Conserving Biological Resources Correspondence
Conserving Biological Resources Correspondence
Conserving Biological Resources Correspondence
Conserving biological
resources
C.W. Clark makes two substantive criticisms in his
recent TREE review1 of our book, Conservation of
Biological Resources2. First, he objects to two
phrases that both appear on p. 28. However, he
has been selective in his reading. He says that it is
irresponsible to suggest that limiting harvesting to
a constant level of effort can be administered
without monitoring population size. We agree that,
in isolation, this phrase might send the wrong
message to resource managers. But elsewhere on
the same page, and on previous pages, we give a
lengthy discussion of the dangers of using CPUE
(catch per unit effort) in resource management,
including a stable CPUE could be due to
undetected increases in technological efficiency,
giving a false picture of stability as the population
declines If a population aggregates into large
groups even at low population sizes, or if its
location is always predictable, then the costs of
harvesting are not related linearly to population
size The population declines dramatically without
19
16
-Carotene
1
3
5
18
13
9'
20'
19'
15'
6'
Stephen C. Maxson
Dept of Psychology and Biobehavioral
Sciences Graduate Degree Program,
The University of Connecticut Storrs,
CT 06269-4154, USA
(maxtiger@aol.com)
References
1'
16'
17'
0169-5347/99/$ see front matter 1999 Elsevier Science. All rights reserved.
(Online: Fig. 1)
HO
O
236
Ruth Mace
5' 3'
13'
OH
Astaxanthin
(a common
xanthophyll)
18'
20
15
E.J. Milner-Gulland
M.V. Jagannadham