Go Back   Bream Master Forums > General Bream Forums > Bream Anglers Tavern

Bream Anglers Tavern Drop in here if you're just surfing with a beer in your hand. Good place to just hang out...



Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16  
Old 18-06-2018, 03:33 AM
yellow door 1's Avatar
yellow door 1 yellow door 1 is offline
LEGEND Unicorn
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: melbourne
Posts: 12,314
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 18-06-2018, 07:53 AM
Cortinaboy Cortinaboy is offline
Big Bream
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Maribyrnong River
Posts: 528
Interesting representative of the anti science point of view. I’d never heard of her, but that doesn’t mean much, so I googled her and first Wikipedia entry was this.

In April 2013, Sahai was shown to have committed plagiarism in her habilitation thesis,[9] which had been submitted to the University of Heidelberg in 1986.[10] In addition, she was accused of presenting herself as being or having been a professor at that University, without ever actually having occupied such a position.[9] On 14 April 2013, the University of Heidelberg confirmed that plagiarism had taken place, that Sahai has no right to call herself a professor of the University of Heidelberg, and that in consequence Sahai had agreed to renounce her venia legendi.[9][11].

Is that her?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 18-06-2018, 08:18 AM
Cortinaboy Cortinaboy is offline
Big Bream
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Maribyrnong River
Posts: 528
I understand how people who don’t work in a field have misconceptions about it. I am a scientist, so I know my area, but I’d be guessing about how bankers, accountants, Builders, plumbers or teachers organise themselves. I suspect vice versa too. Can I invite skeptics to think about the implications of what they are accusing scientists of. How would this conspiracy work? The vast majority of scientists in the field (worldwide) would all have to be a part of the grand plan of telling lies about what is happening. Not just fish stocks mind you, apparently we’re up to no good with global warming, fluoride and vaccines too! All the research would need to be faked, the people who review journal articles, books and grants would have to be prepared to tell lies all the time and the whole hierarchy of leaders, supervising scientists who supervise PhD students and teach undergraduate students would have to be fraudulent. Firstly, can you imagine starting a job and being told you have to lie for the rest of your career about the truth? Noone would do it. And even if we are all cheats, how would we organise our fanciful tales without an honest citizen finding out? How would we get our stories straight? It’s such a nonsense I can’t understand how people propagate the idea. My only thought is that perhaps people are attracted to the easy answer and don’t think through the implications of the superficially attractive concept of ‘ its all made up’. Once you push the story though, you find that it doesn’t make sense. I can promise you that’s what scientists do every day. They begin from a starting point of assuming theyre wrong about their theory and spend time actually trying to prove their theory is wrong. It sounds counter-intuitive but the method is that if you can exclude all alternative explanations except one, then the remaining possibilty is probably correct. Try that approach on the theory that scientists are are all frauds who are picking on fishermen and just pushing their own agenda regardless of the facts. I think you’ll find the more logical explanation is that when the people who study something all their working lives mostly agree on something, chances are it’s true. Don’t let the exceptions (occasional dodgy scientists for example) make you disregard the expert opinions. I’m not an expert on much but it’s bloody insulting to be told by someone who has never studied my area ( immunology) that they disregard my views for no reason other than ‘ they reckon’. (Hello anti-vaccers). I suspect marine scientists feel similarly about recreational fishermen who reckon they are as well qualified to assess management of marine waters as the people who have made it their life work to understand these systems.

Last edited by Cortinaboy; 18-06-2018 at 09:29 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 18-06-2018, 08:20 AM
yellow door 1's Avatar
yellow door 1 yellow door 1 is offline
LEGEND Unicorn
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: melbourne
Posts: 12,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cortinaboy View Post
Interesting representative of the anti science point of view. I’d never heard of her, but that doesn’t mean much, so I googled her and first Wikipedia entry was this.

In April 2013, Sahai was shown to have committed plagiarism in her habilitation thesis,[9] which had been submitted to the University of Heidelberg in 1986.[10] In addition, she was accused of presenting herself as being or having been a professor at that University, without ever actually having occupied such a position.[9] On 14 April 2013, the University of Heidelberg confirmed that plagiarism had taken place, that Sahai has no right to call herself a professor of the University of Heidelberg, and that in consequence Sahai had agreed to renounce her venia legendi.[9][11].

Is that her?
Dammit - I just saw Dr in the title and instantly trusted her - should have googled her - just another case of someone being fooled by a dodgy scientist

Who better to talk about corruption than a lying plagiarist. She obviously has the inside line on the shady side of science
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 18-06-2018, 09:50 PM
Windknot's Avatar
Windknot Windknot is offline
Big Bream
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Surf Coast Victoria
Posts: 964
I have no doubt that fish stocks are falling. I also have no doubt that the fish numbers inside marine national parks are much higher than outside them. I also have no doubt that the 'lock out' mentality of many leftist extremist groups comes into play in the marine national park debate. The Greens policy on this issue according to their website is that fishing is simply unsustainable, therefore all fishing should stop. The Greens believe that aquaculture is the only answer when it comes to having fish to eat. This would leave fishermen like us, in a very unsatisfactory position, if they ever got their way.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why we can't simply regulate our way out of the problem. If fish stocks are falling, we should find out exactly why this is so. Maybe it's something completely out of our control, something like increasing ocean acidity. Is it over fishing? If so, lets do something about it, like regulating the catch to reverse the situation. Are certain species vulnerable at certain times of the year? If so, introduce seasons and or special regulations for those species. Do we need more slot limits? If so let them be introduced. If we don't have enough marine biologists to give us the answers we need, we should employ more of them. If we don't have enough enforcement officers to ensure the compliance of the regulations, we should employ more of them. If certain areas are truly special and require total protection, then by all means make them marine national parks. It's not rocket science. We need a combined approach, not just marine national parks, like the Greens want. Fishing can be sustainable. In the worst case scenario, we could all be reduced to catch and release only, like is now the case for bream fishing in the Corrong. At least this would be better than being permanently locked out altogether.

We have far too many cowboys involved in fishing, both in the commercial sector and in the recreational sector. People who tend to live in the past and who think they can do what they like. They're selfish individuals who need to be smartened up, forcibly, if necessary. I strongly suspect its the commercial sector that really needs the shakeup, but many recreational fishermen aren't any better.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 19-06-2018, 01:22 AM
Piscineidiot's Avatar
Piscineidiot Piscineidiot is offline
Blue Lip
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne/Townsville (depending on time of year)
Posts: 1,242
As someone who's dedicated the last 14 years of their life to becoming a scientist working in fisheries, I feel I have to weigh in a little here.

For the record, I mostly study the human component of fisheries i.e. fishers. As at least a few of the long-time members here know, I'm also a very avid fisher.

I'll reserve comment on the paper that generated this discussion until I read it more thoroughly - though it's fair to say I have my suspicions.

I'd like to take the opportunity to address a few potential misunderstandings here:

A) That the scientists informing fisheries management have 'green' agendas and are conspiring against recreational fishers

B) That more science/scientists will necessarily mean better fisheries

So, A, becoming a scientist is a long road, which no one would ever take if they were motivated by finances or job security. To be a scientist, you need to WANT it, largely unreasonably. We're talking massive student loans, and essentially, the sacrifice of 100-200K of potential earnings over the average PhD candidature (as compared to someone who's the same age and earning 80K a year). Then, when you're done with your PhD, you get to compete for a very small pool of jobs - most of which have a maximum term of 3 years (though they are admittedly well paid in Australia). Once you get that job, you can expect to work upwards of 60 hours a week just to fulfill your KPI's as a scientist. As I said, it's not an easy path.

Certainly, some of us are 'greener' than others, and certainly, that motivation to build a 'greener' future probably drove them to attain the qualifications they did. And yes, some scientists don't like recreational fishers very much (though you'd find that attitude is growing in people from EVERY walk of life).

But, a lot of us are not completely 'green', though we are very conscious of sustainability. Particularly in fisheries, a lot of scientists are fishers themselves (fish nerds make good fish scientists) - no one wants to curtail anyone's fishing unless they feel it's necessary (i.e. almost always only when fish populations are decreasing significantly).

Now B. For better or for worse, fisheries systems are complex. Our fisheries management is SUPPOSED to be science-based. As in, all of our management decisions are informed by science and change as our understanding evolves. This is unfortunately, only partially true. In Australia, and most other countries, fisheries management agencies (state and federal), are massive bureaucracies. Bureaucracies by their very nature are conservative, and do not like to change unless it is utterly necessary - this isn't because they're inherently evil, but largely because administering to the needs of entire states/countries, is no small task, and consistency makes that task do-able. Quick changes simply are not possible (with very few exceptions). Political agendas that control funding also further complicate things.

When I came to this realisation, it was crushing. I'd spent a decade training up, thinking I could make a difference, and all of a sudden, it became apparent that making a difference meant doing a LOT more than just being a good scientist. My hope is that what I've done over the past few years will put me in a better position to make/work toward such change.

For those who are sitting at their computers wondering how their voices will be heard, I suggest contacting your state/national recreational fishing peak bodies. These groups exist to serve you as recreational fishers in your state.

WA: RecfishWest
NSW: RFANSW
QLD: Sunfish
VIC: VRFish
TAS: TARFish
NT: AFANT
National: ARFF

On top of informing those peak bodies' campaigning activities, your feedback/concerns have the potential to inform the research priorities these groups put forward to the national funding agency: the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation.

Please feel free to PM me if you have any further questions, and I will certainly try and make time to help you out (though please understand if I'm a little slow to respond).

Cheers all,

Owen
__________________
My name's Jack, and that lure's
MINE!!!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Google