Washington Trout declares war on recreational fishing: Steelheader.net- Steelhead, Salmon and trout fishing

Ok, I'll just add this. I'm staying out of this topic because the only thing we'll be able to agree on is to disagree. You can have both sides with THEIR scientists say whatever it is they WANT them to say, so be it.

But what I want to add is the "armchair scientist" scenerio. I understand WHOLLY what gooose is talking about, and I'll explain it to you H20. I realize what you do, and that you're educated. I'm quite well educated too, and have the lovely certificates from colleges to prove it (National Honor Wise to boot). But there is a difference from being able to read/interpret information and being in the fields and knowing what they're saying. I see it in my job, and I'm sure gooose sees it in his. Here's the examples.

In my job at UPS, we are timestudied left and right by Industrial Engineering. They set how fast we should walk, how long per delivery, etc, etc all the way down to the point that by the amount of packages in our trucks vs. amount of deliveries vs total miles on vehicle they can tell us EXACTLY how long it should take us to deliver the route. They (IE) has tons of #'s, and can interpret them quite well. BUT, those of us in the field who actually work the #'s day in and out truly know what the #'s mean. We are the ones who can truly tell you if the documents we see are correct or not (though supposed experts have put these accurate #'s together). So, interpreting by someone who is educated and interprets numbers in a totally different field is not as "up to speed" as someone who interprets #'s in their own field. Hence, you could surely read our Weekly Operative Reports, but I doubt unless you know the job and have a true understanding for the numbers on paper, you would be an armchair scientist. I am not saying this as a slam, I'm referencing what has been said. You may have studied in college these fields, so just making an observation. Just like I'm an armchair pilot. I have my college degree in sciences majoring in applied Proffesional Pilot/Transportation. I have studied all the info, learned the then current AIM's, and had almost enough hours to go solo. I know all the workings of an airplane and had extensive courses in A & P. BUT, I'm still an armchair. I never got my pilot's certifications. I can translate data, but I can't TRULY engulf things, since I don't have the time/feeling of an airplane to wrap it all up. Say it this way, I can't just jump into a 747 and fly, eventhough I know the functions of an airplane. I don't have the down and dirty training to be efficient in using the airplane. Basically, what I'm trying to say, I have all the data to fly an airplane, but having data isn't enough. You have to have the time in the trenches actually being "one" with what you're studying.

Ok, I'll shut up now. But, I've studied up quite alot on this discussion before it was a thread. Have tons of books, and have read alot of studies. But, unless you are actually some sort of biologist, then you're an armchair scientist. All the studies you see have in one way or another been centered on what the scientist wants to prove/disprove. Most studies are semi accurate at best. If they were accurate, why would you get soooooooo many variables and so many "results" from different biologists. So, bring up what you want, but I tend to listen more to those who are actually in the trenches day in and out who experience things first hand then someone who flies in for a short period to do a study that usually is biased from the get go. I saw enough in my internships in college to make me sick.

--------------------
TEAM JACKSON BALDWIN
Project Healing Waters

CampChef Prostaffer