The PLF diatribe is another case of argument with a lot of flaws. The Washington Trout diatribe that Grandpa posted is another.

Lupo almost brings up the salient point here (but then he loses it with his name calling) in that you can find a "scientist" to stand behind just about anything-- all you have to do is search long enough. Scientists are not gods, and some of them have don't have sense to come in out of the rain. Many, if not most, scientists have their own agendas, and that's when they are most suspect.

Dave is right, I think, that the PLF's agenda is pretty clear, although I think it's ultimately about ending land-use restrictions ut in place by the ESA. I just wish WT's agenda was as apparent. To me, it seems like there are several layers of agenda to wade through before we see what that group wants. Clarity of thought and purpose doesn't seem to be a strong point with Washington Trout-- at least that's the impression they've left.

As an aside, I think it's humorously ironic that Bush is being castigated by the same group that he's supposed to be in bed with...according to our earlier discussions. He doesn't seem to be able to win on this issue, does he?

My $.02

Keith