Washington Fly Fishing Forum banner

To Clear Cut or Not To Clear Cut??...

3K views 48 replies 22 participants last post by  bennysbuddy 
#1 ·
#2 ·
If warmer summer stream temperatures were the only goal and cold summer stream temperatures were always the factor limiting fish production, then I would tend to agree with the conclusions of this unscientific post. Unfortunately, that is not the case. This post fails to consider physical habitat quality, overwinter survival, instances where temperatures are already above optima, etc. Essentially a horribly flawed conclusion based on selective consideration of pros and cons. But if one starts with a conclusion a works backward to the facts that support that conclusion, this is what you get.
 
#5 ·
" POS article that shouldn't be associated with the name "science." "

Funny, how a lay person, without all the two and three-letter designations after his/her name, gets tarred and feathered for making such a statement about steelhead "scientific" reports they read.

But a scientist/author in the field of fisheries can make such a claim.

I wonder if the author of this piece, and the supporting study authors in the area of forestry, also make such claims about fishery studies?

No wonder, not much has evolved in the "management" of both; if anything, the two sides should be working closely together, instead of the "in fighting and such".

However, It does remind me of the Harvest vs C&R fishing groups at Fish & Wildlife meetings...not much "progress" there either.
 
#6 ·
So is that your angle Fin? Post things to illicit opposing statements so you can question their integrity?
 
#8 ·
Wait a moment, did you just call Chris a troll. That is really rich there FinLover. Your argumentative trolling nature and fast earned reputation of posting with intent to be contrary preceded you. My greatest hope is all who are able add you to their IGNORE LIST. Our membership deserves better. How about you stop reading and preaching g and post up a quality fishing report or something.
 
#9 ·
New
FinLuver said:
Chris..quit being a troll.​
It's a viable question "considering"?​

Wait a moment, did you just call Chris a troll. That is really rich there FinLover. Your argumentative trolling nature and fast earned reputation of posting with intent to be contrary preceded you. My greatest hope is all who are able add you to their IGNORE LIST. Our membership deserves better. How about you stop reading and preaching g and post up a quality fishing report or something.​
Love a Forum Moderator with Opinion.​
But ya know what they say about opinions???​
;)
 
#23 ·
Article cites OSU Forestry, a group I consider completely untrustworthy and politically compromised. Here is a very ugly example of the OSU crew trying to pull a peer reviewed paper because it did not meld with their political (i.e. log everything to f***ing dirt) world view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biscuit_Fire_publication_controversy

Make note, under citation #7 that M. Newton is one of the professors involved in this asshatery. He would be the Newton in the link you shared.

There is no paradox.
 
  • Like
Reactions: smc
#26 ·
Hi David,
I'm glad that someone else remembers that controversy. It was quite clear to me that a number of bought-and-paid for faculty at OSU were trying to squelch the publication and throw mud on the scientific reputation of a graduate student. I was extremely annoyed that my congressman, Brian Baird, participated in this #$*@. I wrote his office a long detailed email questioning his opposition to these science findings; his criticisms (and the OSU ones) were superficial and trivial. At that time, Baird was conspiring with various Oregon congressmen to push salvage logging in the area.

Steve
 
#27 ·
In spite of the reek of forest product industry bias, I found this study somewhat interesting. What this seems to be completely overlooking is that historically, the bulk of food for trout and juvenile salmon came from salmon biomass, not photosynthesis. If fish were dependent on sunshine, then heavily forested rivers like this one in the Tongass National Park in Alaska should be virtually barren of fish:

 
#29 ·
hmmm many of the things posted as facts by the author are directly contradicted by our fisheries biologists.

1 water quality in rural streams is often listed as a limiting factor for salmonids
2. in no place that I know of to biologists claim cool water temps are a limiting factor but warm water is almost universally listed as a limiting factor.. particularly in commercial forest land.
 
#35 ·
I can take credit for first calling out Fintroll as being Freestonetroll's alias after the first few pages of his crap. All their posts smell the same.

All Fintrolls's posts are clearly meant to rile us up, just like Freestonetroll's. Ignore them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jason Rolfe
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top