Quote:
Originally Posted by Duck Butter
There are likely several factors if not 10 or 20 that are contributing to thinner fish. A correlation does not = causation.
|
Right. But given 10-20 factors, when a single factor has a correlation coefficient close to -0.5 and a P value less than 0.001, the possibilities of actual causality and the physical mechanisms that might relate to causality are probably due careful consideration.
Ultimately, hypothetical causal mechanisms are supported or rejected with data. Correlation never proves causation, but it can support causation. However, correlation can disprove causation.
In this case, the claim that closing the weirs is choking the lake or starving the fish is completely unsupported in the available data.
The case that fully opening the weirs would harm the fish is only mildly supported.
One feature of Louisiana law is that wildlife management may proceed with the best available science, even if that science is imperfect and hypotheses are only supported by the data and not convincingly proven.
The assertion that current weir operations according to the established plan are not harming the fish and are benefitting the ecosystem as a whole is well supported by the data.
Fish and the fishery are not being compromised by closing the weirs as necessary to protect the marsh.