08-07-2018, 04:48 AM
I could only bother/stand to read about 5 sentences of your reply.
If you go back and look through my replies on this thread, I have been respectful and not demeaning. Must have struck a nerve or something, because I don't think the same can be said for you. It is obvious you are the type of person who has a hard time seeing other people's point of view. It is a shame you aren't in charge. You are going to be an unhappy person about this situation until they do exactly what YOU want them to. That is a shame.
The worst part is, you can't say for certain if what they are doing is going to work or not. Nobody can - but you sure have tricked yourself into thinking you know exactly what the outcome is going to be. Fisheries are complex ecosystems and they can boom and bust on the smallest of variables. You seem to think there is an easy answer and there obviously isn't in this situation. Most everybody else on here - can see that.
Further, most of us on here can see that trying new things to solve an old problem is actually kind of a novel idea. Because in doing so, you have the opportunity to learn something you wouldn't have otherwise. Trial and error is a huge part of science. Adjust the inputs and study what happens to the outputs. Even if you don't get it right after a few tries, you at least learn what doesn't work. You get data. The current plan will either be a huge success or a huge failure, or likely something in the middle. But what they learn from Scofield will be useful information for the future management of fisheries in Utah. I agree with K2 - patience is a virtue.
[signature]
If you go back and look through my replies on this thread, I have been respectful and not demeaning. Must have struck a nerve or something, because I don't think the same can be said for you. It is obvious you are the type of person who has a hard time seeing other people's point of view. It is a shame you aren't in charge. You are going to be an unhappy person about this situation until they do exactly what YOU want them to. That is a shame.
The worst part is, you can't say for certain if what they are doing is going to work or not. Nobody can - but you sure have tricked yourself into thinking you know exactly what the outcome is going to be. Fisheries are complex ecosystems and they can boom and bust on the smallest of variables. You seem to think there is an easy answer and there obviously isn't in this situation. Most everybody else on here - can see that.
Further, most of us on here can see that trying new things to solve an old problem is actually kind of a novel idea. Because in doing so, you have the opportunity to learn something you wouldn't have otherwise. Trial and error is a huge part of science. Adjust the inputs and study what happens to the outputs. Even if you don't get it right after a few tries, you at least learn what doesn't work. You get data. The current plan will either be a huge success or a huge failure, or likely something in the middle. But what they learn from Scofield will be useful information for the future management of fisheries in Utah. I agree with K2 - patience is a virtue.
[signature]