The chart is not mine but from Philipp et al. who is one of the most accomplished Fisheries Science professors. He has an outstanding career in LMB genetics , growth and development. He was a lead in the preeminent book on LMB by the American Fisheries Society - Philipp, D. P. & Ridgway, M. S. (editors). Black Bass: Ecology, Conservation, and Management. American Fisheries Society. 740 pp. (2003).
Philipp's research examines genetics, reproduction, and spatial ecology of fishes, and the effects of fisheries interactions on these dynamics in North America and the Caribbean. His early research examined centrarchid population genetics, gene expression, reproductive physiology, and strategies, heritability of fish behaviour, and life history strategies.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/David-Philipp You can't simply extrapolate from a theoretical program and get all encompassing answers. That is why the hundreds of studies using/discussing programs for RW , energetics , growth and other topics state that more work needs to be done or later change the program. There are just too many variables that are not understood or are unaccounted. You need real facts to get better answers.
In your location you likely have substantial FL LMB genetics which only increase non-catchability - see the many threads about that on the Forum. Since some people think we don't know what we are talking about I suggest you call the Pond Boss office and talk to Bob with your problem.
I thought a long time about whether I should respond to this which paints me as person with little respect for the author of the paper from which the chart on catchability was taken. If follows by saying that I am using the research to get all encompassing answers. Finally, it states that I think "they" don't know what we are talking about.
None of this is true. On the record, none of it is true. It violates codes of conduct in scientific debate. Its an ad hominen attack, it uses a strawman (extrapolating for all encompassing answers), and finally an ad hominen attack mixed with a red herring.
What I did wasn't extrapolation. It was deduction in response to the argument that the fish in J.E. Craig's pond had become uncatchable. The paper referenced, authored by Phillip, defines catchability. There is no "uncatchable" or "non-catchability" in that paper. There are only representations of the "catchability". Philipp, IMO, thought fish were catchable to varying degrees.
If any of you think that using the papers findings to discredit the argument that the fish were un-catchable was wrong or disrespectful, give this some consideration:
I accepted his premise ... and I thoughtfully considered it .... and analyzed it sufficiently to make a thoughtful response. Honestly, that is all would hope from anyone responding to my thoughts here. I am giving more respect than I have ever received by addressing the problem with facts around the argument. If the respondent would give me the same respect, I would very much appreciate it.
I know that Philipp defined catchability in a specific way. The (catch per unit effort) per (population per unit area). I am not drawing all-encompassing answers. In that definition, is a population density and the definition is ... in and of itself ... an algebraic equation. That equation can be rearranged like any algebra can. Knowing the catch rate, we can test for densities under differing assumptions of catchability. That's what I did. The result of those efforts is that we found that the catchability best describing the OPs personal experience is very near the catchability of the parent generation in Philipp's paper. I am not going to say that population didn't undergo more mortality than the OP's exploitation. This is possible ... but it is unknown. All we have are the facts that the OP is presenting to work with. We should not reach for anecdotes of other ponds and present them as facts about the OP's pond. How do we relate the OPs experience of real world facts to what is going on? One good step in that direction is understanding how many LMB were removed.
So, I am really passionate about this. I really do believe that his population of LMB has been mostly removed. More simply put, I cannot apply a very low catchability to explain his low catch rates. I fail if I try and I did try which is show of respect for the idea that the OPs LMB are of very low catchability. Can't everyone see the importance of this for the OP and his actions going forward?
