Here is my response to absolon's earlier comment.
Quote from: alwaysfishn on August 01, 2012, 10:04:05 PM
Still refusing to use a little logic......
The fact that they did not catch any salmonoids in the net only proves there were none in the area at the time the tests were taken.
The study was conducted near Gilford Island which is well away from any salmon migratory route and because the time period was between early February and the middle of April there wouldn't have been any sockeye present as they don't normally start migrating till May.
Admit it, your argument that no salmonoids were caught, and suggesting that proves that feedlot lights don't attract wild salmonoids, is one of the silliest arguments you've ever put forward.... Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
What I provided was a summary of the actual scientific study. Why don't you read the entire 10 page report before commenting any further....
http://www.fishingwithrod.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=30772.0#quickreply
The obvious question would be to ask why you posted the study in the first place. As you've suggested yourself, the study conditions bear no relationship to the environment around a farm. In fact, the authors even caution about drawing any conclusions about farms based on their work and I specifically pointed that out to you. In that same post, I also pointed out that the authors (and not myself as you are dishonestly claiming is the case, a tactic you use with great frequency) suggested that statistically insignificant numbers of salmon were found and also that both Pinks and Chum have an aversion to abnormal conditions.
In fact, nothing you have presented is related to what that study says or has any basis in any fact. You've commented several times about reading the study. I would suggest to you that is only part of the battle. The next and a more important step is understanding what it is saying, something you clearly haven't managed to accomplish. The final step is the development of a reasonable interpretation of what the study means. Obviously, if you don't understand what you've read, the result will be the sort of nonsense you've presented here where you try to convince people that the study actually infers a conclusion diametrically opposite to the authors' own stated conclusions.
On the other hand, the manuscript aquapaloosa supplied is considerably more relevant and it's observation that one small non-salmonid was all that was found in the stomach contents of some 500 or so farm fish suggests you are just blowing your usual smoke with your attempts to rationalize and reconcile that result with the nonsense you are trying to promote. I would suggest you stop digging and instead man up and deal with the question Shuswapsteve posed about the source of the IHN infection in the other thread. It is obvious you've seen it; you were rudely dismissive of any real facts and now you are running and hiding from a perfectly reasonable request to back up your statements with something other than your imagination and your usual technique of bluster and my smelly socks.
Author
Topic: Salmon Feedlots using night lights to attract wild fish? (Read 31753 times)