Regarding the "joe fisherman" remarks, thank you Wild Chrome. I am a fisheries biologist, and have made my living as such for the last ten years. In my business, everyone is an expert. If a person is not feeling well, they might ask a doctor what's wrong, and generally if he or she provides an answer they listen. But in my profession, everyone knows better than the scientists/biologists what's wrong with the fish and how best to fix them.

It's important to realize that biologists are working within the confines of the political sytem. How else could the Corps of Engineers come up with a "no take" ruling for mainstem dams? Do you sincerely believe that biologists working for the COE, NMFS, and USFWS, feel that a monstrous cement structure impeding all natural migration is a good thing?

It's very clear to all biologists what needs to be done to restore fish. Remove all dams, eliminate all water withdrawals and pollutants, restore all riparian coridors and upland areas, and stop all fisheries. The reality of things, however, is that people are not going away and certain things such as the need for electricity, roads, railroads, irrigation, industry, etc., are here to stay. The trick is finding a balance, a strategy that will recover fish but not take too much away from our way of life. Unfortunately, there are also a great number of emotions involved with fisheries because of Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act that must be considered. Landowners, loggers, farmers, and industry are now feeling threatened by laws that may "change their way of life" for the sake of "fish and wildlife".

A coworker of mine said it best when he likened being a biologist to a being a mechanic. This mechanic though can do anything he likes to make the car run better except he cannot open the hood and get at the motor. New wheels, new paint job, new stereo, seats, etc. Now we've spent all this money on the car and it still doesn't run worth a damn, hmmm, sound familiar?

RM