|
|
| Do you guys feel that Tracking Studies produce good "research" that can help us as anglers? Do they produce VALID data? Should we continue with these practices? I am afraid that with the past controversies over some "good" exeriments that researchers will be afraid to make INTERPRETATIONS of that data.... which is the most critical aspect. Data without any interpretation is useless in my opinion. Can this "problem" be avoided? | |
| | |
| The problem with the studies that were surrounded by controversy was not, in my opinion, the fact that telemetry tracking was part of the study.
There is a study sponsored by the Milwaukee Chapter of Muskies Inc. that has been under way for several seasons. The results are still coming in. Dr. Anderson and his crew have accumulated a vast amount of data, and will eventually be able to publish interpretation/observation based on that data. I have seen Ron's presentation several times about The Pewaukee Study progress; this is good science.
The study conducted on the Chip was a mess, pure and simple. There was no way anyone could have 'iterpreted' the available data to substantiate the claims made to the public. The problems there were covered in a recent Esox Angler Magazine article written by Rob Kimm and me. Simply put, that telemetry 'project' was NOT good science. The 'results' were anecdotal in nature, not based on scientific data interpretation.
In short, there should be absolutely no reason scientists and biologists would
avoid interpretation of telemetry data if properly gathered and recorded. The interpretation of the data must be based on scientific principle and follow accepted scientific protocol. The completed study then would be available for peer review.
I am certian that the technique will be used more, not less, in the future as transmitters shrink in size and become more long lived and reliable.
| |
| | |
| I feel that there is certainly some good data the radio telemetry have found.
There have been a good number of such studies done by very qualified biologists on a good number of lakes. I know of tracking studies done on Eagle Lake (Larry Ramsell was involved), the St Lawrence River (spawning homing tendencies where noted, as well as movement to Lake Ontario), Leech Lake, which resulted in locating spawning areas, which helped the Minn DNR
looate and trap the Leech Lake strain which resulted in stocking of this fish in many lakes. There have also been tracking studies done in Spirit Lake, Iowa, Lake Nogies in Eastern Ontario, and many others as well as the
Chip.
I have looked at a number of the results, and from what I can tell there are some simularities between each study, as well as great variation between lakes. It looks like most studies prove that muskies estabilish what is called a "home Range", that is an area that they swim around it and basically do all the things necessary for them to survive (eat, hide, and have water quality that meets their minimun requirements for survival). This home range varies from lake to lake, and will vary depending on type of lake, the forage available, water temperatures, and time of year. They also vary greatly from fish to fish, which should tell us that not all the fish in the lake are doing the same thing at the same time. The one thing that the Chip study found which I felt was important is that most of the fish survived after being released, even if badly hooked with a lure, which makes me feel better after I release a badly hooked fish.
I once guided a Dr. John Tester of the University of Minnesota. He was a professor in the dept of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior. One of his gradute students did a lot of work in the development of much of the tracking equipment that is now in use. He also was an instructor in a course that was offered in a summer session that taught "fish tracking".
He cautioned that we as fishermen don't make too much of these studies from a pure fishing standpoint as most studies don't show what the fish are doing or why they are there, but only were they are.
I have seen a proposal to do a tracking study on the LOTWs, but I don't think that it ever got started. One of the interesting things with this study is that they where going to record various enviromental conditions when the fish were found (water temp, oxygen, PH, clarity etc.). I suspect that a study like this done by professionals could lead to something that could be used by fisherman.
Perhaps it's better if the study doesn't get done.
Doug Johnson | |
| | |
| Jlong....taking your questions as they come. Do tracking studies produce research that can help us as anglers? As Dougj just stated they probably don't help us a great deal specifically for fishing. Studies he mentioned measuring water clarity, pH, temp, etc., would be much more revealing from a fishing standpoint....maybe too revealing. BUT for understanding the nature of the musky and perhaps to better understand it's life cycle and habits all those things are very important in the managing of musky lakes.....perhaps even critical. I'm sure this something all of us support.
Do they produce valid data?? Well data collected without any immediate intrepretation is certainly valid. Where was the fish, when was is there, etc. Now applying a "Why was it there?" is where interpretation comes in. But there needs to be a large sample of fish overtime to begin to interpret data. From my understanding there are some good studies going on but they can involve several years to be studied properly, interpretation done, conclusions arrived at(if any). Intrepretation is always the trickiest part and needs to be done by by professionals with complete peer review. That is the straight definition of good, research science. Which I think in the long run is invaluable for musky due to their limited range and low density...the more we, or the biologists, understand the better for the fish.
"...with past controversies over some 'good' experiements researchers will be afraid to make interpretations...." Interesting statement. I certainly am no guru of musky studies (although I am trying to learn as much as I can) but we certainly must be talking about the CFMS with that comment. For one, the CFMS was NOT a "good" experiement from the outset. And their conclusions were based upon late night party making (or perhaps use of a ouija board) not the data...they never made ANY attempt to substantiate ANY thing that said from data or research. As a matter-of-fact when REAL data sheets were produced they ran from and discredited them and anyone associated with them. And to even hint at calling them proper "researchers" is tantamount to calling Madonna a virgin.
If you read the CFMS proposal before the "study" began you'll find all the conclusions contained in it...imagine that even before the study was done. The CFMS had virtually nothing to do with musky research but was a thinly vieled attempt to prop up the Chip's declining musky fishery. And as a science study it belongs in the "extreme quakery" category. I hope I have not been too shy in my comments.
If there is other studies in this category I am not aware of them. Certainly no bonafide fisheries biologist is going to give a second thought to the CFMS as anything critical or important...our criticism of it can hardly affect REAL researchers in any way.
Problem avoided? Easy, let's help fund true researchers in helping us understand the musky better....not those who are being self-serving at best, with personal stakes in every comment that is made.
Need to let my blood pressure subside,
BrianW
[:devil:] [:bigsmile:] | |
| | |
| Whao... hold on here Doc.
The intent of this post is NOT to discuss specific past studies, and DEFINITELY not to discuss any of the percieved "controversy" that some may have recieved. The only reason the word "controversy" was used was to acknowledge that it CAN and WILL happen.... whether appropriate or not.... because there is no real way to prove anything when it comes to fishing. Thus our dilema when trying to research with the fisherman in mind.
My question is HOW do we go about conducting tracking studies in the future KNOWING that if someone offers an interpretation of the data produced in an attempt to HELP fisherman that it will receive criticism? In order to apply the data from a tracking study to help us become better fisherman, SOMEONE must stick their neck out on the chopping block and propose a THEORY as to WHY the fish behaved the way they did. No proof, other than the circumstantial evidence that the fish were there and some ideas to explain why. Are any individuals willing to take that risk?
Should future tracking studies just simply publish the hard data and make NO conclusions??? Let us fisherman make our OWN conclusions about the data? Man, I hope not!
Tracking studies were initially deployed to learn about the habits of muskies for fishery manangement, NOT to help improve the success of fisherman. Unfortunately, fisherman want the tracking studies done to help THEM catch more fish... not to benefit biologists and help them understand habitat and other enviromental requirements for the healthy survival of muskies.
This is what I am asking here. Should tracking studies be conducted for the betterment of FISHERIES MANAGEMENT from a biological point of view.... OR.... should they be conducted to understand the habits of muskies from a FISHERMAN's point of view?
Personally, I'd like to see biologists do the research..... and then have awesome fisherman like Joe Bucher, Pete Maina, Doug Johnson, Dick Pearson, Larry Ramsell, Bob Mehsikomer, Jim Saric, Steve Heiting, and dozens of others take a stab at making sense of the data and apply it to muskie fishing. I bet they all would have different viewpoints and offer some great insight to help us all become better fisherman... whether scientifically justified or not.
This was just an innocent thought I had... and not meant to "stir the pot".
| |
| | |
| LOL...sorry to get going...I noticed you judiciously avoided mentioning SteveW bringing up the same subject...where else has there been serious controversy regarding a tracking study???? Anyway I will leave that alone as your intention, Jason, was obviously different than I read into it.
I agree with DougJ that musky probably wouldn't be better off if we knew too much about them. I don't think fisheries biologists will ultimately gear their tracking studies towards specifically helping us as fisherman. But as you say, the expert musky guys can take the results of those studies and interpret them for fishing purposes. I certainly wouldn't have the musky background to do any such thing. But if someone wanted to obtain the raw data and do their own conclusions there would probably not be any reason they couldn't obtain that information. One usually has to wait until a study is completed.
Tracking studies may tell us when and where the fish were but not the mitigating factors which put them there...and understanding that is what would have the most application to fishing. It's a good question Jason.....
BrianW....I apologize for ruffling the feathers...a little bit anyway... [;)] | |
| | |
| No problem Doc... I probably singled you out because you were the last post I read.
Anyway, just wanted to quickly point out that this thread intended to leave the past in the past and look forward to the future.
Personally, I'm more interested in what the expert fisherman think of the data generated by expert biologists. According to my business card, I work in "applied research". What that means is I am the guy that takes "PURE research generated under generally accepted scientific protocal" and applies it to the "real world". I'd like to see more fisherman doing the same with the very limited data that exists..... and I'd like to see more and better data generated in the future.
Sorry for bringing my work home with me (ha ha).
| |
| | |
| You have to remember one thing about studies, data and data interpretation. Studies are only as good as the data collected and therefore the interpretations are also subjected directly to the validity of the data collected.
Remember one thing. Data can be made to say just about anything you want it to depending on the viewpoint of those doing the interpretation. A prime example that I can relay is traffic crash data. Look at the data for traffic crashes and then look at a single accident. The D.O.T. will say one thing, the driver another and the insurance company yet another. All based on the same accident, the same data...yet different viewpoints.
I think the collection of the data itself is important. How to use or interpret that data will be played out at a later date. I always find it funny to look at the results of a study and see what was concluded from that study. Then, keep an eye on it and see how the conclusions change or how close to factual the original interpretation was.
As for the use of the data collected? I would say much better served for the purpose of bettering the fishery itself than for the purposes of bettering the fishermen. In the end it comes down to time on the water. You can give 10 people the same information. The people who have the time and money and are in the best location to spend time on quality musky water will be better able to use the data provided. They will be able to use the data to their advantage through more time on the water under different conditions. Whereas someone else due to job, money or lack of good musky location will not be able to do as much with the data because he is limited by the amount of time on the water under those different conditions.
Again I feel it better to use the information for fisheries management and keep the rest of us on a somewhat more level playing field.
Just my opinion.
Scott | |
| | |
| We have had some very succesfull studies done here in eastern Ontario. I actualy have a very thick blue book with the results of the one done here on the Ottawa River. Wish I remembered where it is at. One thing is for sure that these studies helped us find where the fish spawned as well as when they did. It also showed us that the same fish will be in the same place year after year but it also showed us this one fish that was the opposite of the others. I have only caught one of the study fish and it was a monster at 54 inches caught July of '97 some 4 to 5 years after the study.
If I find this book I will add some more about the results. But I can tell you that when it is well done a telemetry study can be very usefull to fishermen. | |
| |
|
Tracking Studies