In reply to Post #251
OK, and how is that evidence it wouldn't work?
OK, and how is that evidence it wouldn't work?
In reply to Post #252
It's evidence it wouldn't work, because the substance we inject (Prostglandalin) isn't attractive to anything because it's not a pheramone, however it causes the female carp to actually produce the sex pheramones that will attract the male, which is why the pest control industry use implants.
If it worked without injections or implants - the pest control industry would just pour the substance directly into the water, it would be far simpler than having to capture a carp and put implants inside it.
Prostglandalin itself, is not an attractive reproductive pheromone, it's a hormone-like substance used by the body to control certain functions, things like, menstruation - they're super complicated, and not understandable unless you have a degree or scientific background in biology.
It's evidence it wouldn't work, because the substance we inject (Prostglandalin) isn't attractive to anything because it's not a pheramone, however it causes the female carp to actually produce the sex pheramones that will attract the male, which is why the pest control industry use implants.
If it worked without injections or implants - the pest control industry would just pour the substance directly into the water, it would be far simpler than having to capture a carp and put implants inside it.
Prostglandalin itself, is not an attractive reproductive pheromone, it's a hormone-like substance used by the body to control certain functions, things like, menstruation - they're super complicated, and not understandable unless you have a degree or scientific background in biology.
In reply to Post #253
But on the product warnings is that it can be absorbed through skin and can cause miscarriages due to its affect when absorbed through the skin. So you're saying if it's in water and fish come in to contact with is, through their gills, it won't have any affect at all and won't be absorbed?
Sounds like you know better than the producer of the substances
But on the product warnings is that it can be absorbed through skin and can cause miscarriages due to its affect when absorbed through the skin. So you're saying if it's in water and fish come in to contact with is, through their gills, it won't have any affect at all and won't be absorbed?
Sounds like you know better than the producer of the substances
In reply to Post #253
It's not evidence of anything
It's not evidence of anything
In reply to Post #255
If we're in a discussion about evidence, where is the evidence that anglers have been using hormones to catch carp?
Still waiting for it.
If we're in a discussion about evidence, where is the evidence that anglers have been using hormones to catch carp?
Still waiting for it.
In reply to Post #248
The deep bait.......brilliant......
The deep bait.......brilliant......
In reply to Post #251
So it metabolises quickly - so you'd say it would need constant replacement. Would regular spodding of it in a carrier work?
So it metabolises quickly - so you'd say it would need constant replacement. Would regular spodding of it in a carrier work?
In reply to Post #257
Watch your back Wayne......
Watch your back Wayne......
In reply to Post #251
There are numerous papers and webpages that you can cut and paste from that confirm that, for population control, injecting the hormone into fish can attract other fish. No disagreement there,that wasn't what I was asking.
Where is the evidence that shows that hormone substances can only attract fish if injected into another fish? You are presenting that as a fact in your earlier posts. If so, by your own argument, there must be evidence?
Let's be honest, you are cut and pasting information you don't fully understand, scanning papers you don't fully understand and then presenting information that you don't fully understand as evidence.
There are numerous papers and webpages that you can cut and paste from that confirm that, for population control, injecting the hormone into fish can attract other fish. No disagreement there,that wasn't what I was asking.
Where is the evidence that shows that hormone substances can only attract fish if injected into another fish? You are presenting that as a fact in your earlier posts. If so, by your own argument, there must be evidence?
Let's be honest, you are cut and pasting information you don't fully understand, scanning papers you don't fully understand and then presenting information that you don't fully understand as evidence.
In reply to Post #260
Where is the evidence that shows that hormone substances can only attract fish if injected into another fish?
I can throw it right back at you by saying two things;
1- all of the papers relating to the use of this substance, show it being used as an injection or as an implant, to stimulate the carp in producing reproductive hormones.
2- show me the evidence that it's been used by anglers, in a fishing situation to catch carp.
You can try and drive the thing around in circles all you like, but you'll get nowhere unless you present some actual evidence that substantiates the claim.
Where is the evidence that shows that hormone substances can only attract fish if injected into another fish?
I can throw it right back at you by saying two things;
1- all of the papers relating to the use of this substance, show it being used as an injection or as an implant, to stimulate the carp in producing reproductive hormones.
2- show me the evidence that it's been used by anglers, in a fishing situation to catch carp.
You can try and drive the thing around in circles all you like, but you'll get nowhere unless you present some actual evidence that substantiates the claim.
In reply to Post #260
Surely the onus/burden of proof is on the person or persons making the claim?
If its claimed to be possible then why has no one explained how its possible?
I saw an alien when i was fishing last night.... prove i didnt.
Kangaroo court springs to mind.
Surely the onus/burden of proof is on the person or persons making the claim?
If its claimed to be possible then why has no one explained how its possible?
I saw an alien when i was fishing last night.... prove i didnt.
Kangaroo court springs to mind.
In reply to Post #262
Surely the onus is on the person or persons making the claim?
Exactly.
The bottom line is - nobody has provided any evidence at all, it's all just hearsay.
Surely the onus is on the person or persons making the claim?
Exactly.
The bottom line is - nobody has provided any evidence at all, it's all just hearsay.
In reply to Post #261
Because that's how the product is designed to be used in the capacity it's meant to be used. But like so many other things, you can use them in other ways can't you. No scientist has ever seen a need to see if it works by chucking it in water because there is no reason to do it when you use it for designed purposes. It's like you don't understand why scientific papers are written.
Nothing to say a few individuals have took it and used trial and error to use it another way. Everything we have is because someone did that at some point in history.
You never did reply to #254. Any reason for that?
Because that's how the product is designed to be used in the capacity it's meant to be used. But like so many other things, you can use them in other ways can't you. No scientist has ever seen a need to see if it works by chucking it in water because there is no reason to do it when you use it for designed purposes. It's like you don't understand why scientific papers are written.
Nothing to say a few individuals have took it and used trial and error to use it another way. Everything we have is because someone did that at some point in history.
You never did reply to #254. Any reason for that?
In reply to Post #262
It has been explained how it's possible. You just haven't bothered listening. That's a you problem.
It has been explained how it's possible. You just haven't bothered listening. That's a you problem.
In reply to Post #264
But like so many other things, you can use them in other ways can't you.
Where's the evidence that it's been used in other ways, including being used to catch carp?
I've shown how it's used in a pest control scenario, now show how it's being used by anglers where we're not injecting carp.
So far, nobody has.
But like so many other things, you can use them in other ways can't you.
Where's the evidence that it's been used in other ways, including being used to catch carp?
I've shown how it's used in a pest control scenario, now show how it's being used by anglers where we're not injecting carp.
So far, nobody has.