Testy, Testy Salmo.

Just some speculation on my part. Please forgive me. I had forgotten a scientist is never allowed to speculate, especially when it is qualified as "merely speculation" After all its totally inappropriate to think about an issue when no solid data is present addressing that issue . . .

So why is it that you did not comment on my proposed alternatives to WSR for reducing impacts (see my previous post)
Do you think these are not valid alternatives to WSR or did you not see them?

Do you know of some data that suggests WSR is a superior method for helping fish when compared to the other 3 alternatives I proposed?

Please Salmo, you want to compare your reproductive suscess with that of a CNRed wild steelhead? I think that might be an apples and oranges comparison.

At least we can agree its the impacts that are important not how the fish dies.

I've been on a crusade to get people to think about what WSR will mean and what may have been sacrificed to put it in place. I don't think most people realize there are a lot of way to reduce impacts and WSR is not necesarily the only or even best way to do that.

For better or worse, we are looking at WSR for a couple years. I will be interested in carrying on the debate once some more current data become available.