Salmon Report From North Pacific Research

[Jennie@ifish]

http://www.ifish.net/Dobbsreport.html

A few words about the report. First, it not biological research. It is a
study of the biological research done by others. Second, it is independent
and unfunded. Therefore we can not throw a lot of money at the project, and
distribute the findings widely. We have been offered funding, but we prefer
to remain unfunded as we do not have to deal with client bias. We can speak
the truth as we find it.

The volume of work surround the salmon issue is very large and the work is
progressing slowly, however the findings to date are significant. As special
interest groups are pushing hard to take actions that they feel are to their
best interest, before the public is awakened to facts that show their
special interests are not in the best interest of the salmon or the public.
(That was an interesting sentence.) So we are putting out my findings as
they occur, which means the interim report is updated now and then.


--
Don Dodds
President
North Pacific Research

Opinions, anyone?
Jen

[Hammer Bob]

Although the writing and research of this article is unfunded and without client bias it is certainly full of writer bias. This is an example of a very opinionated paper trying to sound scientific. The author does not see fit to reference any single piece of data (none of which is his) which reduces the validity of many of his points. He resorts to many logic type argument as examples to try and make his points but without providing the proper references it must all be considered conjecture certainly not fact. There are also numerous examples of some very fuzzy math and without supplying a means to peruse the data you have no means of verifying what is correct. Even the most basic of review papers needs to be referenced extensively. It is critical to critique what the sources of the data are. What journals are they published in? Who funded the study? Are they reliable? Does the conclusions represent someones opinion? ect. ect. Without proper references you have to trust him when he says only he has made the correct conclusions from the data. While there are certainly some points worthy of consideration he does a great injustice to his work by not giving proper credit to other researchers and writers for their intellectual property. Also many of his examples are just plain outlandish! I would not put to much credence in the totality of his arguments and conclusions. just my $0.02 worth

[birdhunter]

I'm gonna have to agree with Hammer Bob. I read the whole thing and was not particularily impressed. This is not a scientific paper. It shows a lot of research and opinon compiled from others but it doesn't provide any sources and for that reason is not credible. There are also many problems with his math and analogies.

Take for example the whole Predator, habitat, food division. Salmon survival, like any species, is not so simple that it can be divided up into 3 EQUAL parts. That really bugs me and was one to the first things I noticed. There are other more complicated factors besides predators, food, and habitat that effect salmon.

Take for example his assertion that riparian habitat only accounts for 5% of the problem (I still think trying to perform a quantative analysis of this issue is the wrong way to go and is mere manipulation of data). Riparian habitat is where salmon spend there formative years. Yes they need to survive when they are out in the wild, but if they cannot spawn or do not hatch, the rest doesn't really matter now then does it.

The topics are far too general and to assume that the division of importance would be equal is not only uneducated, it is irresponsible. The more I think about it, the more this bothers me. This paper can be taken and cited as scientific research, and yet a lot of it is claptrap and conjecture.

While the author of the report does make some very interesting and intriguing remarks about historic runs and oceanic food sources, they remain unfounded because of a lack of hard evidence and credible sources. If not for that and the overwhelming presence of personal opinion, this might be a decent paper. It still reeks of a need for a peer review. I would be very curious to hear who the "we" are in the disclamer. I see only one author at the bottom and don't have any idea of his credentials.

I will leave you with a quote from Mark Twain that I think is very applicable to this particular paper. "There are three kinds of lies in the world. Lies, damn lies, and statistics."

[Hoosier Daddy]

I agree. Course, I don't think its any secret where I stand on stuff like this. This report showed up elsewhere too. I would really like to know this guys true background. Anyone can call their company, office, whatever, XYZ Research, that doesn't make them a scientist. The same claim that is levelled often at scientists, that they use the data to support their theories and gain funding, can be brought against guys like this. I'm betting he has something to gain somewhere, even if its currently unfunded. And ANYONE can manipulate the data.

[Centerpin]

I think the purpose of the paper was to cause us all to question the norm and think a little outside the box. We often get into a rut when it comes to research. Often become afraid to question some of the long standing theories. I bet those who were working on removing large woody debris (LWD)from streams were sure shaking their heads when they were told that our streams lack LWD and they should begin placing it back into the streams. I also believe that streams play a relatively minor role in the survival of our salmon especially if you look at survival rates from hatcheries. You would think that the hatchery step would increase survival by avoiding juvenile predation and increasing egg to fry survival. This is just not the case as we find that survival rates are dependant mainly on ocean conditions. I am not advocating that we end stream restoration because we should provide the best opportunity for natural propagation and survival. I just think we should spend more research $$ to studying oceanic survival and the impact of commercial interception.

------------------
Support BC Steelhead Recovery... check out http://www.bcfff.bc.ca/

My Photos... http://msnhomepages.talkcity.com/RallyRd/centerpin/

[Phish_on]

I've seen this document before.

A lot of work went into writing all those words. A lot of undocumented claims there. If it's supposed to be an analysis of biological research ... including references to the research might add some credibility!

[Clamman]

I also have seen this piece of work before, I would have to concur with Hammer and Bird on all points. With this whole salmon recovery issue, one can find as many paper for a recovery option as you can find against. It just depends who is footing the bill.


ISG

[Hoosier Daddy]

Or bring plagarism suits.