Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan K G
We have the other measures, apperently they aren't enough. (and no anecdotes about how you think the fishery is fine)
|
Which fishery?
Quote:
Yeah, the result you don't like has gotta be the only one the journal would accept...those evil scientists HATE when things don't work.
Honestly you highlight the exact problem with bringing up factual evidence to convince you people. Everything counter to your view must be some conspiracy, not anything you can proove, but, you know....It has to be!
|
The whole point of my response was to point out the flaws in the "factual evidence". One flawed study should not be enough to convince anyone. And, I can assure you that non-results do not get published in top-tier journals. Science also has a definite editorial bent (like all journals). You have far too much faith in experts. Scientists are human, and have personal conflicts and biases, just like everyone else. That doesn't make them evil. Scrutinize the data. Don't just trust the experts.
Quote:
|
Where are your exhaustive, double-blind, US-based MPA studies anyhow?
|
Shouldn't the burden of proof be on those that are trying to change the rules?
Quote:
|
How are rivers being off limits to fishing different from MPAs that are off limits to fishing?
|
For one thing, the data are much better for relatively small, relatively closed systems like freshwater lakes and streams.
Quote:
Another person with those awesome rose colored shades.
|
I'm not surprised that the discussion devolved into ranting and name calling. I just wanted to point out that you started it. Too bad really, as I'm trying to learn more about the MLPA process as well.