Increased natural mortality associated with Bering Sea marine heatwaves is "an important driver" of the Yukon River Chinook salmon crash, a new study finds.
The study also "found no evidence that harvest of adult salmon or bycatch removals prior to spawning have been significant factors in population level declines of Yukon River Chinook," says this write-up from NOAA Fisheries.
I guess I’ll be the first to stir the pot. I just want to point out this is science. And in my opinion I think it’s science at its best. I’m sure there will be other opinions and some negative. The reason I say this is id bet money on the usuals still putting the blame on trawlers or area m. Kinda proves they have a one track mind and good science doesn’t mean diddly squat to them. Curious to see what all the politicians will have to say seeing they all run on the promise of bycatch reduction. I’m wondering if they believe in science. More likely just votes. Just starting the conversation. I’ll be standing by
It’s possible to interpret studies differently. The statement no evidence to support a position is weak w/o significant work to support it. Anyone dedicated to truth would have to put some time in to determine if the statement is plausible. You might not have supporting evidence because you didn’t look for it.
It's also possible to withhold expressing such a confident and damning opinion of a peer-reviewed study's author's work until after you've actually read it. Had you read it, you would have of course noted that the paper outlined its methodology for doing exactly what you are suggesting they did not do.
"The statement no evidence to support a position is weak w/o significant work to support it. Anyone dedicated to truth would have to put some time in to determine if the statement is plausible." Translation: Suggest that the authors support position by putting in work to determine if the statement is plausible.
You obviously struggle to understand the use of your own language, let alone that of peer-reviewed science. Maybe take a break from the commentary until you build up some of the basics, aye bud?
The result of the study was predetermined by NOAA. Clearly they do not want to point blame at their own management, the warm conditions narrative is the go to excuse by NOAA. How can Chinook survive in California? How come they are thriving in Chile and New Zealand? All these river systems have much warmer conditions than the Yukon.
Lol. Do you understand temperature, currents or salmon life cycles? I know you're getting all your information from Facebook since you're including hatchery fish from Chile as an example. Go home, clown boy.
I guess I’ll be the first to stir the pot. I just want to point out this is science. And in my opinion I think it’s science at its best. I’m sure there will be other opinions and some negative. The reason I say this is id bet money on the usuals still putting the blame on trawlers or area m. Kinda proves they have a one track mind and good science doesn’t mean diddly squat to them. Curious to see what all the politicians will have to say seeing they all run on the promise of bycatch reduction. I’m wondering if they believe in science. More likely just votes. Just starting the conversation. I’ll be standing by
ReplyDeleteIt’s possible to interpret studies differently. The statement no evidence to support a position is weak w/o significant work to support it. Anyone dedicated to truth would have to put some time in to determine if the statement is plausible. You might not have supporting evidence because you didn’t look for it.
ReplyDeleteIt's also possible to withhold expressing such a confident and damning opinion of a peer-reviewed study's author's work until after you've actually read it. Had you read it, you would have of course noted that the paper outlined its methodology for doing exactly what you are suggesting they did not do.
DeleteNo such suggestion was made. I was pointing out possibilities.
Delete"The statement no evidence to support a position is weak w/o significant work to support it. Anyone dedicated to truth would have to put some time in to determine if the statement is plausible." Translation: Suggest that the authors support position by putting in work to determine if the statement is plausible.
DeleteYou obviously struggle to understand the use of your own language, let alone that of peer-reviewed science. Maybe take a break from the commentary until you build up some of the basics, aye bud?
The result of the study was predetermined by NOAA. Clearly they do not want to point blame at their own management, the warm conditions narrative is the go to excuse by NOAA. How can Chinook survive in California? How come they are thriving in Chile and New Zealand? All these river systems have much warmer conditions than the Yukon.
ReplyDeleteLol. Do you understand temperature, currents or salmon life cycles? I know you're getting all your information from Facebook since you're including hatchery fish from Chile as an example. Go home, clown boy.
Delete