Salton Sea, Alamo River and New River

[walrus]

Jeff,

Gee this sounds like a great idea, however you should mention every group/agency/ university, etc that's funding the study.

I know that's something I would want to know before I participate.

From experience I know the results of such reports tend to favor what the payees want to hear, otherwise you're out of work. Everyone wants to please the boss to keep their job, especially these days.

I'm not trying to be a problem, but, to come here on as non-fisherman asking us to do the work, catching, cleaning, cooking and eating the fish without compensation, meanwhile you're getting paid to write the numbers down.

Be up front with us tell us every single person this report will be prepared for. Also will you agree to give all the raw data, unedited or opinionated back to all those who participate by giving samples?

I already see a bias when you said that the study is to find if eating fish is harmful, and gives away of how you'll study the data. The premise of the study is could have been to prove eating fish from the target area the is safe and part of a healthy diet.

Thanks

[tacmik]

Originally Posted by walrus

Jeff,

Gee this sounds like a great idea, however you should mention every group/agency/ university, etc that's funding the study.

I know that's something I would want to know before I participate.

From experience I know the results of such reports tend to favor what the payees want to hear, otherwise you're out of work. Everyone wants to please the boss to keep their job, especially these days.

I'm not trying to be a problem, but, to come here on as non-fisherman asking us to do the work, catching, cleaning, cooking and eating the fish without compensation, meanwhile you're getting paid to write the numbers down.

Be up front with us tell us every single person this report will be prepared for. Also will you agree to give all the raw data, unedited or opinionated back to all those who participate by giving samples?

I already see a bias when you said that the study is to find if eating fish is harmful, and gives away of how you'll study the data. The premise of the study is could have been to prove eating fish from the target area the is safe and part of a healthy diet.

Thanks

Just so you don't think we are just A holes. We got burned big time by the enviro's with the MLPA's and lost prime fishing areas due to their backing and skewed data.

[alanw]

I'm fine with being and A-hole when it comes to government agencies doing a biased study with the goal of regulating some of my freedoms away. Look what just happened with lead hunting ammo in California and the controversy surrounding that. These liberals always have an agenda and they look for evidence in support of it instead of making unbiased decisions based on pure scientific facts.

[dmrides]

Originally Posted by alanw

unbiased decisions based on pure scientific facts.

Facts?!? Come on man, this is California. Get with the times, modem policies are based on emotions. Anyway, your so called "facts" are too hard to understand. I don't have time for facts, I am too busy working on my diorama to protest the windmills that are killing all the eagles.

[YakDout]

Originally Posted by dmrides

Facts?!? Come on man, this is California. Get with the times, modem policies are based on emotions. Anyway, your so called "facts" are too hard to understand. I don't have time for facts, I am too busy working on my diorama to protest the windmills that are killing all the eagles.

Dmrides, are you referring to the bald eagles of Capistrano?