Discussion in 'Steelhead' started by FinLuver, Apr 6, 2014.
benny...you gettin' your money's worth??
No, you need to post some new material,that or the ice tea ain't working
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.
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.
Gee, it must be FistLuver!
Your "cute" use of "quotations" is "embarrassing". My friends call me Mumbles. Why not stick to calling me Ed, I prefer that approach from annonymous screen name agitators that have not made it a point to get to know me or the vast membership here. Hope that's okay with you FinLover.
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.
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:
It's a miracle that the species managed to survive as long as they did without the clear cuts.
What's next, they love dams?
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.
"i wonder if there are any other groups using faux science to justify their positions? "
Why YES, yes there are many...
FinLuver, first to be on ignore for 2014.
Finluver seems like the kid that ate alot of elbows( from his sister, brother and maybe a neighbor kid) while in the back seat of the station wagon on family vacations.
What if I told you......
that FinLuver was actually FreestoneAngler....
and that FreestoneAngler was actually Mumbles....
At least, that's how I deal with this shit to entertain myself.
Well thats leaves me to wonder,Who am I & how do fit in with the whole deal?
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.
I met Fishbourne on the set of Pee Wee Herman's Playhouse. He's almost now as fat as Charles Barkley.
I can't think of a way to respond any better than this:
(Billy Madison for those of you unfamiliar)
Damn dude, FL, I feel like every one of your posts is like quoting the 1 dentist out of the 5 that thinks that regular brushing with crest does not help to prevent cavities.
It seems like most people on this board agree on whatever issue it is, and so does the larger body of scientific research, but you bring up these brutal pseudo-scientific reports just to ruffle everyone's feathers. Science is a process, and scientific knowledge is deduced from analyzing developments and trends in the field over time. It's not made by taking one poorly conducted paper at face value and assuming that it is the singular truth.
You're that guy that keeps denying the existence of global climate change despite the fact that 98% of scientists agree on the issue, but justifies your contrarian point of view by telling me how cold it was last winter, and then keeps finding these terrible jerkoff reports by gas industry scientists to support it. of course then we have to argue about it over and over again.
I've seen your posts in the Stillwater section and you have A LOT of good knowledge & good things to say, but you're killing me in the steelhead forum, man...
Hmmm... would this the same 98% that gets caught fudging the data to obtain a desired outcome. And is it back to global warming this week or are we still using climate change... which offers a bit more latitude in blaming anything and everything homosapien? And, since when does history start when the dates selected best fit a desired end game?
To quote a famous non-scientist, but someone who probably has an opinion on this... "I have to laugh".
Follow the money trail and what motivates these folks...it will lead you to the truth.
and Mumbles was actually OMJ...
OMJ was actually [ ]....
This has the potential to be as good as the One Word contest