Quote:
Originally Posted by Smalls
First of all, quit contradicting yourself. On the other threads here, you have continually preached that the main reason for fall in condition factor is loss of oysters or too many fish. You have repeated stated, when questioned, that you and your colleagues believe oyster loss to be the main causative factor, and that none of the other competing hypotheses explain the data as well.
So which is it? Are you just bending your argument to "please your audience"?
Haven't you been preaching that the smaller size is related to the destruction of oysters? Yes or no?
Yes, I do see that you address those other factors in the next paragraph, but you yourself have been advocating that the #1 cause of poor condition factor is related to oysters, NOT WEIR OPERATIONS! So which is it?
|
Like any complex ecosystem, there are multiple contributing factors and interpretation is nuanced.
The loss of relative condition in the more benthic feeding fish (black drum, gafftops, bull redfish) is more attributable to the loss of oyster reef habitat. These are the fish experiencing the greatest loss of relative condition factor, with many fish only 75-85% of their healthy body weight.
The loss of relative condition factor among fish more strongly dependent upon the marsh and coupling between the marsh and lake (specks, shorter length classes of redfish, puppy drum) is more attributable to stress and depletion of their food sources. These fish are experiencing smaller, but still statistically significant reductions in relative condition factor, most coming in at 90-97% of their healthy body weight.
So, the bottom line is that oyster reef destruction is having a bigger negative effect on the fishery, but weir operation is having an effect large enough to be detectable and significant.
Saying that the oyster reef destruction is the "main reason" does not contradict weir management as an additional factor.