what y'all make of this?

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

"Generally speaking, you'll see fewer big fish at first," he said. "It takes four years to grow a big (speckled trout). If we're cropping more fish at a smaller size, then obviously fewer of them will have the chance to get big."

This is the biggest lie in wildlife management today. Fast growth rates are more essential to producing big speckled trout than protecting younger fish. In most Gulf coast estuaries, plenty of speckled trout survive to 4, 5, and 6 years of age. FL and TX produce more fish over 10 lbs, not because of higher survival rates to the older ages, but because of higher growth rates in the estuaries that produce a lot of trophy trout.

If you want more trophy trout, it is more essential to protect their forage base.

This article is old first off but MG this is getting real old and I can't bite my tongue much longer. You never had a shred of credibility in my mind but I think u just lost a little more.Jerald Horst has forgotten more than most of us will ever know about fish, he has written numerous textbooks and other field guides for fishes. This is what he did and still does for a living. I think most people would take the word of a leading
fisheries biologist on any subject regarding fish populations over a physicist pretending to be one. It would behoove you to read a book on principles of ecology (not Wikipedia). Wildlife and fisheries and the mgmt of them is far from an exact science and it's often not just one thing that is the causal agent but a multitude of factors working together. So the use of the word 'proof' or 'proven' or any phrase containing those words are rarely used when dealing with wild animals (although you have used those words repeatedly in your rants). This isn't an exact science like physics.

"This is the biggest lie in wildlife management today". Lord have mercy :*****:

A physicist with all the answers to our fisheries issues. Knows more than the people who wrote the textbooks on the subject haha

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

This article is old first off but MG this is getting real old and I can't bite my tongue much longer. ... I think most people would take the word of a leading
fisheries biologist on any subject regarding fish populations over a physicist pretending to be one. It would behoove you to read a book on principles of ecology (not Wikipedia).

A physicist with all the answers to our fisheries issues.

I've never claimed to have all the answers, but my biggest strength as a scientist has always been counting data as more important than expert opinions.

My claims in the above post are well supported by the data in Stephen Bortone's book, "Biology of the Spotted Seatrout." I have access to many books and publications in fisheries biology, and I've spent an average of 10-20 hours per week over the past several years reading the literature on fisheries science.

My PhD is in fact in Physics, but my first laboratory job was in fisheries science at the LSU aquaculture facility under Dr. Dudley Culley. Scientists with PhDs in the physical sciences have a long history of making important contributions in biology. Perhaps you have heard of Francis Crick and Louis Pasteur?

I can't claim any discoveries rivaling theirs, but I have managed meaningful contributions to over a dozen scholarly papers in fisheries over the past few years. All of our papers have been well-received and the most severe criticism has been from other authors who we have embarrassed by pointing out their published math errors. We commonly receive positive feedback from numerous, well-recognized names in fisheries science for our published contributions. One state DNR in the mid-west recently wrote to us because they are applying a new analysis technique we developed to assist them with addressing a challenging management problem.

Please, if you take issue with my claims on spotted seatrout, try and support your position with data rather than just claiming your expert is smarter than me. Perhaps he is smarter, but unless he can cite data to support his position, he might still be wrong.

That's how science works. Science favors the position supported with data, not the "smartest" expert.