M. Bevelhimer wrote:

> Development of marine reserves IS a reduction of the abuse.

I respectfully disagree.  Banning of commercial rape of fish stocks is a
reduction of the abuse as it limits on human population density, sewerage
treatment standards and controls to reduce agricultural runoff pollution.
Development of marine reserves IS only a way to reduce the impact of abuses
that have yet to be addressed and, unfortunately, very likely to help
conceal the impact of those abuses until it's just too late to do anything.

> I think most fisheries
> managers are finally coming to the realization that overfishing is a
> significant contributor to collapsing fish stocks.  This sounds like a
> no-brainer, but there are so many contributing factors, it's not as simple
> a problem as it might seem.  And even if you know the answers, it's not
> easy to make fixes given the political, social, and economic
> pressures.  Sorry for the lack of SCUBA content, but ya'll need some
> educatin' every now and then.

It is a no brainer, at least it is once fisheries management realizes that
the fish stocks belong to everyone and that no one group has any special
right to a profit, let alone a profit at the expense of everyone else.  Of
course it's not just overfishing that is to blame.  Somewhere along the
line, someone has to draw the line on aggricultural and human waste
pollution.  I know it's not easy to get it right and I applaud those that
are making an honest effort.  On the other hand, I continue to worry about
those who do not understand that a public servant is supposed to serve the
public, not a small commercial interest minority.

Lee