This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There is not one warp per boat but two, one for the top and bottom of each side of the trawl
All pelagic pair-trawling make use of TWO warps per boat one for the top, one for the bottom of each side of the trawl. Otherwise you are not able to control how the trawl is moving up/down in the water. This complexity as you call it is the whole point of pair trawling as you achieve more precise control over the trawls up/down movement. I can assure you that a majority of pair trawlers use this method.
The page renders completely wrong for me now on Mozilla 1.0.2. I'll check on a new Firefox at home, but I think it should work here too. It was fine before Anthony Appleyard last edit. -- Apoc2400 04:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I like the picture at the bottom of this link. It offer a lot of visual details by including scale (metres) that we currently lack on wikipedia article [1]
This photo would be a nice addition to the ecological effects of trawling: [2] TimothyPilgrim 15:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit iffy about the "Learn About Destructive Trawling and What You Can Do to Help" link. While it may contain useful information, the title of the link adds POV and instruction to the article. I think the title should at least be changed. ▫Bad▫harlick♠ 03:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
This is referring to the Ecological Damage section. Upon reading this article for the first time I noticed that the POV of this section is definitely not neutral. The section immediately above it on selectivity does a much better job of getting across the problem without bashing trawling. Some examples:
"Trawling is one of the all time worst ways to fish" "it is INCREDIBLY destructive to the ocean bottom"
It seems to be written by someone advocating the banning of trawling rather than someone trying to document it. What do you guys think? What about the statement in external links suggesting supposed benefits, anybody know about that? Croft465 20:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the history it seems that someone added in those naughty parts. I think it sounds much better now. Croft465 8:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Trawling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
For ref 1 ( Not found) it appears to be a dead link. Can someone go into history to find what the original link was? Sungodtemple ( talk) 22:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)