The Counterintuitive Explained

Is this something of a response to the "economics is hard" discussion?

I agree - most economics is intuitive. However, it's precisely the non-trivial, not uncommon counter-intuitive findings of economics that are important to keep pointing out, because they are so easily missed. Most may indeed be intuitive, but you can get in a lot of trouble ignoring the counter-intuitive findings.

I laughed a bit when I read this. I grew up near the ocean and have been an avid fisher since a young age, and this is precisely the approach that I and most of my avid fisher friends take. When we fish together, no one bats an eye when a monster fish is returned to the sea. When we take less experienced anglers out, they nearly fall out of the boat watching us throw large fish back.

Speaking of selection by fishermen returning catch to the sea, google "Heike crab".

Returning small fishes is not evolutionary pressure, it is managing of existing fund. The selection is lucky guess at the best; the specie would have trouble to satisfy existing + additional criteria for survival. Great Danes cannot survive in woods.

"...creating evolutionary pressure to grow quickly through the medium size?"

Ok, how about this: "Catching the large fish creates evolutionary pressure for fish to grow quickly through the large size until they are so heavy they cannot be lifted by a human?"

Or perhaps "...catching the medium sized fish still leaves only small, but now reduces the average size of fish you catch as they have less time to grow."

I've long thought that it was obvious we are doing it wrong here in Alaska regarding returning Salmon. Why have a lower size limit on returning salmon who are going to spawn and die as soon as they get past the fishermen and bears. We should have an upper limit. Is it any wonder my father in law is always talking about how much bigger they were 50 years ago.