Magnetic Hooks for Catching More Big Black Drum
MathGeek
Posts: 468 Deckhand
“Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!" - The Messiah
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Replies
I’ll go back to sipping my coffee now.
Another president put a man in the Lady's bathroom.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Interesting. So far, magnetoreception has only been found in a few freshwater species - trout and catfish mostly.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Maybe your catching more because your a better fisherman and became more patient...
I believe you think you know, but there is no way to know for sure. You’d have to do a double blind study ( you have 2 identical lures, one w magnetic hooks and one without. You’d have to randomly use both without knowing which was magnetic. After that when you have 30 fish from each lure, you could begin to have statistically relevant knowledge, until then, it’s a guess.) What math geek was politely trying to point out is your weak magnetic hooks aren’t doing anything, you need to go w a more powerful magnetic to see any results(on the ones that have been shown to respond ), and only shown scientifically in a couple of species ( trout and catfish, and there aren’t trout in the St. John’s). Also remember certain species like sharks are strongly deterred be magnets. There are too many variables and lack structure to know anything for sure.
You have told us all what a great fisherman you are, believe me, Ive got it. But you say a lot of things on here as fact, when that are far from fact.
“When you're good at something, you'll tell everyone. When you're great at something, they'll tell you.”
Did you watch the video? It is clear that magnetic hooks are for a specific niche. In that niche (targeting big drum) they will help. Even the threat title suggests the niche.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
A quick search seems to indicate there is no science behind the idea that magnetic hooks offer any benefit.
“When you're good at something, you'll tell everyone. When you're great at something, they'll tell you.”
I guess you failed to find the peer-reviewed scientific journal article where these results were originally published.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1511/1511.09302.pdf
The sample size is very small. Even though the black drum result is considered statistically significant by convention (P<.05), you would expect a deviation from 50:50 at least that great by chance alone 3.3% of the time.
“When you're good at something, you'll tell everyone. When you're great at something, they'll tell you.”
One may also think of the results like this - suppose you went fishing 17 times targeting tarpon at multiple locations over a 6 month period. You used two baits at all times, one hook with a live mullet and one with a slice of cut mullet. Each time you caught a fish or freshened your bait, you switched the positions of the bait in the water. Over that time, you caught 11 tarpon on the live mullet and 3 tarpon on the cut mullet. You could conclude with a 96.7% confidence level that tarpon have a preference for live mullet, but with a 3.3% chance that tarpon have no preference and your results are do to random chance.
There are other cases in the peer-reviewed literature where a 9-2 split between the non-magnetic hook and the magnetic hook are used to conclude (p-value < 0.05) that certain species (southern stingray and black tip shark) have a preference. So drawing a similar inference from the black drum data is consistent with what other scientific papers on magnetic hooks have done.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
It also appears to me that the weight used for the control may not have matched the weight of the magnet.... If that is true, then we don't know which variable was actually responsible for differences.
“When you're good at something, you'll tell everyone. When you're great at something, they'll tell you.”
As some kind of purported scientist who claims to have read the paper linked above, I am surprised that you keep repeating inaccurate information about the published report. It is clear in the published report that the study covered multiple days and multiple locations. I have reviewed the raw data in the spreadsheet and it shows that the study was performed over 17 different sample collection days and a variety of conditions and locations over a 6 month period.
You are arguing with the math. The math is correct that the sample size reported with an 11-3 split in favor of the magnet really does lead to a p-value of 0.033, which means there is only a 3.3% chance the results are due to random chance and a 96.7% chance the results reflect a true preference for the magnetic hook.
You conveniently ignore the other cases in the peer-reviewed literature where a 9-2 split between the non-magnetic hook and the magnetic hook are used to conclude (p-value < 0.05) that certain species (southern stingray and black tip shark) have a preference. So drawing a similar inference from the black drum data is consistent with what other scientific papers on magnetic hooks have done.
Listen, if you are really a scientist and convinced these studies are in error regarding the math and study designs, then you are invited to publish your objections by submitting them to the same journals as the original papers. I expect the original authors will embarrass you in their replies, since your objections reflect both a misunderstanding in the original reported experiments, and a misunderstanding in how p-values work.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
FIshery studies are almost always weak or incomplete science. That's because the problems are hard and not enough people and funding are involved in the research. This particular line of research was initiated to see if adding magnets to hooks could reduce the amount of shark bycatch in the long line fishery. That is a reasonable hypothesis since sharks and rays have receptors that allow them to sense electromagnetic fields. As far as I can see from the papers I've read the results are still inconclusive.
Teleost fish don't have electromagnetic receptors like sharks, rays, and electric fish. But there is good evidence that some can detect and respond to EMF for navigation and prey detection. How their physiology allows them to do this is not fully understood. Only a tiny fraction of the many different fish species have ever been studied. It's possible that black drum may have evolved the ability to detect injured crustaceans by detecting the electromagnetic field that develops between the gills and a wound when a shell is broken. Crabs ordinarily produce weaker electromagnetic fields than finfish because the shell acts as an insulator. But thinking that sticking a magnet on a hook might mimick this effect is a bit of a stretch.
1) I'll be honest, I do not see in the paper where they clearly state they fished for black drum 17 different times over 6 months. Maybe it is in the raw data (which I do not have at the moment), but it doesn't appear reported in the paper. But by all means show me where they outline such details in the experimental design. A side note, if they caught 14 black drum in 17 attempts over 6 months... well now I have another issue, assuming what you claim is accurate.
2) No I am not arguing the math, I am pointing out the flaws in the experimental design. The question is if the statistical model is appropriate with such a small sample size. It is not, plain and simple. As replicates increase, we approach the true sample mean. 14 fish isn't a large sample size, not when there are such a wide variety of variables. If the sample size isn't large enough, the statistics are irrelevant.
3) As for other literature, nothing is being ignored. Sharks and rays are completely different species, how they behave is irrelevant as it pertains to black drum. You can't apply apple data to orange data. The fact you have suggested to do as such tells me you have literally zero idea how science works.
4) It isn't necessarily about error, but more about viewing the data as it should be viewed. Which is preliminary, a first attempt if you will. The results, as previously mentioned, are interesting. More data is required to draw any strong conclusions. And perhaps most interestingly of all, the authors agree with me. They mention more than once follow up studies should be executed.. huh? Curious isn't it? The authors themselves agree with me.
5) As for me being a scientist, one of my publications can be accessed below:
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/jo200877k
“When you're good at something, you'll tell everyone. When you're great at something, they'll tell you.”
But if you guys always demand a high standard of scientific proof when choosing fishing methods, who am I to suggest you do it differently?
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
One thing I learned about fishing is to have an open mind. Magnets may or may not work but trying new things out you sometimes discover a real gem. Like Gulps. When I discovered Gulps no body knew what they were but I tried them anyway and for fluke they became the best bait to use. I tried braid in its infancy. Not one person I knew had ever heard about braid. Non of the local tackle shops carried it. But look around now!
Btw, last time I was in that city, it was spelled ‘Gainesville’ but I guess you don’t have to be able to spell it to live there.
Not sure how many big black drum you've caught but they don't really fight. They are pretty weak for their size, but will put trout-size tackle to the test because....they're big.
And a colossal waste of time.
Gee. I forgot the E when I re-logged in. Astute observation.