WDFW Looking at restrictions for steelhead season

Bones

Active Member
If you think science is being manipulated, you clearly are not capable of interpreting good versus bad research.....

man, fisherman make a horrible advocacy group as a whole.
 
Last edited:

Bones

Active Member
IF you think science isn't manipulated you clearly are blind to the world around you!

BK- I’m not so naive to think personal bias doesn’t exist.

again, it’s quite straight forward to determine good versus bad research. There’s no mystery involved. But that would require one to be able to distinguish between the two
 
Last edited:

Rob Allen

Active Member
If you think science is being manipulated, you clearly are not capable of interpreting good versus bad research.....

man, fisherman make a horrible advocacy group as a whole.

I don't think science is manipulated, the science is the science. It's people making conclusions based on the science that the science doesn't actually support..

We, and politicians jump to conclusions based on things we don't really understand.

For example I used to preach a lot against hatcheries, I thought if we eliminated hatcheries we'd have more fish because both scientifically that was accurate and we had a few anecdotal examples where hatchery fish were removed and wild fish rebounded. I thought it was so dead on accurate, I couldn't comprehend how everyone didn't see it that way...

We've removed lots of hatchery fish since then, ruining a lot of angling opportunities along the way. Most places now are fully seeding their existing habitats, that's good but it doesn't matter how many smolts we produce if the ocean cannot support their maturation.

I'm probably only half right again, but that's probably on par with everyone else but all our dyed in the wool conservation minded ideologies need to be shed, and we need to look at this in a new light and in a more open minded way.

Best available science says fix ocean survival and that's where we need to push WDFW efforts.. bait, boats, and all the rest is just distraction and a get out of jail free card for governing agencies. I'm not down with taking away opportunities to cover WDFW'S ass.
 

Yard Sale

Huge Member
I just installed some outriggers on my raft. I'm thinking you two post up on the banks of the upper hoh holding some rods, and I'll row out to mid river with your lines on the outriggers running some plugs over redds.

And yes, this is how I win another GOTY award.

Are we thinking braid for efficiency or floro for stealth? Maybe floro on the weekends and braid weekdays?
 

_WW_

Geriatric Skagit Swinger
WFF Supporter
I just installed some outriggers on my raft. I'm thinking you two post up on the banks of the upper hoh holding some rods, and I'll row out to mid river with your lines on the outriggers running some plugs over redds.

Are we thinking braid for efficiency or floro for stealth? Maybe floro on the weekends and braid weekdays?
Ok...since you are going to incorporate a human side-planing device here's how it's done.
Fluoro in clear water, braid in dirty water.
 

dustinchromers

Active Member
BK- I’m not so naive to think personal bias doesn’t exist.

again, it’s quite straight forward to determine good versus bad research. There’s no mystery involved. But that would require one to be able to distinguish between the two

As someone with a background in a former life of science, grants, and statistics I don't agree that it's black and white. I used to have to read study after study on the same tiny nuance of a subject or proposal. You really have to get past the abstract and into the methods deeply. Even the best intentioned scientists can be victims of unknowingly poor methods and conclusions drawn from said methods. Then the analysis of the data can be further flawed. Correlation isn't causation and all that type of thing. That said I'm a staunch believer and advocate for solid science and the scientific method. There's nothing political or emotional about science. It simply is. But it must be cautiously and judiciously practices with critical peer and foe review. A good scientist welcomes criticism.
 

Rob Allen

Active Member
As someone with a background in a former life of science, grants, and statistics I don't agree that it's black and white. I used to have to read study after study on the same tiny nuance of a subject or proposal. You really have to get past the abstract and into the methods deeply. Even the best intentioned scientists can be victims of unknowingly poor methods and conclusions drawn from said methods. Then the analysis of the data can be further flawed. Correlation isn't causation and all that type of thing. That said I'm a staunch believer and advocate for solid science and the scientific method. There's nothing political or emotional about science. It simply is. But it must be cautiously and judiciously practices with critical peer and foe review. A good scientist welcomes criticism.

Sorry, just liking this post isn’t enough.. this is a great post... the last two lines really resonate for me..
 

Support WFF | Remove the Ads

Support WFF by upgrading your account. Site supporters benefits include no ads and access to some additional features, few now, more in the works. Info

Latest posts

Top