From fishery science to fake news: how ocean misinformation evolves
How does fishery science go from hard data to misconstrued, clickbait headlines? The spread of misinformation is troubling.
sustainablefisheries-uw.org
From fishery science to fake news: how ocean misinformation evolves
- Thread starter agentaqua
- Start date
sustainablefisheries-uw.org
Pretty sure that most everything we read/hear today goes thru a similar process. It sounds like that in all cases we need to "follow the money"; what industry might be funding the author?
Down here in Seattle Wild troll caught Chinook Salmon from SE Alaska is hyped as sustainable.
Down here in Seattle Wild troll caught Chinook Salmon from SE Alaska is hyped as sustainable.
SpringVelocity
Crew Member
Kind of like fish drop off mortality. The term that has dominated last 2 years in our sector ,and yet it's not proven. But it makes an attractive headline in social media and forums etc.
I agree but still believe it exists. I am confident that there are others who know much more on this subject than I do; the older I get the more gray I see............
SpringVelocity
Crew Member
Still isn't proven scientifically. It is statistical theory.
Yeah, interesting though I saw a discussion recently about science and mathematics. Statistics is a branch of mathematics. The question was is math a science or part of science. There wasn't general agreement about that. People were fairly certain math is much older than science. The other thing that was pointed out and it is quite true, is that science can never absolutely prove anything but mathematics can.
SpringVelocity
Crew Member
I remain unconvinced as someone with training in statistics and math background in engineering. There is theory than real world. So far I see theory.
I think drop off mortality, and FRIM calculations are being used way out of context to push another agenda. This is the issue I have with some of this science. Anyone can make a formula up, but can you apply it?
I think drop off mortality, and FRIM calculations are being used way out of context to push another agenda. This is the issue I have with some of this science. Anyone can make a formula up, but can you apply it?
a prediction that a coin toss will produce 50% heads and 50% tails if done often enough is also just statistical theory until it's done. Saying something something like drop off mortality is just a statistical theory doesn't disapprove it in any way. However exactly how does one prove such a thing; what sort of experimental design can sample it?
I agree w SV that certain groups (e.g. industry proponents, some ENGOs, and some government types) can and often do cherry-pick what data they wish to present to support their narrative. It's dishonest, IMHO - and inappropriate to not have as much available data/science as possible to base resource-based decisions on - and same goes for governance decisions in general. That's the tie-in to this thread - and why I posted it originally: to acknowledge that reality and show that it is unfortunately a well-known phenomenon that is accurately described by this author.
As far as drop-off mortality specifically - and mortality from all fisheries & predators - one can reference this article (among others):
24hr holding coho ~20% mortality after 24hr in holding study (2X rate of immediate release)...
As far as drop-off mortality specifically - and mortality from all fisheries & predators - one can reference this article (among others):
24hr holding coho ~20% mortality after 24hr in holding study (2X rate of immediate release)...
Gathering mortality data on fish that actually come to hand has been done for decades particularly for sport caught fish. It's also done for fish caught with commercial and subsistence gear. For the fish that never come to hand; that escape the net or the trap, are taken by predators either directly in gear are shortly after they escape, I am not sure how that can be done.
SpringVelocity
Crew Member
So in the end we established it's a theory, and can't test for it. Thanks that is what I was getting at.
Yeah but then again from a management perspective, particularly when their are serious concerns about low stocks and stocks nearing extirpation, that should be factored in. After all it's reasonably certain it happens. Most of it will happen with certain kinds of commercial gear particularly gill nets and I expect the number used seems so high.
I find it sad that some on this forum constantly give the benefit of the doubt to sports fishers versus the resources (fish/SRKW). IMO it is that attitudes like that have been the primary cause for the situation we are in today; overfishing the resource is the primary cause for falling numbers of Salmon. Sure other things affect Salmon population declines, but we consistent fail to properly adjust harvest/mortality to what the current population can sustain.
So maybe it's less than the 5% number being used, but it SAS isn't zero - BFD in the context of the bigger picture.
So maybe it's less than the 5% number being used, but it SAS isn't zero - BFD in the context of the bigger picture.
SpringVelocity
Crew Member
Oh here comes the whale argument OMG. I know attitudes like ours are terrible.
I feel ashamed for making fish stocks crash by taking my family out fishing, and releasing fish. My bad.You see this is perfect example of misinformation, and you two are proving by your last two posts. Big statements with no data just personal opinions. Sorry we can't manage fish stocks like that.
SpringVelocity
Crew Member
But yet it's not proven, so therefore it can't be used. We can't base decisions that effects any group based on this could happen because of our personal feelings. It needs to be studied with proper data. Anyone can pull out formulas and statistics to argue the point.
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
IF ENGO's can pegg sports fishermen with a high enough C&R mortality than they can effectively make an argument that C&R should be shut down. So goal number one get that hook and line mortality has high as possible, goal two partner with first nations to get it shut down.
While i agree that there is drop off mortality and while our C&R mortality may be more than anyone hear would like to admit. The end result of us voluntarily falling on our swords while other groups dig their heels in the sand and fight for access. Will only result in us losing access and generally just resulting in a reallocation rather than additional spawning salmon making it to the grounds.
While i agree that there is drop off mortality and while our C&R mortality may be more than anyone hear would like to admit. The end result of us voluntarily falling on our swords while other groups dig their heels in the sand and fight for access. Will only result in us losing access and generally just resulting in a reallocation rather than additional spawning salmon making it to the grounds.
SV, managers in all fields, usually proceed with the best information available and often much less... even something like a seat of the pants guess. The precautionary principle is frequently invoked. Proofs are very rare and hard to come by. Most often only special interest groups and fanatics think they have "proof".
As usual the best path between individuals is to agree to disagree.
As usual the best path between individuals is to agree to disagree.
I guess we can only assume that the Fraser Gill nets only catch sockeye then?
SpringVelocity
Crew Member
I guess we can assume steelhead catch and release fishing has no mortality?
Similar threads
