TimMurphy wrote:
Dear troutbert,
Let me get this straight?
When you agree with the science ala Bachman it's science, but when you disagree ala Thorne it's merely conjecture?
I just want to know what rules we are playing by is all.
Regards,
Tim Murphy
I didn't mention anything about Bachman's studies, either directly or indirectly. I'll assume you made an honest mistake on that, and move on.
Regarding Thorn:
"Thorn (1990) concluded that the rate of exploitation of the preseason population should exceed 50% before a special regulation is imposed."
Does that sound like a scientific statement?
He says "should exceed" but there's no reason given for this statement. It's just based on Thorne's bias in favor of allowing high harvest rates. That's just his personal preference. There is nothing scientific about the statement.
Suppose you go to fish a stream in late season. Would you prefer that 50% of the fish had already been removed from the stream? As a fisherman I would prefer that 50% of the fish had NOT been removed, and I think nearly all fishermen would agree. So why does Thorne's preference trump that of the typical fishermen? It doesn't. There's nothing "scientific" about his preference, or the fishermen's either. These preferences are subjective. There is not a scientific answer to which is best.
And there is really no definition of what "special regulation" or "general regulation" means. These are vague, essentially meaningless terms, and have no place in scientific literature.
Would 2 fish per day be a "special regulation?" If that were the state-wide limit it would be the "general regulation" not a "special regulation."
In Yellowstone Park most streams are C&R. So that is the general regulation there. But in PA C&R is considered a special regulation. In Yellowstone Park, if a stream had a 5 fish per day limit, that would be a special regulation. But in PA it's considered the general regulation.
A regulation of 2 fish per day, is just exactly that, a regulation of 2 fish per day. Labelling it "special" or "general" doesn't add any factual information. Using such terms only adds bias, a preconceived notion that a particular regulation is "normal" or "not normal" and therefore preferred or not preferred.
I don't think this is necessarily done sneakily, they just haven't thought it through carefully, and haven't seen the need to present things in a nuetral, objective, unbiased way if they hope to be considered seriously. But if the inquiry is not conducted in an unbiased way,the conclusions are simply derived from the original biased assumptions.
If you are going to try to find out what the optimal regulations are for particular waters, the only balanced, fair, and reasonable way to do it is start out with a clean slate, that is no preconceived notions of what the regulations "should be." So you should start out considering all options equally: 0 fish per day, 100 fish per day, whatever. Then look at all the information; the population data, mortality data, angler catch data etc. and then decide on the regulations based on that information.
Starting out with the preconceived notion that the regulations should stay the same as what they are right now, unless the harvest is over 50%, or some other preconceived number, is just bad science. Your professor would flunk you for that. (If he was a good professor.)
It's just circular logic. They are starting out with the idea that the regulations should stay the same, unless some very steep test is passed. Then concluding that the regulations should stay the same. The conclusions are based on the beginning assumptions.
But the beginning assumptions aren't factual, so we have no reason to accept them, so we also have no reason to accept the conclusions.
