I think the biggest problem is that there is no such thing as a balanced fishery. In other words the different species that are present, the proportions, ages, sizes etc. are dynamic and constantly changing. Different species dominate in turn, decline and others take over, over a period of years and decades.
Our problem is that selfishly we strive to maintain what is in our own narrow view some ideal that suits whoever has the most vested interest. (I'll understand that last statement myself in a minute). What Terry D describes is a situation that for whatever reason allowed the pike to do very well, perhaps too well. In time that balance would have changed (there would have been more larger pike), and the smaller fish would have thrived again as the number of smaller pike diminished.
When I get time I have it on my list of things to do to do a proper article on this dynamic fish balance (nearly a contradiction in terms) but my current writing workload precludes it.
I don't think it is a case of the PAC being right and Terry D being wrong or vice versa, but more a case of whose selfish interests need to be served!
__________________
My book, Big Roach, details here: Big Roach
|