Quote:
Originally Posted by Duck Butter
There is no good science in his dataset. Sitting at a ramp collecting data only does so much because you are only getting a sample of fish (fish that are susceptible to being caught) which is simply a creel survey. A true survey of what is actually there is done by shocking and gillnetting it's a creel survey only. You can only infer so much with a creel survey
|
This is true. No argument from me, but that doesn't change the fact that he at least has some data, while you have none. You are essentially no better than any other person who has ever questioned the validity of scientific data while holding none themselves.
You have no proof to argue what you have, yet do so with authority.
"There is no way that fish caught while the weirs are open could be thinner than those caught while they are closed."
Where is your data? While his may be a creel survey, it is a sampling method. While not as intensive as shocking, it is an acceptable method. Shocking would still only be a sample, and it would take a considerable amount of time and money. What if the data still showed the same thing? Would you discount it then?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk