|
Forums36
Topics40,960
Posts557,934
Members18,495
| |
Most Online3,612
Jan 10th, 2023
|
|
|
0 members (),
523
guests, and
197
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2018
Posts: 1,220
|
Joined: Apr 2018
Posts: 1,220 |
.10 surface acre pond, 10.5 foot deep. SW LA. The epitome of a mutt pond. BG, LMB, GSF, RES, BH, Warmouth, Longear Sunfish, Gambusia,Mud Minnows, Crappie, and now shiners!!...I subscribe!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,902 Likes: 281
|
|
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,902 Likes: 281 |
That makes me believe these kinds of birds will absolutely knowingly put fish in a pond as a means of future food source.
Just my opinion....
This is very plausible. The intelligence of other species is not well understood even today. But the observations mentioned can certainly be inferred as such. Dono's observation must have been a thrill to see. It is truly difficult to argue that the Kingfisher wasn't aware of what it was doing. I would say it takes more faith to propose that the behavior is purely instinctual than it does to infer the observation for what it apparently is.
It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so - Will Rogers
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 5,722 Likes: 282
Lunker
|
|
Lunker
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 5,722 Likes: 282 |
Lots off things are plausible, but with a lot of humans and a lot of scientists among us, no real evidence for this has been found. However, it is fun to believe such things, like big foot:)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2018
Posts: 1,220
|
|
Joined: Apr 2018
Posts: 1,220 |
I guess I'll just mark up all the GSF, BG, RES, Warmouth and BH that were never stocked in my pond as "immaculate conception"
.10 surface acre pond, 10.5 foot deep. SW LA. The epitome of a mutt pond. BG, LMB, GSF, RES, BH, Warmouth, Longear Sunfish, Gambusia,Mud Minnows, Crappie, and now shiners!!...I subscribe!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 5,722 Likes: 282
Lunker
|
|
Lunker
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 5,722 Likes: 282 |
Or human bucket stocking, or a flood event.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,902 Likes: 281
|
|
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,902 Likes: 281 |
Lots off things are plausible, but with a lot of humans and a lot of scientists among us, no real evidence for this has been found. However, it is fun to believe such things, like big foot:) No one said anything about bigfoot. Those that were observing the behaviors were doing just what scientists do. They were taking observations from experience. Who are you, scientist or not, to question the observations, particularly Donos? I will provide an example of terrible mistakes that "scientists" make. FOR DECADES scientists presumed that exposure to peanuts in early childhood was the primary cause of peanut allergy. They "advised" parents to not expose children less that 2 years of age to peanuts. Then after a terrible increase in childhood allergies to peanuts people began studying peanuts allergies in other countries. One country where peanut allergies were abnormally low is Israel where infants are fed a peanut snack as soon as they are able to handle solid foods. Heard any apologies for just being "not even right"? Science is full of pseudo-science and one of the worst things anyone can do is give a scientist the benefit of the doubt. Lots and lots poor inferences are made by them. Good scientists consider evidence which doesn't support their hypotheses. With respect to the behaviors of the other species, whether they are "instinctual" or "intellectual" is not a scientific question if "instinctual". It relies wholly on the acceptance of the premise because it cannot be subjected to an experiment which would determine that _no intelligence_ was employed. It was the complexity of the Kingfisher's behaviors that gave rise to my inference that it is plausible that the Kingfisher may have enough intelligence to consider an easy introduction of fishing to its young. I've employed science and I think they did as well.
Last edited by jpsdad; 06/19/18 07:13 PM.
It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so - Will Rogers
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,424 Likes: 19
|
|
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,424 Likes: 19 |
Another way to look at it: Herons may not consciously or instinctively move fish between bodies of water, but maybe their survival at some point happened because they did so. I have read or heard many accounts of herons or other birds that eat fish dropping the fish. If onto dry land, the fish dies. If into a BOW, maybe survives and reproduces. It only takes two sunfish, not even of the same subspecies, to populate a BOW.
The silted in pond I renovated in August 2015 had small GSF in it before renovation, and had gone completely dry in the dry summer of 2012. It has NO connection to any other pond, and has a small watershed of only about two acres, and never spilled over between 2012 and 2015.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 5,722 Likes: 282
Lunker
|
|
Lunker
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 5,722 Likes: 282 |
It is almost certain that birds, on very rare occasion move fish from one body of water to another. It is almost also certain that those believing they have witnessed this are sure of their observations. It is also well known that eye witness accounts are very often unreliable. We often see what we want to see. I have used the example of peanut allergy and early childhood exposure in my publications to illustrate why evidence-based medicine should always prevail over expert opinion. The peanut example actually shows how opinion, whether from an expert or not, should not overrule evidence, and I used this example to illustrate exactly that point. There have been more Elvis sightings than sightings of fish being stocked by birds, and in spite of cell-phone videos everywhere, no videos of birds moving fish have surfaced. This topic has been debated by ecologists for a very long time without resolution. I simply do not look to unlikely sources of fish stocking when there are billions of people on the planet. Having 3 different breeding fish populations show up in the same pond in a short period of time due to bird transport is like winning the lottery three times in a row - certainly possible, but very very unlikely. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/
Last edited by RAH; 06/19/18 08:09 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,424 Likes: 19
|
|
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,424 Likes: 19 |
In some places there are so many herons around that it is almost certain they do move fish. I see fresh heron tracks all around both of my ponds every day.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 5,722 Likes: 282
Lunker
|
|
Lunker
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 5,722 Likes: 282 |
We have a great blue heron rookery close by as well. They typically hunt alone and are fiercely territorial concerning hunting sites. If more than one are peacefully hunting on the same pond, they are typically young siblings.
Last edited by RAH; 06/19/18 08:22 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,902 Likes: 281
|
|
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,902 Likes: 281 |
RAH, For a moment there I thought you may have been a scientist. It's nice to know you are one of those "humans" that you referenced  . When fish end up where one hasn't stocked them there is a valid reason for their appearance. Bait bucket, birds, flood cannot individually be the reason for every occasion. Even if one is correct for some individual occasion, its purely anecdotal and means nothing for every other occasion. I don't pretend to know what caused anyone's particular occasion. Look, I just found Sunil's hypothesis rather intriguing. It doesn't rely on the chance that GBH might regurgitate crop stored fish after flying to a new pond by accident. Nor does it rely on the unprovable conjecture that the behavior is driven by instinct. It seems to me that most regurgitated fish die or are dead when regurgitated. To be successful, the GBH would probably have to perform the ritual frequently. When intelligence and determined intent are considered, the likelihood of eventual success might be vastly improved. I am sorry, but this is a fascinating idea. In principle, evidence might be found to support the hypothesis. That evidence might support the hypothesis makes the hypothesis testable and scientific. Certainly this requires agreement as to what constitutes intelligence in behavior. Perhaps, increased levels of complexity might be plausible grounds to infer intelligence. Consider also the alternative, complexity of behavior is independent of intelligence. Not so sure that is a reasonable conjecture either. It is fair to say there is much we don't know. One of the things we don't know is how bird related fish transfers relate to the odds of the lottery.
Last edited by jpsdad; 06/20/18 08:22 AM.
It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so - Will Rogers
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 13,746 Likes: 294
Moderator Ambassador Field Correspondent Hall of Fame 2014  Lunker
|
Moderator Ambassador Field Correspondent Hall of Fame 2014 Lunker
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 13,746 Likes: 294 |
Only because I did win the lottery three days in a row, I'll go one step further, or at least a tangent.
In both of my ponds, I've seen evidence of 'heron attack wounds' on various larger fish, as most of you have seen. You know, the puncture wound, the slash/cut.
On most of these wounded fish, they are way, way too big for any heron to eat.
I believe the heron is trying to kill other predators that compete for it's food source.
Intelligence or instinct?
Or a kid with a BB gun?
Excerpt from Robert Crais' "The Monkey's Raincoat:"
"She took another microscopic bite of her sandwich, then pushed it away. Maybe she absorbed nutrients from her surroundings."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,864 Likes: 298
|
|
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,864 Likes: 298 |
RAH, For I moment there I thought you may have been a scientist. It's nice to know you are one of those "humans" that you referenced . When fish end up where one hasn't stocked them there is a valid reason for their appearance. Bait bucket, birds, flood cannot individually be the reason for every occasion. Even if one is correct for some individual occasion, its purely anecdotal and means nothing for every other occasion. I don't pretend to know what caused anyone's particular occasion. Look, I just found Sunil's hypothesis rather intriguing. It doesn't rely on the chance that GBH might regurgitate crop stored fish after flying to a new pond by accident. Nor does it rely on the unprovable conjecture that the behavior is driven by instinct. It seems to me that most regurgitated fish die or are dead when regurgitated. To be successful, the GBH would probably have to perform the ritual frequently. When intelligence and determined intent are considered, the likelihood of eventual success might be vastly improved. I am sorry, but this is a fascinating idea. In principle, evidence might be found to support the hypothesis. That evidence might support the hypothesis makes the hypothesis testable and scientific. Certainly this requires agreement as to what constitutes intelligence in behavior. Perhaps, increased levels of complexity might be plausible grounds to infer intelligence. Consider also the alternative, complexity of behavior is independent of intelligence. Not so sure that is a reasonable conjecture either. It is fair to say there is much we don't know. One of the things we don't know is how bird related fish transfers relate to the odds of the lottery. How we can make a warranted inference to intelligence is an interesting branch of science. Even brainless bacteria, when confronted with a tough decision, have been known to assemble a quorum that "votes" chemically. Such behavior certainly bespeaks intelligence, but seems to be hard wired rather than the process of conscious thought. How the "hard wiring" was done is a controversial subject... 
Last edited by anthropic; 06/20/18 12:19 AM.
7ac 2015 CNBG RES FHM 2016 TP FLMB 2017 NLMB GSH L 2018 TP & 70 HSB PK 2019 TP RBT 2020 TFS TP 25 HSB 250 F1,L,RBT -206 2021 TFS TP GSH L,-312 2022 GSH TP CR TFS RBT -234, 2023 BG TP TFS NLMB, -160
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 5,722 Likes: 282
Lunker
|
|
Lunker
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 5,722 Likes: 282 |
The intelligence of some birds is pretty well accepted. Some even use tools (sticks to dislodge food items). There is nothing wrong with formulating a hypothesis, (e.g. bigfoot roams the woods), but if solid evidence does not come to light over decades (e.g. convincing video), then it is very unlikely (but not impossible). I think the problem is not the general dismissal of animals being intelligent, but rather the general overestimation of human intelligence. Only been a professional scientist for 35 years, so I'm still learning:) No offense meant, but humans see what they want to see. That is why double-blind placebo tests are used in critical experiments.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2017
Posts: 130
|
|
OP
Joined: Aug 2017
Posts: 130 |
In a Bigfoot case I can understand the Humans see what they want to see relevance because of the legend behind it. I'm not sure the whole humans see what they want to see really applies here. I don't want to see unwanted fish in my pond lol. Be it a Heron puking out a fish or a trespasser dumping unwanted fish in my pond or even a mix up in the fish stock it's not something we want to see. The unfortunate part is that in any one of these scenarios, there is no true testable evidence to confirm with 100% certainty. I can't go back in time to set out a trail camera and bust a trespasser. I cant go back and sort out all of the fish stock individually. That really only leaves one avenue left to explore which is the bird event. It just so happens to be the most interesting and debatable and glamorous possibility among them all. There are several fish loving birds in my particular pond because of the quiet remote location. While I have not witnessed any of them transporting fish, that doesn't necessarily mean they didn't do it. Nearly every time I approach the pond there is at least one bird roaming the banks. Very seldom have I approached the pond without finding a bird scanning the shores. If they did it or not who knows... I am no scientist but nevertheless the birds are a common denominator in my situation and others. They must be carefully considered as a suspect...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,902 Likes: 281
|
|
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,902 Likes: 281 |
Only been a professional scientist for 35 years, so I'm still learning:) No offense meant, but humans see what they want to see. That is why double-blind placebo tests are used in critical experiments. That you are a professional scientist is a mystery to me. In your posts many violations of scientific conduct have occurred. Things like appeals to authority and several strawman arguments. No offense meant, but none of it smells like good science to me.
Last edited by jpsdad; 06/20/18 08:28 AM.
It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so - Will Rogers
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,902 Likes: 281
|
|
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,902 Likes: 281 |
How we can make a warranted inference to intelligence is an interesting branch of science. Even brainless bacteria, when confronted with a tough decision, have been known to assemble a quorum that "votes" chemically. Such behavior certainly bespeaks intelligence, but seems to be hard wired rather than the process of conscious thought. How the "hard wiring" was done is a controversial subject... As with so many things it seems that there are varying shades of gray. No life with intelligence is likely free of exhibitions of instinctual behavior.
It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so - Will Rogers
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 5,722 Likes: 282
Lunker
|
|
Lunker
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 5,722 Likes: 282 |
Fortunately for me, my scientist peers feel differently. One finds many differences between public opinion and scientific views. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/01/29/5-key-findings-science/If human bias was not the norm, then designing experiments to minimize its effects would not be such an integral part of science education and practice.
Last edited by RAH; 06/20/18 10:43 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,902 Likes: 281
|
|
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,902 Likes: 281 |
Can you see what you did here? That's another strawman. Has absolutely nothing to do with evidence that Kingfishers may train their young to hunt even moving minnows to water that facilitates their success. Has absolutely nothing to do with whether a GBH might intentionally transport fish. Your argument that these can't happen is that people that observed them are somehow far below you in intelligence.
If human bias was not the norm, then designing experiments to minimize its effects would not be such an integral part of science education and practice.
Sunil and Dono provided their evidence. Where is yours? To be sure, matters such as these are not so easily subjected to experiment. It may also be difficult to find agreement as how to infer meaning from these types of observations. In any event, you may only object to their inferences as needing further study and evidence. You simply cannot object on the basis of better explanation without being subject to providing that evidence (which is notably lacking). If the explanation can't be proven incorrect by experiment, then it isn't scientific. In other words, if you can't propose an experiment which would invalidate your explanation, it isn't science. As I said before, hypothesizing that intelligence is responsible for a behavior can be subjected to experiments if we can agree on what constitutes intelligent behavior. On the other hand, the conjecture that a behavior is devoid of intelligence isn't a scientific hypothesis because you can't devise an experiment that demonstrates _no intelligence_ contributes to the behavior.
It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so - Will Rogers
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 5,722 Likes: 282
Lunker
|
|
Lunker
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 5,722 Likes: 282 |
My intelligence, nor your's has anything to do with it. I was trained to push back the natural tendency of humans to allow bias to cloud objective interpretation of evidence. This is what a science education does. I never said that bird's never transport fish, whether accidentally, on purpose, or through intelligence. I simply point out that the evidence for this is very very weak, and that other methods of fish transport are well known and greatly more likely. In this case, the transport of fish, except in very rare instances, is not supported by evidence, so conjecture on the reason for such transport is a moot point. Science cannot prove bigfoot does not roam the woods either. Science never proves a negative (cannot prove aliens have not visited the planet) but rather establishes a high confidence in a positive. What science can do is try to show the positive with high confidence (fish are transported by birds). After many years of folks postulating this hypothesis, science says that, at best, it is a very rare event. Anecdotal evidence is used in science to postulate a hypothesis, but not as evidence that it is correct. Spontaneous generation of maggots in carcasses was once widely accepted based on many eye-witness accounts.
Last edited by RAH; 06/20/18 12:16 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,182 Likes: 29
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,182 Likes: 29 |
I will leave it at this: https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/australian-raptors-start-fires-to-flush-out-preyIf they can understand fire gets food, it isn't much of a stretch to think that moving fish from one spot to the next is within their capability. Perhaps it is simply moving fish to another location without competition from an established bird. A lot of motivation to move someplace without getting pecked.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 5,722 Likes: 282
Lunker
|
|
Lunker
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 5,722 Likes: 282 |
Surprising such an amazing discovery was not published in National Geographic, Nature, or Science, but rather in a journal with an impact factor of 1.2. Perhaps that is because the paper does not document the behavior, but rather documents that some folks claim to have witnessed the behavior. The difference is something a scientist is trained to differentiate.
Last edited by RAH; 06/28/18 03:30 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,088 Likes: 96
|
|
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,088 Likes: 96 |
John
I subscribe to Pond Boss Magazine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 5,722 Likes: 282
Lunker
|
|
Lunker
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 5,722 Likes: 282 |
So which group is larger, the folks that saw birds start fires or the group that claims to have been abducted by aliens? Everything is possible. Funny video!
Last edited by RAH; 06/28/18 07:46 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,864 Likes: 298
|
|
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,864 Likes: 298 |
Bacteria have been observed forming a quorum and "voting" chemically on their next course of action. Ravens will keep a moose corpse secret from their brethren, but an outsider will lead others to the moose so as to overwhelm the original discoverer.
I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss the possibility that some birds have learned to deliberately spread fire.
7ac 2015 CNBG RES FHM 2016 TP FLMB 2017 NLMB GSH L 2018 TP & 70 HSB PK 2019 TP RBT 2020 TFS TP 25 HSB 250 F1,L,RBT -206 2021 TFS TP GSH L,-312 2022 GSH TP CR TFS RBT -234, 2023 BG TP TFS NLMB, -160
|
|
|
Moderated by Bill Cody, Bruce Condello, catmandoo, Chris Steelman, Dave Davidson1, esshup, ewest, FireIsHot, Omaha, Sunil, teehjaeh57 |
|
