View Single Post
  #31  
Old 12-02-2015, 03:02 PM
Smalls Smalls is offline
King Mackeral
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: South Central LA
Posts: 2,822
Cash: 3,948
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duck Butter View Post
"The more he weirs are open the skinnier the fish are" is what MG said. That is laughable. On what planet does it make sense that when there is more food (weirs open) that fish would be skinnier? It doesn't. He tries to overanalyze things. In any organism, the more food available = healthier (fatter) organism whether it a fish, bird, earthworm, etc
So data that shows "fatter" fish with less openings is just all wrong? Where is your data to support that, huh? You want to discredit someone else's work with nothing but "common sense" to back it up.

Not saying science is always right, but you can't just go around discrediting stuff because it goes against "common sense". The earth as the center of the universe was once "common sense".

You are also assuming that there are more food sources in the lake when the weirs are open, which is not necessarily true either. The weirs are opened for ingress and egress. If the bait population is traveling into the marsh, there would inevitably be less in the lake, correct?

You've never been to the weirs, but yet know, without a doubt, that those fish must be fatter because of the "buffet coming out of them"?

How else would you explain low BMI then? Take away the weirs?

The fact that you want to argue that MG's stats are wrong because there is no way the weirs could be making the rest of the lake skinnier, but then you argue that them being open would make the entire lake fatter is asinine. Correlation does not indicate causation anywhere in this. That estuary is very complex, and no one factor can be pointed to as the cause for any one thing, because very few relationships in that estuary are linear.

By the way, what about that "west side of the lake" theory you threw around? Care to elaborate on that?
Reply With Quote