Frenchy,

Thank you for the input. I have read the article several times, and have tried to be fair, but I just don't buy into it. If others wish to, that's fine, but I do not.

I have a number of reasons for not accepting this. For one thing, it is mistake to believe everything you read or hear, regardless of how many times it is repeated. To do so is to be naive and gullible as well as unwise. For another thing, many things are not what they appear to be. Just because someone is considered to be a scientist by himself or others does not make him one, and it does not necessarily make his assertions correct. Even if he IS a scientist, even a good one, that by itself does not make him correct. Also, just because certain information is authoritatively used as "facts" and "statistics", it does not necessarily mean that the information is accurate. The accuracy of those "facts" and "statistics" goes out the window if they are fabricated, or are based on incorrect, incomplete, or misinterpreted data.

Apparently, I am not the only one that doesn't accept the theories promoted in this article. You will notice that some fishery managers also find them very hard to accept. The article makes a lame attempt at damage control by saying that these people are in denial.

Some questions anyone reading this article should ask are, who are these people mentioned in the article? What are their qualifications, and what is their agenda? What do we know about their accuracy, integrity and professionalism? How did they obtain their data, and how did they arrive at their conclusions? Did they do independent research, or just quote someone else? Were their conclusions independently verified? Has anyone duplicated their efforts and arrived at the same conclusions? What information can be gathered from those who disagree with these theories? Or, should we blindly and stupidly assume that everyone who disagrees with these theories is wrong?

This article has the familiar ring of other reactionary artlcles I have read in the past. It also has the familiar ring of a story that many of us learned as small children, about a chicken that got hit in the head with an acorn (a nut from an oak tree) and ran around shouting, "The sky is falling, the sky is falling!"

In my opinion, this article has too many holes in it to be taken seriously. I would itemize them, but you can identify a number of them for yourself if you will study the article closely.

Too many people are content with letting others do their thinking for them, and as such, will fail to be intellectual or moral survivors. The mantra of too many is "Wherever they lead me, I will follow, and whatever they feed me, I will swallow". I don't intend to be one of them.