|
|
Posts: 2361
| Many on the trolling thread, and numerous other threads make certain erroneous claims that science supports their viewpoint and goes against some other's perceived set of conditions, however that is rather foolish and poorly thought out.
Science simply answers questions asked, creates and proves theory and hypothesis big and small, and is able to predict outcomes of various inputs and usages. Science really doesn't support any argument unless it is framed in the desires of a certain group. Science doesn't defend fishing regulations, or ways of fishing. Science does not say that it is wrong to dynamite fish on their spawning run, nor does it say it is wrong to net, spear, electrofish or otherwise take fish in any and all sundry matters. Science is not ethical, it has no emotion and it does not take a viewpoint on resource usage. To hear some talk on these boards, it does all this. It doesn't. It can be engaged in the study of dynamic systems, from turtle reproduction all the way to the candybar market in Chicago.
You can have a viewpoint, and you can bring in scientific knowledge and studies about that viewpoint, but it is still YOUR viewpoint. Science does not have a value system. It doesn't differentiate on the ways fish are killed, when considering the dynamics of population studies, unless you ask it to. Science doesn't care how fish are harvested. Science can predict how many 30 pound fish, and fish over 20 pounds can be harvested before anglers perceive they are having infrequent encounters with big fish(aka the "This lake sucks" theory). But science doesn't care how those fish are taken out, man does, and here we come to a choice of tradition vs tradition, not science vs tradition-as many tout. Scientists like nice clear results, and frankly would probably prefer the fish be netted in large quantities, and the harvest taken at spawning time, nice and cleanly. Instead, fishermen of many types both man, and various creatures, hodge podgidly predate the population. Fishermen fish using many TRADITIONAL methods, NONE OF WHICH SCIENCE CARES ABOUT.
So get real here. Tradition is the basis of much of our fishing regardless of method. 
Edited by firstsixfeet 10/1/2008 7:04 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
Well, what science does is tell you what is happening in your fishery and why, and then it is up to "logic" to decide what to do or not do.
What exactly are you saying?
Science can tell you when fish spawn. Logic can tell you to protect them at that time. Logic can tell you that if you want to have a stocking program to utilize the period when fish spawn.
Are you saying science has no place in understanding the world around us so we can make informed decisions?
JS
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| john skarie - 10/1/2008 7:14 PM
Well, what science does is tell you what is happening in your fishery and why, and then it is up to "logic" to decide what to do or not do.
What exactly are you saying?
Science can tell you when fish spawn. Logic can tell you to protect them at that time. Logic can tell you that if you want to have a stocking program to utilize the period when fish spawn.
Are you saying science has no place in understanding the world around us so we can make informed decisions?
JS
Nope, your values and traditions are what guide your decision, not your logic. And you are confused about the role of logic also.
Say your desire is to harvest the maximum biomass of musky yearly extended over a number of years and have the fishery maintain itself. Science might tell you that to do this you need tonet and then artificially spawn 30-36 inch fish, and then harvest 50% of this population and all the fish over 45". Your values and traditions set the harvest goals, science doesn't care what they are. Just noting that most of the goals and values are traditional, in and among themselves, NOT SCIENTIFIC. Trolling vs casting is not science vs tradition. ALL regulations are dependent first on values and traditions. NOT SCIENCE. SCIENCE DON'T FISH FOR MUSKIES! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32951
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Show me where someone said that, in the context you are creating.
Semantics. Note the term 'the' in front of the word 'science' in that context.
Social Science....how about that?
Quit making sense, really. Killjoy.:) |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4266
| Science, in this case biology, will give you a greater understanding of the habits, habitat, prey species and their habits and put you better in touch with the fish or game that you persue. The more you know about your quarry, the better equipped you are.
Professional teams use all the information that they can gather to better prepare themselves for their opponents. Any military in the world will be dust if they don't do their homework about their enemy's strengths and weaknesses.
Aren't the electronics, locators, GPS units, temp gauges, underwater cameras and the like all at our fingertips because of advances in science. Even go back as far as the invention of the outboard motor, and you are looking at advances that benefit fishermen because of science.
Face it, most of the traditions that we have today came about because of a greater understanding of fish and their habits that were all brought to light by biological knowledge that was passed to us in one way or another. Even the Native Americans were flexing their biological know how when they figured out that there were more fish to spear in the shallows in spring, and that the rivers that fed the oceans teemed with fish in the fall. Like it or not, a person with a better understanding of the science that effects his prey will be far more successful than one who stands on tradition alone.
Beaver |
|
| |
|
Posts: 906
Location: Warroad, Mn | FSF: I suspect that you must have had a tough day at the hospital, and are 2/3's the way through a 6 pack. What you say has very little to do with what most muskie fisherman do. Most just go fishing with very little thought about science, and by and large most don't care much about it. Doug Johnson |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32951
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I care. really. Mostly so I can have this sort of 'discussion' with FSF. How the muskies been treating you, Doug? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | I flunked science. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | some people have way toooooooooo much time and overthink things to an extreme. Common sense still prevails in most cases and its that simple.
Pfeiff |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20269
Location: oswego, il | FSF, science has told us that muskies have a brain the size of a pea, which incidentally, twice the size of mine.  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 477
Location: Iowa | I'm with you ToddM. It don't matter if I cast or troll, how can something with such a small brain be so #*^@ hard to trick into hitting some days?????? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | All I know is that if FSF and/or Skarie starts fishing with bra's on their head I quit!!!!!
For those of you who missed the 80's, rent "Weird Science". |
|
| |
|
Posts: 223
Location: Minn. | Now that's funny. LMAO |
|
| |
|
| We set goals and utilize scientific knowledge in our attempts to achieve those goals.
Science doesn't have much to do with trolling on its own, but what's yor goal?
What a stupid post. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 366
| Science does not catch muskies. Science does not build bridges. Science does not put a man on the moon. Science does not cure cancer. Your right humans do these things, not science. Science is nothing more than a tool. The scientific method has proved to be a very valuable tool, at that. Sure you can build a bridge without tools, but no where near as easily or as well as you can with tools. Scientific method being one of the most useful and important.
Science can seem silly or a waste when you're standing there with a pile of building materials and you need to get to the other side of a river. You can choose to start building and get it done to get to the other side, or you can break down your design and study each element till you know you have it right, and the bridge is the best bridge you have to offer and can create. Obviously there are many levels of study and analysis at which you could stop and say, ok this is good enough for the situation at hand. Some will look at it and say, well Uncle Bob always built bridges like this. While others will stop and say, there's no reason to use this many boards and nails, or they might say, Uncle Bob just used this bridge for foot traffic and I'd like to drive a truck over it.
One man is no more right or wrong because he wants to get to the other side as soon as possible, as the fellow who wants to study the sheer force on the nails long before he ever actually hammers one home. But when you're building it for more than just personal use, you better build it to the best of your abilities and budget will allow.
So what does this have to do with muskie fishing? Just about nothing if you're in my boat.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
Saying science doesn't do anything is correct, but that's because it's not capable of doing anything.
Our fishing rods don't do anything either, we use them to catch fish.
When we make decisions, we are "doing" something. Whether our decisions are based on science, fantasy or ignorance will effect the outcome of our decisions.
So, anyway, time to go look at bras. Why not, I've done lots of things dumber than that!!
JS |
|
| |
|
Location: Twin Cities | Should this discussion be about science in a broad spectrum topic and application or is it really intended to mean biology? In regards to muskie fishing, ecosystems and biology would seem more pertinent than science...unless you're talking about taking a scientific approach to analyzing your activity of muskie fishing? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| john skarie - 10/2/2008 9:13 AM
Saying science doesn't do anything is correct, but that's because it's not capable of doing anything.
Our fishing rods don't do anything either, we use them to catch fish.
When we make decisions, we are "doing" something. Whether our decisions are based on science, fantasy or ignorance will effect the outcome of our decisions.
So, anyway, time to go look at bras. Why not, I've done lots of things dumber than that!!
JS
Get me one too while your at it, and btw, the left side of my head is somewhat biggger than the right, the top kind of sticks up a little, you may have to get me a custom, in blue btw, if the fish looks up I want em to think it's sky(since the air in my head is of course colorless).
Oh, and insulated for winter, when I do most of my fishing, and oh yes, a grey one for cloudy days. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | I see Kellet discovered Science.......Al Gore science. A Muskie Treat web page? Now I need another part-time job. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 25
| FSF,
May I ask what even started this thread? I read your first post and had no idea what sparked this...
Are you bashing ALL science in general, or just its application to musky fishing? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| zarno12 - 10/2/2008 12:16 PM
FSF,
May I ask what even started this thread? I read your first post and had no idea what sparked this...
Are you bashing ALL science in general, or just its application to musky fishing?
Actually I posted this in reference to the somewhat elongated trolling post. If you read through that post you will note that people claim tradition is the guide for the non trolling statute, and not science. However tradition is part of both trolling and casting and row trolling for that matter. In the same argument there is the argument broached that science does not support the non trolling rules, with various subheadings including ie I want my regulations guided by good science. In reality, science can be used to support or enhance any set of regulations, but invariably fisherman values, and traditions(both trolling and casting are traditions), set the goals for those regulations and the overall resource, NOT SCIENCE.
Actually it was a lot simpler than some of the interpretations and answers, but hey, I'm a simple guy.
Edited by firstsixfeet 10/2/2008 12:56 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32951
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Simple??? Not.
Fishing the puddles this weekend, going for the Slop Monsters.
The Science supports it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2865
Location: Brookfield, WI | I recently played two golf courses that had GPS systems on their carts that report the supposed "exact" yardage to the pin. I posted two of my worst scores of the year. I was short or long into greens during both rounds. As soon as I ignored the GPS and began playing traditionally, i.e. look at the 150 marker or a sprinkler head with a yardage on it, and let my brain process the environment (wind, slope, etc.) and then send the signals to my hands and golf swing to determine how hard I should hit the ball with a certain club, I immediately started hitting the ball into greens and closer to the pin.
Screw science. It just got in the way. I play better the traditional way. With feel.
I believe fishing is not that much different. Science can tell you that at a certain temperature with a certain wind at a certain time of the day, year, or month the fish should be doing a certain "something", but the most skilled guys I have fished with use a lot of gut feeling to get the job done. One tall skinny dude in particular always seems to do pretty well trying something a little different than what the norm (not our Norm) or the science says he should be doing.
It's called having the "right" touch. There's a few guys I know here that have let me flatten their boat seats that have it. I suspect Steve has it big time, and one of these days I'm going to Rhinelander and let him prove it to me.
I know none of the above applies to FSF's post, but lately I've been thinking how hitting certain types of golf shots is very similar to being very good at working baits (my long standing argument with Sled and Norm that those fisherman that have the right touch and feel do much better). After reading the original post I wanted to see if I could get golf, science, and fishing into one post. I think I did a fine job.
Kevin
If I could putt I'd have the golf bug so bad I wouldn't be able to work. I would probably go broke, and enjoy doing it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8856
| Screw Science, let's talk about math.
more lines in the water + more water covered = more fish caught
more fish caught + people wanting to catch more fish = more people fishing where those fish were caught
more people fishing + more fish caught = more fish killed
more fish killed + vilas + oneida county = BAD |
|
| |
|
Posts: 7105
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | esoxaddict - 10/2/2008 4:27 PM
Screw Science, let's talk about math.
more lines in the water + more water covered = more fish caught
more fish caught + people wanting to catch more fish = more people fishing where those fish were caught
more people fishing + more fish caught = more fish killed
more fish killed + vilas + oneida county = BAD
So basically, by your math, people fishing is bad. Nice. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2865
Location: Brookfield, WI | Slamr - 10/2/2008 4:29 PM
So basically, by your math, people fishing is bad. Nice.
He's a waterfront land owner. He's protecting what rightfully belongs to him. Has he built his lake front mansion yet?
Kevin
There's a guy on this golf forum I visit that uses science to debunk people's claims of how far they can hit the ball. It stinks. Golfers traditionally lie about how far they hit the ball. Similar to fishermen and the size of their catches. Yet another connection between golfers and fishermen.
Edited by MuskyHopeful 10/2/2008 4:41 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8856
| It's the inevitable fatality of many of those fish I have a problem with, not them being caught. Fish are dumb, you can catch them again and again. Well, until you whack 'em and hang 'em on the wall anyway. Or fillet them, or spend 10 minutes trying to unhook them while they're flooping around in the bottom of the boat, or pin their mouth shut with a bait and break the 15# test line you were using, or...
And no Kev, I haven't built my mansion yet. I'm waiting for the market to rebound. If it doesn't, I'll have to postpone the groundbreaking until around 2020. Unless Obama wins, in which case I'llbe up there by next year. I'll be living in a tree, but I'll be up there!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32951
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Nothing wrong with living in a tree. I live in one weeks on end in the late Fall. Never yet have seen a golf ball there, but there's a first time for everything. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN | The caster who is a master at his craft will catch more fish than the troller who just throws them out and drives.
There is not a direct correlation between more lines on the water and more fish caught in terms of muskie fishing IMHO. It isn't like slip bobber fishing for sunnies etc.
You also have to consider that the % delayed mortality has more to do with the individual angler than numbers of fish caught. i.e., an angler using "sloppy" release tactics can do more damage releasing 10 fish than an angler who catches 100 that goes barbless and water releases.
If the line of thinking is more fish caught is bad, than guides should be outlawed.
People should only be allowed to catch so many a year, only be able to fish so often etc. etc.
Where would it end??
JS
Edited by john skarie 10/2/2008 6:29 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4266
| 10% of the fishermen catch 90% of the fish.
90% of the fish are using 10% of the water in any given body of water.
Give me a fish and I eat for a day, teach me to fish and I eat for a lifetime.
The most important fishing tool that you have is under your hat. |
|
| |
|
| I enjoy watching folks attempt deep thoughts, 10% of thinkers have 90% of the deep thoughts....cheers. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32951
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I do not own a Mustang survival suit for the old bean, so I do not try to go near those cold, dark depths. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 518
Location: Cave Run Lake KY. | GAG - - And this is only Oct. I just can not wait till Feb. when Science says that Wisc. and Mn. fishermen can walk on water. Take Care as for me I , ( GATAGOFGR (8) ) |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8856
| Beaver - 10/2/2008 6:09 PM
10% of the fishermen catch 90% of the fish.
90% of the fish are using 10% of the water in any given body of water.
Give me a fish and I eat for a day, teach me to fish and I eat for a lifetime.
The most important fishing tool that you have is under your hat.
My hair? Or what's left of it anyway? Holy cow maybe there's something to that visor thing after all! |
|
| |
|
| AMEN BEAVER! What is up with all this science talk anyway?? Just get in your boat and fish! The time spent typing could have been time spent on the water! Find a pattern that works and stick with it, and for me I spend more time talking with the "older guys" who have been around a long time. I am the first to admit I am a talker but I have learned to talk less and listen more! The guys who have been around a long time paved the way for the rest of us. Knowledge is Key! Now go get a 50"!! |
|
| |
Science and muskies>All fishermen are liars except you and I, and i'm not sure about YOU!