.
I can't help my skeptical nature. It's just the way I am geared to think and I will challenge any hypothesis/conclusion that doesn't have support from evidence. I do have a different philosophy about pond management, this is for sure. I don't think the food chain is broken by the lack of formulated feed for example. I think population management is the best approach to meeting goals. And I think a pond should be managed to limit its biomass of fish to safe and sustainable levels that do not carry as much risk of fish kills. To me, this is the best way to approach pond management.
See below - my comments in blue.
I can't help my skeptical nature.
Don't try - that is a good trait and leads to much scientific advancement. It's just the way I am geared to think and I will challenge any hypothesis/conclusion that doesn't have support from evidence.
Agree but have learned (from reading thousands of studies and from hands on experience - mine and others)) that evidence can and often is misunderstood or wrongly applied. I do have a different philosophy about pond management, this is for sure. I don't think the food chain is broken by the lack of formulated feed for example.
Feeding just increases what is already there - its up to the manager to manage the population. I think population management is the best approach to meeting goals.
Agree and not sure if there is another solution/option. And I think a pond should be managed to limit its biomass of fish to safe and sustainable levels that do not carry as much risk of fish kills.
Agree but others goals are often more aggressive and they will opt for more risk to attain the goal. To me, this is the best way to approach pond management
Population management starts with understanding total mortalities ( = natural deaths + harvest). Harvest is the easier to manage. Managing natural mortalities is very hard and requires all the knowledge and techniques we can get/use. The other part of population management is understanding reproduction - another hard to manage area.
.gif)
