“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!
PT 16/S2/Q16 Forum
-
bp shinners
- Posts: 3086
- Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:05 pm
Re: PT 16/S2/Q16
Nope, because it told me that it hasn't. The CPUE has remained constant. From this, we conclude that the population isn't constant.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!
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.
