i think i noticed....aren't the sources of the information basically the same?

the difference i believe was a comparative one, not one of credibility in numbers or even credibility at all....

...what i really meant is that if you presented me with two sets of graphs and charts, one that says wild steelhead are healthy and harvestable and another that says wild steelhead are in decline and need protection I am going to have a natural inclination to believe the one which most closely resembles what I have experienced myself.

Plunker....how much of a factor in your opposition to the blanket wsr regulation might be due less for whether or not the runs are healthy and more from an erosion of what you truly feel are personal rights?

...its almost as if they are trying to pry the native from your cold, dead, hand if you know what i mean...

Maybe....and you are probably way better at it than I am admittedly from a research/statistical standpoint anyway...if you focused on answering to your satisfaction the question of whether or not the skagit runs are truly 'healthy', perhaps even be willing to redefine what 'healthy' means to you....maybe you'd consider that the overall health of the resource surely outweighs the need to exercise ones personal rights.

Doesn't it?

Should we proceed with a "harvest the resource until proven defintively by 'science' (from at least six non-TU funded studies) that it cannot be sustained" mentality?

I dunno...to me it seems the CONSERVATIVE approach is appropriate and well administered in both the case of the quillayute and skagit systems.