"We seem to live in different conceptual worlds."
So it would appear - my experience is that political and commercial pressures almost invariably dictate outcomes when fisheries are concerned - very rarely is science truly heeded. And having seen some excellent fisheries science carried out by people who have extensive expertise and show precise data correlations with damage and specific fisheries, I can confirm that their data is often taken with a large pinch of salt by the politicians - certainly in Europe where political trade-offs modify fisheries policy so as to make it almost ludicrous.
"Alternatively, if you're not saying that, then what is it about the Myers et al study that you are trying to say?"
I was not saying that this study was not well carried out simply that (other) scientists are not always as thorough as they could be and often that they too have funding pressures, etc. Science has to be cleaner than clean to ensure its public and political acceptability.
"Nobody ever has to wait for that evidence again. No 'authorities' can ever again claim that there is no evidence this happens."
No, no, no!!! Sorry but this is absolutely wrong. Take scallop dredging - innumerable studies confirm that it is damaging - the response to banning it in 'sensitive' areas - how can we know that it will damage this specific habitat in this specific area - better have another study undertaken! Believe me I've see this happen.
Scientific studies, even when absolutely incontravertible, are only ONE of MANY tools in the attempts to ensure that the marine environment is appropriately protected. And if you think that I am anti-fishing, I'm not, but the currently poorly regulated utilisation of a wild resource is unsustainable and scientific study alone will not change this. We also have to apply some degree of 'common sense (not a particularly PC thing to do these days) as well as utilise scientific conclusions appropriately.
