Interesting speaker at RISAA tonight

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by numbskull

This idea has been around for 5-6 years I believe. Chesapeake Bay Journal: Whether a fish has a hot spawning season may depend on weather - October 2004

Whether it has held up over the last several years is unclear to me.

They, however, also understand that industrial ( and sometimes recreational) fishing is putting a toll on the remaining fish that is not sustainable.

There are a load of scientist out there, who haven't received PEW grant money, that would unequivocally disagree with that statement. We also have big federal and state bureaucracies, dedicated to making sure that doesn't happen. But I guess PEW knows better than everyone else?

[piemma]

Gentlemen, the point is being missed. This is not about pollution runoff. It's about freshwater vs saltwater and the ratios between the 2. The more of 1, the less fry survival there is due to less food due to the turbidity of the water.

I just don't have the facts the way the speaker presented them but I do know that there was no mention of fertilizer, pollution or their effects on the fish spawn or survival.

I now wish I had access to the good Doctors notes and PowerPoint presentation.

[JohnR]

Wish I had seen it. IIRC Some of the bad years for fry were the drought and flood years having real bad YOY indices.

Anyway, wish I had seen it.


Hey Bryan, I thought scientists were supposed to be like Joe Friday, no bias , unswappable, just the facts mam

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Wish I had seen it. IIRC Some of the bad years for fry were the drought and flood years having real bad YOY indices.

Anyway, wish I had seen it.


Hey Bryan, I thought scientists were supposed to be like Joe Friday, no bias , unswappable, just the facts mam

Supposed to be my friend, but not everyone is as ethical as I am

A case of "If I hadn't of believed it I wouldn't have seen it"?

Actually, the science is typically ok. As long as your observations are correct and your data collection is as good as it can be, it often boils down to differing interpretations. The main issue is usually with groups that interpret the interpretations, not with the scientists themselves!

[Mr. Sandman]

I have my problems with this so called science. Good science leaves little ambiguity, it should be definitive. At a minimum if a proper error analysis could be done you should hear we are 93.4% confident this is the cause....but you don't. Error analysis cant be done because there are too many inaccurate parameters. (How many fish are there, how many were caught, released, died of natural causes, how many fishermen are there and how often they actually catch fish etc) I think this rec lic was intended to be a step to help quantifying these parameters but it will take a long time to resolving this IMO.

The fact is at one time excess rain was the problem in the 80's now it is part of the solution it seems. This effects your credibility anyway you look at it.

So, what we have today is a educated guesstimate which is being labeled "the best science". I am an engineer not a scientist and even I find this insulting. This is not science. Where did they get these guys?

The proper thing to do is until we KNOW with say 95% confidence that XXXX is the problem is to err on the side of conservation and the fishery dept's are simply not doing this. If this means a if a cut back of 50%, stopping comm fishing, or a complete shut down is needed to INSURE the future, fine, do it, TAKE ACTION. What we have is a chubby old man (Diodati) driving the fishery bus by looking in the rear view mirror, telling everyone don't worry what the spawn was good 10 years ago while his engine is ablaze and he is headed into a brick wall.

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by Mr. Sandman

I have my problems with this so called science. Good science leaves little ambiguity, it should be definitive. At a minimum if a proper error analysis could be done you should hear we are 93.4% confident this is the cause....but you don't. Error analysis cant be done because there are too many inaccurate parameters. (How many fish are there, how many were caught, released, died of natural causes, how many fishermen are there and how often they actually catch fish etc) I think this rec lic was intended to be a step to help quantifying these parameters but it will take a long time to resolving this IMO.

The fact is at one time excess rain was the problem in the 80's now it is part of the solution it seems. This effects your credibility anyway you look at it.

So, what we have today is a educated guesstimate which is being labeled "the best science". I am an engineer not a scientist and even I find this insulting. This is not science. Where did they get these guys?

The proper thing to do is until we KNOW with say 95% confidence that XXXX is the problem is to err on the side of conservation and the fishery dept's are simply not doing this. If this means a if a cut back of 50%, stopping comm fishing, or a complete shut down is needed to INSURE the future, fine, do it, TAKE ACTION. What we have is a chubby old man (Diodati) driving the fishery bus by looking in the rear view mirror, telling everyone don't worry what the spawn was good 10 years ago while his engine is ablaze and he is headed into a brick wall.

To a large extent I agree with you when you say that fisheries science isn't hard science. But I disagree when you say that they can't come up with a confidence level. They do it all the time, but you have to dig down to the Science and statistical committee on the federal level or the Technical committee at the ASMFC level to find that data. Several years ago the NMFS lost a suit by the Environmental defense fund because the Probability (confidence level) that the recommended TAC would achieve the rebuilding target was less than 50%. After that every year the NMFS selects a TAC that has a greater than 50% probability of achieving the rebuilding target. But Probabilities and confidence levels are statistical tools, they are no substitute for better science than we have now in fisheries management.

[maddmatt]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Hey Bryan, I thought scientists were supposed to be like Joe Friday, no bias , unswappable, just the facts mam

it seems the facts tend to lead towards the direction from which the funds flow.

a few years ago ct sprayed for mosquitos and a bunch of lobsters died.

ct asked uconn (no conflict of interest there!) to investigate

preliminary findings were inconclusive.

uconn applied for a grant (from ct) for further study

study completed, still inconclusive to spraying but found an amoebic parasite that eats lobster nerves, but, only in a weakened state. healthy lobs are not affected.

the study , however, just could not come up with what weakened the bugs.

how hard did they look?????

ya want to get funded next time?????