My First Lion Fish Meal

[ggunn]

He is not a causual diver that happens to pass by some reef with algae and don't spot any lionfish around, then pass by another reef and saw a lionfish, but then also realized that there is not much algae. There is observation over lengthy period of time of no lionfish=lot of algae, then lionfish appearing=decreased algae, then lionfish decreasing=increased algae. Not 3 passing observations, but seeing cause and effect.

[...]


The attempt to try to link observational evidence with pseudoscience hearsays indicates your views are hard set already and will discredit any dissenters.

One of the bastions of the scientific method is that correlation does NOT prove causality; simply because he sees some algae where there are no lionfish and then sees an area where there are lionfish and less algae (no matter how many times he sees it) in no way proves that the lionfish had anything whatsoever to do with it. This arriving at a conclusion on the basis of anecdotal evidence IS pure pseudoscience and I remain unconvinced.

And furthermore, even if the lionfish WERE responsible for removing the algae (which I do not stipulate), it STILL doesn't show that the net effect of the lionfish on the reef is a positive one. They are voracious feeders on juveniles of all species and prolific breeders; that is a significant downside of their presence irrespective of any reef cleaning on their part.

And what about the algae? Doesn't it have a right to exist? Who will stand up for the algae?

That's a joke, BTW.

The negligent and careless actions of man are responsible for introducing lionfish into the Caribbean. The efforts of the dive community to remove them from the ecosystem wherever possible (futile as it is in the grander scheme of things) is an attempt (to some degree, where possible) to mitigate the effects of this debacle.

Music swell. Cue applause.

 

[rebelrph]

Could it be that ALL the little fish that normally eat the algae have all been EATEN by the lion fish (who have now moved on to better reefs with more algae eating little fish) thereby allowing the algae to overgrow on reef #1.

I'm not really serious (mostly) about this proposal, but it's possible.

TC

 

[ggunn]

Could it be that ALL the little fish that normally eat the algae have all been EATEN by the lion fish (who have now moved on to better reefs with more algae eating little fish) thereby allowing the algae to overgrow on reef #1.

I'm not really serious (mostly) about this proposal, but it's possible.

TC

It's a plausible scenario and further illustrates the fallacy of using anecdotal evidence to "prove" a prearrived at conclusion. Don't misunderstand me; I am not in any sense claiming that I know that the the lionfish are NOT controlling the algae, only that the "study" in no way proves that they do.

 

[tridacna]

Stop feeding the troll. :depressed:

 

[ggunn]

Stop feeding the troll. :depressed:

Why? I'm having fun with him.

 

[DazedAndConfuzed]

Could it be that ALL the little fish that normally eat the algae have all been EATEN by the lion fish (who have now moved on to better reefs with more algae eating little fish) thereby allowing the algae to overgrow on reef #1.

I'm not really serious (mostly) about this proposal, but it's possible.

TC

it could be possible if the external factor of other DM removing lionfish was not present. So a full cycle of lionfish/algae relationship has been observed. He will just have to wait for further changes that influence the lionfish population in some other way and observe the algae growth.

 

[ggunn]

it could be possible if the external factor of other DM removing lionfish was not present. So a full cycle of lionfish/algae relationship has been observed. He will just have to wait for further changes that influence the lionfish population in some other way and observe the algae growth.

It doesn't make any difference. This is not science, it's puttering around with a small sample size to see what happens. The conclusions he comes to are worthless; even if the lionfish WERE responsible for cleaning the algae from the section of the reef he is observing, that in no way proves that they do it everywhere, or that there are other species which would do it just as well or better, or if the algae's presence in the first place is related to the lionfish's consuming of other species which would normally have consumed it, or any of a myriad of other factors which he has failed to take into account. This is NOT science, it's pseudoscience, and yes, I am predisposed to not accepting the "results" of such "studies" as a law of nature. The burden of proof is upon him and the difference between this and a scientific study is as a wet tissue is to a brick wall.

Well, you guys have fun. I'm headed out today on a business trip that will most likely keep me off Scubaboard for a few days.

 

[tridacna]

Why? I'm having fun with him.

Why? Because you're taking advantage of someone with no understanding of scientific method. LOL. Kinda like picking an intellectual battle with Palin or Bachman.

 

[mstevens]

Its not unlike the african wildlife preservation of endangered species

It's very unlike it.

It might be if 1) lionfish were slow to reproduce and 2) endangered and 3) we were talking about hunting lionfish in their native environment. It's more like hunting rabbits in Australia, where they are a rapidly-reproducing invasive species.

I'm not aware of anyone whose stated intention was to eradicate rhinos or elephants in Africa. That is the stated (though probably futile) intent of some who advocate hunting lionfish in the caribbean.

There is observation over lengthy period of time of no lionfish=lot of algae, then lionfish appearing=decreased algae, then lionfish decreasing=increased algae. Not 3 passing observations, but seeing cause and effect.

That's seeing correlation, not cause and effect.

I have numerous observations over time of the prevalence of convertibles with their tops down in the parking lot outside my office. I've noticed that when they are prevalent there is hardly any snow on the ground. I've also consistently observed that when top-down convertibles are absent or scarce it's much more likely that there's snow on the ground - sometimes it's several feet thick! I'll be happy to post videos if that will cement this proof in your mind.

Have my observations demonstrated that convertibles with their roofs open prevent snow?

Note, PADI's new lionfish course name is 'Invasive Lionfish Tracker', away from their earlier course name of 'Lionfish Awareness & Elimination'. I wonder why is that?

PADI would offer a course on "Swimming with fins of different colors" if they thought there was a market. In this case, I suspect the new name is more in line with their actual goals, since I reckon it's focused on invasive lionfish in the caribbean rather than native ones in Indonesia.

 

[jupitermermaid]

I see no connection with lion fish and algae! Here in Florida, we are inundated with red algae to the point it is hard to find lobster in ledges they would normally occupy. However, lion fish are ever present. They eat juvenile fish. I don't know if they eat algae, but from what I see, if they do it's not enough, as our reefs are covered in red algae! We need a good storm to come through to sweep it out, and a few more spears to keep the lion fish at bay.