no it doesn't,correct me if i'm wrong, but your post seemes to be sympathetic towards the pro's, insinuating that they use to have enough catch to feed their family's as well as operate a buisiness and make a killing out of it at the same time?
You say in the 50's and 60's, that would mean over 40years of comercial netting of the bay, do you really think that nearly 50 years of constant netting could equate to that amount of fish rejuvinating and growing to legal size, then having enough 'for everyone'?
It was Casey's first post, it looks to me like he was just posting a story from a long time ago when he lived in the area, probably fair enough to cut him a little slack.
Hopefully with pros out of the bay it will recover to its former glory. I read in the paper yesterday that the Govt has said no a return, citing the compensation paid, $4M, from the rec trust as a major reason. They also stated that a 12 month environmental impact study is required on any area to open to commercial fishing, another $1m or so.
I think in a couple of years time if we look at BB and compare it to areas around marine parks, we will see that closing inshore fisheries to Commercial Fishos is a far more sensible way to ensure fish for the future.
Apologies casey, i didn't notice, i get a little red in the face when i'm expected to act a bit more sypathetically towards the pro's. My post still stands however that they deserve no sympathey what so ever, they're either blind or stupid to not be able to predict the future of their industry.