Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Interesting Article on salmon in the ecosystem

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default Interesting Article on salmon in the ecosystem

    I ran across a rather interesting article titled "Pacific Salmon in the Aquatic and Terrestial Ecosystems". It was published in the Oct. 2002 issue of BioScience.

    The authors sums up a lot of the current knowledge and unknowns and suggest new research that needs to be done. There are many references at the end so it appears the authors did their homework.

    It is clear that the whole ecosystem subject is very complicated and interlinked and there is a lot we still don't know or understand. To suggest that we are managing our salmon fisheries based on long term goals and the maximum benefit to the whole ecosystem appears to be rather misleading according to this article.

    It would certainly appear that my suggestion that a lot more research is needed before we can make certain we are not accumulating long term damage to the fisheries certainly has merit.

    I urge everyone to do your own research - don't take anyone's word for anything! The "experts" often time only know a bit more than you do and will try to impress you with what they think they know.


    Link to the article is: http://www.nps.gov/glba/naturescienc...ecosystems.pdf
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,522

    Default article does not say what you say it does

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post
    .

    To suggest that we are managing our salmon fisheries based on long term goals and the maximum benefit to the whole ecosystem appears to be rather misleading according to this article.

    It would certainly appear that my suggestion that a lot more research is needed before we can make certain we are not accumulating long term damage to the fisheries certainly has merit.

    I urge everyone to do your own research - don't take anyone's word for anything! The "experts" often time only know a bit more than you do and will try to impress you with what they think they know.

    The article was interesting and dated. Ecosystem studies are becoming more important but TVfinak takes an article filled with qualifications and questions and makes it a valid source for his bias and opinion. First, people who manage resources do it on best available information and that includes ecosystem concerns in a number of cases. To suggest that we should wait to manage resources until some long-term research is completed misses the point of management. Yes fish management is not precise but do we stop all fisheries until TVfinak is satisfied? Do we reduce all harvest by some arbitary percentage and at what cost? Certainly in Alaska the escapement goal concept of MSY or high sustained yields reduces the risks he is afraid of and by definition management in Alaska assumes long term sustainability - to do otherwise is to violate the constitution of the state.

    Second, one cannot prove a negative. So we can never say we are not having long term impacts. That is not a scientific reality. We can gather data and make predictions but TVfinak references impacts to fisheries - which are users and not fish and second is not an ecosystem approach.

    Finally, to tell people to do their own research and not trust experts is a form of class warfare. Basically this is saying that untrained individuals should do their own research, based on what foundation I do not know, and then debate those who have a scientific and professional standard to follow is nothing more than popularism. This tends to reduce complex issues to the lowest common level and thus is not in the best interests of society. Complex issues require experts to be responsibile and responsive to the needs of society, not demeaned as TVfinak does.

    While one should not accept one individuals opinion as fact the facts or data speak to the issues of bias. They are either correct or they are not. The issue for the general public is to see how the scientific community reacts to a position or conclusion. In the case of ecosystem management most of the scientific community understands the complexity and need for other consideration in management. What TVfinak does not understand that in the present literature human needs and concerns are part of the ecosystem management equation.

  3. #3
    Member AlaskaHippie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Beaver Fork
    Posts
    3,853

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post

    I urge everyone to do your own research - don't take anyone's word for anything! The "experts" often time only know a bit more than you do and will try to impress you with what they think they know.

    There was a guy up here a few years back who had the same philosophy. "To Hell with the 'experts', I'll do my own thing.".....


    What was the name again....?

    Oh, yeah.....

    “Life has become immeasurably better since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously.” ― H.S.T.
    "Character is how you treat those who can do nothing for you."

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    607

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post
    I
    It would certainly appear that my suggestion that a lot more research is needed before we can make certain we are not accumulating long term damage to the fisheries certainly has merit.

    I urge everyone to do your own research - don't take anyone's word for anything! The "experts" often time only know a bit more than you do and will try to impress you with what they think they know.


    Link to the article is: http://www.nps.gov/glba/naturescienc...ecosystems.pdf
    I think this is a very sensible way to address most fisheries questions. Check things out for yourselves and don't rely on a single source for information about a very complex issue.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,522

    Default off topic but

    Quote Originally Posted by gusdog44 View Post
    I think this is a very sensible way to address most fisheries questions. Check things out for yourselves and don't rely on a single source for information about a very complex issue.
    We are off topic but here is a thought. In the 1940-1960 period 80% of the American public trusted government and what experts had to say-- the source of this figure is David Brooks, a well respected journalist. Today less than 20% trust government. As a result we are in the situation that government cannot deal with complex issues - everything is reduced to the lowest common level. Therefore, I would suggest that checking things out is fine but when TVfinak says do not take anyone's word for anything he feeds into the hysteria we have today and the lack of being able to solve issues. That is a sad commentary on our society.

    Science never takes one person's word or authority. Science is based on data. So today we have people who generate data on their own, post it on a blog as fact, and then argue that it is correct when shown it is false. Not the society I want but that is what we have. Maybe it would be more constructive to help define the issues and work toward solutions rather than fight the science.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,085

    Default Treadwell

    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskaHippie View Post

    There was a guy up here a few years back who had the same philosophy. "To Hell with the 'experts', I'll do my own thing.".....

    What was the name again....?

    Heck Hippie, there are some who try to pass Treadwell off as an expert himself.
    An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it.
    - Jef Mallett

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,448

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    We are off topic but here is a thought. In the 1940-1960 period 80% of the American public trusted government and what experts had to say-- the source of this figure is David Brooks, a well respected journalist. Today less than 20% trust government. As a result we are in the situation that government cannot deal with complex issues - everything is reduced to the lowest common level. Therefore, I would suggest that checking things out is fine but when TVfinak says do not take anyone's word for anything he feeds into the hysteria we have today and the lack of being able to solve issues. That is a sad commentary on our society.

    Science never takes one person's word or authority. Science is based on data. So today we have people who generate data on their own, post it on a blog as fact, and then argue that it is correct when shown it is false. Not the society I want but that is what we have. Maybe it would be more constructive to help define the issues and work toward solutions rather than fight the science.
    Nerka
    I agree with science. I am a biology major. However we have both seen "science with a slant" Many times things are "enhanced" or deleted to show one side or another. Just like the media. there is little reporting but a ton of editorializing out there.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default An excellent example

    Old Tim WAS an excellent example of what I stated- but the reason is far different from what you stated.

    Like many "experts" - Tim did proclaim himself an expert on bear behavior and appeared on TV etc. as such- Tim was wrong- DEAD WRONG!

    If his girlfriend has did her research herself - as I recommend- rather than listening to the "expert" she may still be alive.

    It was a sad event that could had been avoided with a little common sense.


    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskaHippie View Post
    There was a guy up here a few years back who had the same philosophy. "To Hell with the 'experts', I'll do my own thing.".....

    What was the name again....?

    Oh, yeah.....
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default Bias and Opinion

    As even you appear to admit we are not certain that long term damage is not being done to our rivers that support our wondefull salmon runs. My position has always been that the whole subject is very complex, much is unknown, and more study needs to be done to make certain we are no doing any long term damage. It appears to me the subject article and many others support my position. Perhaps you can reference some sources that are less dated and answer all the questions and concerns.

    Remember it was not so long ago that the territory of Alaska paid a bounty for bald eagles and destroyed trout and dollies because it was considered good fishereis management based on the "best available information".

    People have lost faith in government and "science" recently due to recent hoaxes like the "global warming" and the "ozone hole". When "science" and our government tried to tell us we are going into global cooling and we need to speed billions to prevent another ice age and then a few decades later tells us to spend trillions to prevent "global waming" people do tend to be a bit skeptical! Perhaps they are not as dumb as you would like to believe.

    Our government is based on the premise that people are not idiots as you seem to suggest. People can indeed study and form their own opinions and I trust them to do so. To suggest that the government and its paid "experts"like algore knows what is best for society - rather that the the people - is simply contrary to the principles of basic American beliefs!


    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    The article was interesting and dated. Ecosystem studies are becoming more important but TVfinak takes an article filled with qualifications and questions and makes it a valid source for his bias and opinion. First, people who manage resources do it on best available information and that includes ecosystem concerns in a number of cases. To suggest that we should wait to manage resources until some long-term research is completed misses the point of management. Yes fish management is not precise but do we stop all fisheries until TVfinak is satisfied? Do we reduce all harvest by some arbitary percentage and at what cost? Certainly in Alaska the escapement goal concept of MSY or high sustained yields reduces the risks he is afraid of and by definition management in Alaska assumes long term sustainability - to do otherwise is to violate the constitution of the state.

    Second, one cannot prove a negative. So we can never say we are not having long term impacts. That is not a scientific reality. We can gather data and make predictions but TVfinak references impacts to fisheries - which are users and not fish and second is not an ecosystem approach.

    Finally, to tell people to do their own research and not trust experts is a form of class warfare. Basically this is saying that untrained individuals should do their own research, based on what foundation I do not know, and then debate those who have a scientific and professional standard to follow is nothing more than popularism. This tends to reduce complex issues to the lowest common level and thus is not in the best interests of society. Complex issues require experts to be responsibile and responsive to the needs of society, not demeaned as TVfinak does.

    While one should not accept one individuals opinion as fact the facts or data speak to the issues of bias. They are either correct or they are not. The issue for the general public is to see how the scientific community reacts to a position or conclusion. In the case of ecosystem management most of the scientific community understands the complexity and need for other consideration in management. What TVfinak does not understand that in the present literature human needs and concerns are part of the ecosystem management equation.
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,522

    Default made my point

    [QUOTE=tvfinak;668394]
    People have lost faith in government and "science" recently due to recent hoaxes like the "global warming" and the "ozone hole". When "science" and our government tried to tell us we are going into global cooling and we need to speed billions to prevent another ice age and then a few decades later tells us to spend trillions to prevent "global waming" people do tend to be a bit skeptical! Perhaps they are not as dumb as you would like to believe.

    QUOTE]

    I think this statement makes my point. Anyone who has researched this topic know that global warming and ozone hole are real evidents. So we dumb down the discussion in a group of lay people who have no idea how to evaluate either of these subjects rather than spend the time to solve them. Sorry TVfinak but this example makes my point.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default No blind faith

    Is your point that anyone who disagrees with the current popular mindset is a dumb "lay person" that is too ignorant to study the evidence and form an opinion or even ask intelligent questions? I give people a lot more credit! Take a look at a lot of the people jumping on the band wagon for global warming hoax - can you find a more clueless bunch that the hollywoood crowd and journalist?

    Even amoung the scientific and engineering comunities the verdict on man-made global warming and the ozone hole is hardly unanimous. Are you even aware that the NASA climate data for the last century was quietly revised after some savy engineers found it had an Y2K error and then questioned NASA?

    And what happened to the global cooling we were all in a panic about in the 70s? We were about to enter another ice age as you many recall due to man-made pollution reflecting sunlight. I myself worked on projects in the 70s to remove fly ash from the air because it was causing global cooling! How does the old saying go- 'fool me once..."

    As to my bias you keep harping about - did you ever check out your hero al gore? He has real bias - he is getting rich off all the people that blindly buy into his line. And of course his own energy useage is a real joke - we don't even need to go there!

    And returning to track for a moment - did you locate a good updated comprehensive study of salmon in the ecosystem? I may be a dumb "layman" but I'm learning fast and would appreciate your help.


    [QUOTE=Nerka;668423]
    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post
    People have lost faith in government and "science" recently due to recent hoaxes like the "global warming" and the "ozone hole". When "science" and our government tried to tell us we are going into global cooling and we need to speed billions to prevent another ice age and then a few decades later tells us to spend trillions to prevent "global waming" people do tend to be a bit skeptical! Perhaps they are not as dumb as you would like to believe.

    QUOTE]

    I think this statement makes my point. Anyone who has researched this topic know that global warming and ozone hole are real evidents. So we dumb down the discussion in a group of lay people who have no idea how to evaluate either of these subjects rather than spend the time to solve them. Sorry TVfinak but this example makes my point.
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,522

    Default lets start TVfinak

    And returning to track for a moment - did you locate a good updated comprehensive study of salmon in the ecosystem? I may be a dumb "layman" but I'm learning fast and would appreciate your help.


    TVfinak, need some help here. What ecosystem are you speaking? Ecosystem is a broad term and therefore when one talks about ecosystem studies just what term are you using. Maybe you should start by google with the subject ecosystem definitions. After that maybe we can go on to the next phase of your training. This should take about 2 years and then some post forum graduate work. Are you ready to committ to that level of effort.

    Just for fun you might want to read some of the issues with management of systems - this abstract is from Ecology and Society and the article was by Susan S. Hanna. It is just one of hundreds on this subject but first we need to get you up to speed on what is an ecosystem.



    ABSTRACT
    Institutions are the mechanisms that integrate the human and ecological spheres. This paper discusses the institutional challenge of integrating salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) ecosystems and human systems in ways that effectively promote resilience. Salmon recovery in the Columbia River Basin demonstrates the challenge. Despite the comprehensive scope of Basin salmon management, it has a number of problems that illustrate the difficulties of designing institutions for ecosystem and human system resilience. The critical elements of salmon ecosystem management are incentives and transaction costs, and these comprise a large piece of missing institutional infrastructure. Once the focus is placed on incentives and costs, a number of different management strategies emerge as options for salmon ecosystems, including refugia, property rights to ecosystem goods and services, co-management, and markets in ecosystem services.

    For the record the global warming debate which TVfinak calls a hoax demostrates to me that the lay public does represent a dumbing down of the issue to a place a level that cannot move forward without leadership. TVfinak keeps making claims that are not supported by data. His reference to NASA and causes show this to be the case. These issues have been put to rest in the scientific community and I do not see any leaders in this field standing up and saying NASA makes this whole thing a farce or incorrect. Only the TVfinak of this world want to jump on that band wagon and frankly it serves no use to society to beat those horses.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default What leadership?

    It would appear that you think everyone except yourself and a few "leaders" are incapable of making any decisions regarding science and interpreting data.

    There are many intellegent and respected scientist and technical savy people besides myself that do not buy into algore's manufactured hoax of man caused global warming. In addition to questionable data we cannot seperate cause and effect - the earth went through many periods of warming and cooling and increases and decreases of CO2 that were clearly not man made. A few of the many highly respected figures that dispute the man-made global warming hoax can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...global_warming
    Check them out and their credentials - these are high learned and expereinced individuals - not "dumb lay men".

    And there was the global cooling panic of the 70's - ever wonder what happened to global cooling and how we suddenly went from cooling to warming? Remember there were warning that we were heading into another ice age - very similar to the manufactured climate panic if today. I need to do some research - al gore or his crooked dad may have gotten rich off that one too.

    As to a leader - are you speaking of al gore and the current crop in DC? It appears that some of them have the same apparent attitude as yourself: that people are too dumb to make decisions for their own good. As an American I totally disagree - but you are entitled to your opinion.


    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    For the record the global warming debate which TVfinak calls a hoax demostrates to me that the lay public does represent a dumbing down of the issue to a place a level that cannot move forward without leadership. TVfinak keeps making claims that are not supported by data. His reference to NASA and causes show this to be the case. These issues have been put to rest in the scientific community and I do not see any leaders in this field standing up and saying NASA makes this whole thing a farce or incorrect. Only the TVfinak of this world want to jump on that band wagon and frankly it serves no use to society to beat those horses.
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •