what y'all make of this?

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Speckmeister

MathGeek,
I am very interested in this data, but I am concerned.
You need to be frank with the public here that you cannot make inferences from descriptive data (your histograms), unless you have performed some statistical tests.
There are so many variables (competing hypotheses) that can account for this data besides unseeded oyster reefs.
If you have conducted some tests - then show the public. I will be happy to be mistaken if I see these data in a professional publication that's refereed.
If you can't, then you are making the same mistake you accuse CCA and the LWF Commission in accepting data from another professional that wasn't published.
Please, I do think that at least your descriptive statistics are important, but exciting the public who have no experience in design, methodology and statistics to judge your descriptive data makes me wonder here.
It also injures the public we rely on to continue funding research of our natural resources. If you do not want to send me citations here - fine! Send it by e-mail.
I will be happy to look at your descriptive data to see if we can make meaningful inferences from it.

But again, I applaud your posting these histograms - you are doing something about what I feel is not only affecting Big Lake, but all of coastal Louisiana.

Yes, we are aware of the competing hypotheses. They are discussed in detail in the draft paper. The draft paper has been circulated privately to a number of experts and the feedback has been generally positive. Each year, we've drafted a paper and privately invited reviews from a number of experts.

We are aware that it is an overstatement to definitively conclude causality (fish decline due to oyster reef destruction), but we have made a strong case that the decline in fish condition is correlated with the decline in oysters. We have also considered whether any of the prominent competing hypotheses explain our data as well as the oyster reef hypothesis. Right now, it seems that they do not.

My colleagues and I recently discussed whether to publish our first three years of data or collect another year and then revisit the issue. We've decided to collect another year. The case will be much more convincing if the condition factors of fish rebound with the oyster populations. The more years of data we have, the more likely statistical methods are to reveal more confidence in the likely importance of various causal factors.

In general, our work is covered by various non-disclosure agreements, and I obtained the needed approvals for general release of the graphs you've seen. PM me and I'll see what might be possible, but I don't think some of the parties would approve sending the draft paper to a journalist. Some journals explicitly prohibit releasing drafts to the press prior to publication.