Bucket biology "crackdown?"

[Born Late]

I've heard more than a few local tales regarding the origin of the CF walleye but they all begin unconvincingly with "Well, I heard..."   

[lundin-loading]

Walleye were stocked in hauser and lake Helena starting in 1951, the construction of the second canyon ferry dam 1.5 miles down stream from the original wasn't completed until 1954, so its entirely plausible that walleye, being the current seekers they are, had made their way to the original dam face and were subsequently introduced into canyon ferry lake upon removal of the original dam structure?!?! Dam bucket biologists at it again? Thats just my theory.

[halijigmt]

IMPOSSIBLE,Just ask em.They don't go upstream after they hit the Dakota border.

[Born Late]

Remember Senate Bill 15, the because-we-said-so bill proposed in 2009?
http://www.montanaafs.org/wp-content/uploads/2009_0129_SB15_walleye_opposition.pdf

Funny thing is, I never hear anyone talk about the affects for the native ling population. Granted, ling are my favorite fish in this state bar none. In fact they are never addressed when conversations come up about preserving native fish populations. Why is that?

Nate, ling in CF, Hauser and Holter are discussed in the Upper Mo Management Plan.  I'd agree that there hasn't been much research done on them compared to the other game fish species.
http://fwp.mt.gov/fishAndWildlife/management/fisheries/upperMissouriPlan/upperMissouriRiverPlan.html

[MTHarpooner]

There are some really good comments on this thread! I'm in agreement with halijigmt--the WORST bucket biologists are beyond a doubt the MT FWP. How many times have we heard them say, "Oh, we can't have rainbows, cuts and cutbow hybrids in this watershed. It should be Yellowstone Cutthroat ONLY, for they are the one and only true native fish. All others shall be considered trash fish, a nuisance and such rough fish shall be exterminated no matter how much fun they are to catch and how many people love to catch them," and then they kill the stream or lake and put some Yellowstone cuts in there. Fast forward fifteen years to the VERY SAME WATERSHED and the FWP now say, "Hey, we can't have Yellowstone cuts in this watershed. It should be West Slope Cutthroats ONLY, for they are the one true native, blah blah blah," and away we go with the rotenone. Meanwhile the people who were fishing that area are like, "Hey, why are you killing all my fish? This sucks and I'm not going to buy a license this year." And so it goes over and over.

The FWP budget comes entirely from our fishing and hunting licenses. When they keep destroying our fishing opportunities, people will just give up, creating a negative feedback loop that ends with less revenue for the FWP budget. So they raise fees and tag prices. Which makes people mad, some of whom give up, resulting in less money. And so it goes, over and over.

We are pretty hardcore fishermen here, so some of us might be kind of picky about what we fish for, but I'd bet that the average Montana fishing license holder doesn't give a rip whether they're catching a west slope cut, a yellowstone cut, a cutbow or a bass. They just want to be able to catch some damn fish and not have to drive past ten watersheds that are trashed by our license-funded guardians of wildlife because of some pie-in-the-sky ideal about what kind of fish is most native to that stream (this week). Promoting fishing by having lots of fish to catch should be the primary job of the FWP.

Make me king of Montana for one day and I'll pass a decree that the FWP is no longer going to spend our fishing license dollars on killing our fish!

[ClearCreek]

It should be Yellowstone Cutthroat ONLY, for they are the one and only true native fish. All others shall be considered trash fish, a nuisance and such rough fish shall be exterminated no matter how much fun they are to catch and how many people love to catch them," and then they kill the stream or lake and put some Yellowstone cuts in there. Fast forward fifteen years to the VERY SAME WATERSHED and the FWP now say, "Hey, we can't have Yellowstone cuts in this watershed. It should be West Slope Cutthroats ONLY, for they are the one true native, blah blah blah," and away we go with the rotenone.

Hapooner:

Can you give a couple (or more if you like) places where FWP has changed their minds or what cutthroat variety was native to a drainage?

I am curious about this.

ClearCreek

[BourbonSnowCone]

There are some really good comments on this thread! I'm in agreement with halijigmt--the WORST bucket biologists are beyond a doubt the MT FWP. How many times have we heard them say, "Oh, we can't have rainbows, cuts and cutbow hybrids in this watershed. It should be Yellowstone Cutthroat ONLY, for they are the one and only true native fish. All others shall be considered trash fish, a nuisance and such rough fish shall be exterminated no matter how much fun they are to catch and how many people love to catch them," and then they kill the stream or lake and put some Yellowstone cuts in there. Fast forward fifteen years to the VERY SAME WATERSHED and the FWP now say, "Hey, we can't have Yellowstone cuts in this watershed. It should be West Slope Cutthroats ONLY, for they are the one true native, blah blah blah," and away we go with the rotenone. Meanwhile the people who were fishing that area are like, "Hey, why are you killing all my fish? This sucks and I'm not going to buy a license this year." And so it goes over and over.

The FWP budget comes entirely from our fishing and hunting licenses. When they keep destroying our fishing opportunities, people will just give up, creating a negative feedback loop that ends with less revenue for the FWP budget. So they raise fees and tag prices. Which makes people mad, some of whom give up, resulting in less money. And so it goes, over and over.

We are pretty hardcore fishermen here, so some of us might be kind of picky about what we fish for, but I'd bet that the average Montana fishing license holder doesn't give a rip whether they're catching a west slope cut, a yellowstone cut, a cutbow or a bass. They just want to be able to catch some damn fish and not have to drive past ten watersheds that are trashed by our license-funded guardians of wildlife because of some pie-in-the-sky ideal about what kind of fish is most native to that stream (this week). Promoting fishing by having lots of fish to catch should be the primary job of the FWP.

Make me king of Montana for one day and I'll pass a decree that the FWP is no longer going to spend our fishing license dollars on killing our fish!

The problem with your rant is that FWP is beholden to a small thing called the Endangered Species Act. The Federal government in the form of the US Fish and Wildlife Service can list a species that they deem is being mismanaged by the state and threatened with extinction or extirpation in its native range. This takes the management of the species completely out of the hands of FWP and has much larger economic impacts than the loss of some fishing license fees. I don't agree with most of what the ESA does but without it each state could turn their fisheries into an entirely commercial enterprise that is designed to bring in the most revenue possible. It would probably result in some pretty awesome fisheries but a lot of species would be entirely neglected because of their low sporting value and could possibly disappear forever. Restoration of Westslope cutts is more about keeping control of Montana fisheries with Montana agencies/residents than it is about "pie-in-the-sky ideals."

[Robbi]

I attended the meeting in Great Falls on Tuesday that deals with this thread.  No big changes......it's more of changing a policy into a regulation is all.  FWP has been doing everything that is in the new regulation, but, they got called out on it and had no way to enforce a policy.  There's some wording in the new piece of legislation that I'm a little concerned about and I will definitely put my comments on their web site to be counted as "public comment". 

Was kinda funny, cuz this meeting really turned into a big discussion about Noxon and walleye.......LOL.  Didn't have much to do about the purpose of the meeting....but some good points were made.  I did use Noxon as an example in a couple of my comments/points I was making......

Does anyone remember the story of the retired FWP employee that admitted years later that he mistakenly dumped a load of walleye stockers in Holter, or above Holter somewhere?  I'm sure I read about that here at one time..........Anybody?

[Born Late]

Does anyone remember the story of the retired FWP employee that admitted years later that he mistakenly dumped a load of walleye stockers in Holter, or above Holter somewhere?  I'm sure I read about that here at one time..........Anybody?

I remember.  And I remember that rather than it being an admission, the story began with something like "I heard that a retired FWP employee admitted years later that he mistakenly dumped a load of walleye..."  That story is attributed to Canyon Ferry as well.

[MTHarpooner]

Hapooner:

Can you give a couple (or more if you like) places where FWP has changed their minds or what cutthroat variety was native to a drainage?

I am curious about this.

ClearCreek

Ask, and ye shall receive! http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/officials-eye-restoring-westslope-cutthroat-trout-to-camas-lake-big/article_162edfb2-9cd9-11e3-9634-0019bb2963f4.html

The main points that I was trying to make were that A.) FWP are tinkering with the species more than any "un-named co-conspirators" of bucket biology, B.) what they say is gospel one day might be completely changed as the political winds shift on another day, and C.) does it really matter what kind of fish are "native" when that term is pretty much a fabrication? Fish move on their own and are also sometimes moved by their environment--say for example birds picking them up out of a river and dropping them into a reservoir upstream. Some of these fish are not dead when they hit the lake. Isn't this natural or are the birds bucket biologists? Should we--or more importantly can we--do anything about this? For that matter, at what point do we draw the line at which fish are "natural" and hence most deserving of populating a watershed? The ones which were there before there were any fish or the ones that moved in later, but before humans settled, or the ones that were planted by FWP in the 1920s or the ones planted by FWP in the 1950s? In understand the desire to not have the Federal Government use the Endangered Species Act as a club over our heads, and that's why I said "make me king for a day," a statement as absurd as, IMHO, the Federal Government telling Montana how many of what kind of fish we should have in our rivers. My copy of the constitution sure doesn't have that part in there.

[Tinker]

My son was looking at the regs a couple years ago and asked whats a native fish?  I told him it just means they were here before the white man.  I have always wondered who or what spread the cutthroats.  Have never researched it so I likely know little to nothing but westslope and yellowstone I believe are pretty closely related and I think on either side of the divide.  So............ did one of the species cross the divide on its own through say a "two ocean" lake or creek?  Did a bird or several birds on several occasions drop some live fish on the wrong side, or maybe the native people of the region decided to move a few??  I think we live in a global ecosystem anymore, I'm not saying I want asian carp in Montana but I think we are going to have to learn to live with what ever comes our way because I don't think we have the ability to keep everything "native".

[lundin-loading]

Thanks a lot Obama...

[Stephan_K]

I've sat pretty quietly here. As someone who works with the FWP...we are not tinkerers! We are scientists..trying to do the best we can will information that we are given. We are doing much more good than the person who sits behind their computer and b***hes on ice shanty. If you want to help the problem...or find a new solution...do it but dont just sit on your ass and b***h. And just because you love fishing..read a few articles..and spend a lot of time outside..does not make you a scientist.  Im sick of people vilify ing the fwp.  Its just like everyone blaming the president for their problems. Get a grip. This comment is for harpooner..not everything is a conspiracy go read some biology books.

I say BS........  MT Fish and Game are indeed tinkers (MT is not alone in this either).  And they tinker in the direction which the most money and political BS is blowing from.   Majority of Fish and Game decisions are politically/money motivated....... the twisted "political based" science of these scientists throws morality, common sense and what's right to do in the back of the bus !  C'mon man......  And who's gathering the INFORMATION these clowns are using to base decisions on ?  I ask only because many of the decisions being made directly contradict what has been going down for hundreds of years elsewhere on this continent.  For some reason the established laws of nature seem to stop at the border of MT and a few other "twilight zone" states according to these so called scientists........

[Tinker]

Hey Hey Hey.......You guys are making the work Tinker into something bad    No I don't bucket biology.  But I do have a 2 year degree in wildlife management and the one thing that I really remember well from one proffessor was this:  "if you make a career out of wildlife management you will soon realize that politics trumps science".

[Stephan_K]

Hey Hey Hey.......You guys are making the work Tinker into something bad    No I don't bucket biology.  But I do have a 2 year degree in wildlife management and the one thing that I really remember well from one proffessor was this:  "if you make a career out of wildlife management you will soon realize that politics trumps science".

Tinker..... Bucket Biology........  Is there a little similarity there ??  I think so !  (John Candy did it better  )

I haven't seen, in my life, such blatant political and financial motivation when it comes to wildlife management as I have here in the NW.  I never laughed so hard the first time I heard that Walleye, Trout, Perch, Bass, Pike, Muskie (and a cohort more of fish species) can't coexist together in a particular body of water..... I almost called PA F&G to ask them what drugs they've been feeding the fish over there since the beginning of time, because they do coexist just fine there, and if they were safe to eat because of it......... I've eaten a lot and didn't want to get terminally ill because of it later in life.

[Robbi]

Funny.........I can see all sides of this.   BUT,  I don't think generalities are fair at all.  I have some friends that are biologists in FWP and they are upstanding people that want what is best for the fish and the fishermen.  Certainly not all are, some are in a position were they are involved in politics......but blaming them all in general is like blaming an infantryman because Obimbo pulled us out of Iraq without leaving a US presence there.  I brought up politics at that meeting in Great Falls the other night, specifically the politics involved at Noxon......between Idaho and Montana......there was some silence but it was obvious truth to my statement.  The gentleman conducting the meeting didn't deny it.....and didn't really seem to care much for it either, but didn't really say anything pro or con. 

My point is that this is great debate and this topic is full of debate.  I don't agree with everything that goes on with FWP, their past screw ups have tainted their current employees.........but you can't group them all in one basket.......

[ClearCreek]

Ask, and ye shall receive! http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/officials-eye-restoring-westslope-cutthroat-trout-to-camas-lake-big/article_162edfb2-9cd9-11e3-9634-0019bb2963f4.html

The main points that I was trying to make were that A.) FWP are tinkering with the species more than any "un-named co-conspirators" of bucket biology, B.) what they say is gospel one day might be completely changed as the political winds shift on another day, and C.) does it really matter what kind of fish are "native" when that term is pretty much a fabrication? Fish move on their own and are also sometimes moved by their environment--say for example birds picking them up out of a river and dropping them into a reservoir upstream. Some of these fish are not dead when they hit the lake. Isn't this natural or are the birds bucket biologists? Should we--or more importantly can we--do anything about this? For that matter, at what point do we draw the line at which fish are "natural" and hence most deserving of populating a watershed? The ones which were there before there were any fish or the ones that moved in later, but before humans settled, or the ones that were planted by FWP in the 1920s or the ones planted by FWP in the 1950s? In understand the desire to not have the Federal Government use the Endangered Species Act as a club over our heads, and that's why I said "make me king for a day," a statement as absurd as, IMHO, the Federal Government telling Montana how many of what kind of fish we should have in our rivers. My copy of the constitution sure doesn't have that part in there.

I guess you read a lot more into that article than I did.  What I read and understood is that FWP biologists today are trying to restore the native variety of cutthroat that were in streams prior to European settlement, but are having to contend with the results of fish being stocked during a time when there was no scientific thought about how the fish being stocked would affect the fish that were native to the drainages.  These early stockings (nonnative trout stocking started in the western US in the mid 1880's) were done by folks that had little or no understanding of native fish.  All kinds of fish were stocked everywhere, trains hauling fish stopped at every stream crossing and dumped fish (trout and warm water species) in the streams.  If the habitat was suitable the fish survived.  Fish were hauled all over by all kinds of modes of transportation and dumped into whatever water was there.

To say that FWP is changing their minds on what sup-species of cutthroat were native in what drainages as you implied in an earlier post is not factual.  I am not sure how you got that out of the link you posted.

ClearCreek   

 

[feklar]

It seems to me the people buying hunting and fishing licenses are the ones paying the bills.    Once they buy a tag they buy licenses/ammo/lures, etc, expanding the economy of the entire state.

If the ones paying the bills don't get to say how the money is spent, its called taxation without representation.

Hunting license sales continue to drop as more hunters quit buying licenses, FWP responds by wanting to raise the prices.   Why are a lot of hunters no longer buying tags...fwp tinkering by adding wolves.  What license/gun/ammo buying person wanted wolves?  None.

Flathead fishing guides talk of missing revenue due to the changes in the fishery.  Lots of lake trout, and big lake trout bring money into the area. 

Respect is earned, not given.  If you want to earn the respect of the hunters/fishermen, start using the money they provide to enhance the product through thoughtful management for them.  Stop taking their money and doing things that make their hunting/fishing experience worse.

[BackCountry Kyle]

Funny.........I can see all sides of this.   BUT,  I don't think generalities are fair at all.  I have some friends that are biologists in FWP and they are upstanding people that want what is best for the fish and the fishermen.  Certainly not all are, some are in a position were they are involved in politics......but blaming them all in general is like blaming an infantryman because Obimbo pulled us out of Iraq without leaving a US presence there.  I brought up politics at that meeting in Great Falls the other night, specifically the politics involved at Noxon......between Idaho and Montana......there was some silence but it was obvious truth to my statement.  The gentleman conducting the meeting didn't deny it.....and didn't really seem to care much for it either, but didn't really say anything pro or con. 

My point is that this is great debate and this topic is full of debate.  I don't agree with everything that goes on with FWP, their past screw ups have tainted their current employees.........but you can't group them all in one basket.......

Thanks Robbi! I think you have a good perspective and I respect what you have to say... always... Listen fellas this is not a one size fits all arguement (discussion  ) go fishing and releave some stress will ya!

[Robbi]

feklar.........do you seriously think FWP reintroduced wolves?  LOL........that was way above the pay grade of FWP, although I'm sure they played the part they were forced to.  Talk about your political decisions........that one takes the cake.  Flathead........that's the FUBAR that FWP will have to live with forever......no matter how many generations pass, the biologists will have to live with that.  definitely a huge miscalculation and proof that you just can't screw with mother nature.....IMO just embrace what you have and manage what you have....trying to make "changes" is a foolish endeavor........= wasted money!

[Born Late]

Ask, and ye shall receive! http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/officials-eye-restoring-westslope-cutthroat-trout-to-camas-lake-big/article_162edfb2-9cd9-11e3-9634-0019bb2963f4.html

Lol...THAT's your example??!  That's exactly the kind of waterbody where restoration WOULD work.  Camas Lake and most of the creek is remote and doesn't even rank in the top 1000 MT lakes/streams in terms of angler days. I've never caught a YCT larger than 6 inches there nor have I ever seen another angler.

[BourbonSnowCone]

It seems to me the people buying hunting and fishing licenses are the ones paying the bills.    Once they buy a tag they buy licenses/ammo/lures, etc, expanding the economy of the entire state.

If the ones paying the bills don't get to say how the money is spent, its called taxation without representation.

Hunting license sales continue to drop as more hunters quit buying licenses, FWP responds by wanting to raise the prices.   Why are a lot of hunters no longer buying tags...fwp tinkering by adding wolves.  What license/gun/ammo buying person wanted wolves?  None.

Flathead fishing guides talk of missing revenue due to the changes in the fishery.  Lots of lake trout, and big lake trout bring money into the area. 

Respect is earned, not given.  If you want to earn the respect of the hunters/fishermen, start using the money they provide to enhance the product through thoughtful management for them.  Stop taking their money and doing things that make their hunting/fishing experience worse.

Feklar,
Please read a little bit more about wolf reintroduction before you go off. FWP wasn't involved but has to deal with the consequences. Everyone wants FWP to go in with helicopters and wipe out entire packs of wolves to reduce numbers (I would like that too) but if they show no attempt to incorporate wolf management other than mass slaughter the wolves will get listed again and there will be no hunting/trapping. FWP would lose all management control and we'd see even further declines in elk/deer populations. Nobody wants that. All I'm saying is the same logic can be applied to many species of fish present in Montana. US Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act will tak over management if FWP isn't proactive.

[Robbi]

Well, I just finished sending my comments to FWP on their site.  I hope others here attend the meetings offered and comment on the proposed rules.

[Baitslinger]

Right . . .  why trust the folks with 6-8 years of college fisheries along with years of field experience.  I'd rather get my biological info from the boys down at the corner tavern or on an internet chat board.  They talk about fishing a lot, so they certainly know the nuances of a biological system and using science to manage it.  With that same logic, my 14 year old daughter should be a highly paid plumber instead of a high school student, since she spends hours in the bathroom every day. 

No, they don't always get it right, and have a tough job to do managing the resources, plus trying to please the folks who pay the bills (license buyers, since general taxes contribute nothing to the fish & game budgets) all the while dealing with their office bound bosses in Helena, state politics and federal regulations. 

But they believe in their efforts, and try hard to get it right.  The biologists I've gotten to know are some of the most passionate fishermen I've ever been around, and most fish for ANY species they can find.

Get involved with process of managing the fisheries, and let your opinion be known, then set aside a day to go pull a net with your local fish & game crew.  Many of them welcome the chance to share time in their boats with anglers.  I learned more in a few days with guys out on Canyon Ferry a few years ago than I ever imagined I could.  I don't agree with everything they do, but they take the time to listen to my side opinion on things, and also take the time to explain their actions.

Enough ranting from me so late at night -- I've got to get up in 6 hours and get on the ice before its gone for the year!

[ClearCreek]

Right . . .  why trust the folks with 6-8 years of college fisheries along with years of field experience.  I'd rather get my biological info from the boys down at the corner tavern or on an internet chat board.  They talk about fishing a lot, so they certainly know the nuances of a biological system and using science to manage it.  With that same logic, my 14 year old daughter should be a highly paid plumber instead of a high school student, since she spends hours in the bathroom every day. 

No, they don't always get it right, and have a tough job to do managing the resources, plus trying to please the folks who pay the bills (license buyers, since general taxes contribute nothing to the fish & game budgets) all the while dealing with their office bound bosses in Helena, state politics and federal regulations. 

But they believe in their efforts, and try hard to get it right.  The biologists I've gotten to know are some of the most passionate fishermen I've ever been around, and most fish for ANY species they can find.

Get involved with process of managing the fisheries, and let your opinion be known, then set aside a day to go pull a net with your local fish & game crew.  Many of them welcome the chance to share time in their boats with anglers.  I learned more in a few days with guys out on Canyon Ferry a few years ago than I ever imagined I could.  I don't agree with everything they do, but they take the time to listen to my side opinion on things, and also take the time to explain their actions.

Enough ranting from me so late at night -- I've got to get up in 6 hours and get on the ice before its gone for the year!

Whoooaaa,  Baitslinger don't bring logic and facts into this discussion, it's a lot more fun to spout off and rant don't ya know..............


ClearCreek

[doublehaul]

 

Right . . .  why trust the folks with 6-8 years of college fisheries along with years of field experience.  I'd rather get my biological info from the boys down at the corner tavern or on an internet chat board.  They talk about fishing a lot, so they certainly know the nuances of a biological system and using science to manage it.  With that same logic, my 14 year old daughter should be a highly paid plumber instead of a high school student, since she spends hours in the bathroom every day. 

No, they don't always get it right, and have a tough job to do managing the resources, plus trying to please the folks who pay the bills (license buyers, since general taxes contribute nothing to the fish & game budgets) all the while dealing with their office bound bosses in Helena, state politics and federal regulations. 

But they believe in their efforts, and try hard to get it right.  The biologists I've gotten to know are some of the most passionate fishermen I've ever been around, and most fish for ANY species they can find.

Get involved with process of managing the fisheries, and let your opinion be known, then set aside a day to go pull a net with your local fish & game crew.  Many of them welcome the chance to share time in their boats with anglers.  I learned more in a few days with guys out on Canyon Ferry a few years ago than I ever imagined I could.  I don't agree with everything they do, but they take the time to listen to my side opinion on things, and also take the time to explain their actions.

Enough ranting from me so late at night -- I've got to get up in 6 hours and get on the ice before its gone for the year!

[Born Late]

Well, I just finished sending my comments to FWP on their site.  I hope others here attend the meetings offered and comment on the proposed rules.

Exactly.

[fishin7]

Right . . .  why trust the folks with 6-8 years of college fisheries along with years of field experience.  I'd rather get my biological info from the boys down at the corner tavern or on an internet chat board.  They talk about fishing a lot, so they certainly know the nuances of a biological system and using science to manage it.  With that same logic, my 14 year old daughter should be a highly paid plumber instead of a high school student, since she spends hours in the bathroom every day. 

No, they don't always get it right, and have a tough job to do managing the resources, plus trying to please the folks who pay the bills (license buyers, since general taxes contribute nothing to the fish & game budgets) all the while dealing with their office bound bosses in Helena, state politics and federal regulations. 

But they believe in their efforts, and try hard to get it right.  The biologists I've gotten to know are some of the most passionate fishermen I've ever been around, and most fish for ANY species they can find.

Get involved with process of managing the fisheries, and let your opinion be known, then set aside a day to go pull a net with your local fish & game crew.  Many of them welcome the chance to share time in their boats with anglers.  I learned more in a few days with guys out on Canyon Ferry a few years ago than I ever imagined I could.  I don't agree with everything they do, but they take the time to listen to my side opinion on things, and also take the time to explain their actions.

Enough ranting from me so late at night -- I've got to get up in 6 hours and get on the ice before its gone for the year!

Well said!! 

[missoulafish]

X5!

[H-glow]

I've sat pretty quietly here. As someone who works with the FWP...we are not tinkerers! We are scientists..trying to do the best we can will information that we are given. We are doing much more good than the person who sits behind their computer and b***hes on ice shanty. If you want to help the problem...or find a new solution...do it but dont just sit on your ass and b***h. And just because you love fishing..read a few articles..and spend a lot of time outside..does not make you a scientist.  Im sick of people vilify ing the fwp.  Its just like everyone blaming the president for their problems. Get a grip. This comment is for harpooner..not everything is a conspiracy go read some biology books.
[/quote
Get your nose out of the biology book and put it into a public relations book there are some good points on this topic yours is not