced significantly by environmental regulations. Unfortunately, the N and P flowing into Georgia's nearshore waters have been significantly reduced by environmental regulations.

It is well known that fisheries production increases with N and P levels up to a point above which it begins to decline. Louisiana waters are near the peak of the response, so cutting N and P levels would hurt, but significantly increasing them would also likely reduce production. In contrast, Georgia waters are nowhere near the peak of fishery response to N and P levels, so the response of the fisheries to N and P would certainly be positive and approximately proportional to the additional fertilizer.

If you want more cattle on the same pasture, you have to fertilize the grass. No, don't let raw sewage into the water upstream, but let in a lot more N and P. You can't have fisheries production return to what it was in the 1990s without fertility and primary production levels returning to what they were in the 1990s.

the problem is the increase in BOD. The fertilizer runoff is why the gulf has the dead zone. There are also other problems like red tide and stuff.

If you want to fish some fertile water that is on the edge of eutrophication you should sneak onto a golf course but I would not want to eat anything.

 

[boatbuilder]

Good fishing on golf courses the creek in the sea island golf course has a lot of redfish

 

[GLS]

Poking around the net I found this 2016 book, Missing Redfish, detailing the population decline of Gulf Coast reds long before Prudhomme's Blackened Redfish craze. Poor science, mismanagement, over harvesting lead to the decline, but banning of netting (other than Mississippi' s limited harvest) and reduction of recreational limits caused a rebound according to the author. According to the author, 25% of the catch was commercial and 75% recreational. ( I don't know if book distinguishes that commercial offshore netting would snag the breeding fish as opposed to inshore harvesting the sexually immature fish.) https://gulfseafoodnews.com/2016/02/28/missing-redfish-documents-blackened-history-of-gulf-icon/ Also found were articles relating to the reduction of limits in SC which were based on studies of a declining fish population. If we don't learn from the history of SC's redfish issues, we are doomed to repeat them. As for Louisiana, it is losing marsh habitat, crucial to marine life, at a staggering rate daily. Gil

 

[LittleDrummerBoy]

the problem is the increase in BOD. The fertilizer runoff is why the gulf has the dead zone. There are also other problems like red tide and stuff.

The purported "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico is one of those environmental hoaxes that environmentalists are using to try and control people. It's a temporary area of water with low oxygen at the bottom of a relatively small percentage of the Gulf for a couple weeks in the summer. Very little actually dies, and the impact on fisheries is very small. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1306/1306.5366.pdf


Red tides are possible, but unlikely with the N and P levels that the Georgia coast had in the 1990s. Most Georgia fisherman would be happy to get the benefits of Louisiana-type fisheries production for the same downside Louisiana experiences. Georgians are giving up a lot of improved fishing by believing the lies of extremist environmentalists.

 

[boatbuilder]

The purported "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico is one of those environmental hoaxes that environmentalists are using to try and control people. It's a temporary area of water with low oxygen at the bottom of a relatively small percentage of the Gulf for a couple weeks in the summer. Very little actually dies, and the impact on fisheries is very small. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1306/1306.5366.pdf


Red tides are possible, but unlikely with the N and P levels that the Georgia coast had in the 1990s. Most Georgia fisherman would be happy to get the benefits of Louisiana-type fisheries production for the same downside Louisiana experiences. Georgians are giving up a lot of improved fishing by believing the lies of extremist environmentalists.

Edit. After rereading what I posted I realized it was rude

This is not dubious like global warming. It is basic stuff.

The limiting factor is OXYGEN.

Water can only hold so much of it and cold water will hold more.

When you dump too many nutrients into a body of water it will feed the critters until they use up all the oxygen.


And just adding fertilizer to a pasture will not Drastically increase how many cows you can keep. It helps to a point if you need it to replace what was diminished but there are other factors too.

I am no fan of the obnoxious earth nazis but we do not need more nutrient rich ag runoff.
it is pollution too

 

[GLS]

Reviewing the primary production data for Georgia inshore and nearshore waters suggests that the region is much less fertile in 2020 than it was in 1990. This means the same water may not be able to feed as many redfish as in the past. .

Please provide us your source of attribution. Thanks. Gil

 

[GLS]

Red tides are possible, but unlikely with the N and P levels that the Georgia coast had in the 1990s. Most Georgia fisherman would be happy to get the benefits of Louisiana-type fisheries production for the same downside Louisiana experiences. Georgians are giving up a lot of improved fishing by believing the lies of extremist environmentalists.

Considering Louisiana has 3 million acres of coastal wetlands (40% of the Continental US's) compared to Georgia's 400,000 acres, it would take a lot of fertilizer to bring us up to Louisiana's levels of fish. We can't afford the downsides of Louisiana's issues for any alleged improvement of catch rates. I lived through the heavily polluted Savannah River and it's impact of pollution on our fisheries with ships clearing ballast in our waters and industry polluting its waters. At one time, trout and bass caught within the tidal plume of the Savannah River through Thunderbolt to the Skidaway River were unfit to eat because of the oil contamination of ship's discharges. I'm not speaking of heavy metal content, I am speaking of fish that tasted like they swam through an engine crankcase. Gil