PT 16/S2/Q16

User avatar
OVOXO
Posts: 180
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 1:01 pm

PT 16/S2/Q16

Postby OVOXO » Mon Oct 14, 2013 2:40 pm

“Researchers in South Australia…”

I got to E by POE but I’m wondering: wouldn’t increased catching accuracy through better technologies change the CPUE? If they’re catching more per hour per unit of net, the CPUE changes does it not? Wouldn’t better tech mean they’ve gone from say 3 catches/hr/km of net to 7 catches/hr/km of net?

Thanks!

bp shinners
Posts: 3091
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:05 pm

Re: PT 16/S2/Q16

Postby bp shinners » Mon Oct 14, 2013 5:33 pm

OVOXO wrote:“Researchers in South Australia…”

I got to E by POE but I’m wondering: wouldn’t increased catching accuracy through better technologies change the CPUE? If they’re catching more per hour per unit of net, the CPUE changes does it not? Wouldn’t better tech mean they’ve gone from say 3 catches/hr/km of net to 7 catches/hr/km of net?

Thanks!


Nope, because it told me that it hasn't. The CPUE has remained constant. From this, we conclude that the population isn't constant.

As you note, however, we've increased catching accuracy. If that's the case, and yet CPUE is still the same, then we have support for the contention that the shark population has actually gone down.

Coming at it from the other side, as you note, we should have been increasing the CPUE since we were more accurate with our locating of sharks. But it didn't go up despite higher accuracy. That suggests there are fewer sharks out there to catch.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 180orDie, 34iplaw, BamBam2772, Bing [Bot], BobBoblaw, dontsaywhatyoumean, Elyane, ThatOneAfrican, trenhardeatclen and 21 guests