I didn't say you were wrong, Bob. I just disagree with the conclusions, and the methodology. There are advocates on both sides of the issues, and it has been hotly debated for at least a decade or more. The differences that I can see is that the "leave the big fish" group seems to rely mostly on statistical information, from samples taken in the wild. The "keep a random selection" crowd mostly relies upon previous genetic lab research, and experimentation under controlled conditions (a lab or hatchery), where all random elements are removed or accounted for. This is impossible in the wild.

I am of the experimentation and direct observation crowd. Old school, maybe, but for me, if it cannot be duplicated under controlled conditions, then it is not a fact. Experimentation over the last 100 years has shown that size is not necessarily an indicator of superior genetics. For livestock, raised under human control, selection of desirable traits does allow a greater degree of expression in future generations, but that is not always a superior genetic trait. Chickens, for example, have absolutely no chance of survival in the wild, because we have selected them according to preferences, sometimes to the effect that they cannot even walk on their own. They are certainly not genetically superior to their wild cousins. And further experimentation has shown that artificial selection only works in a controlled environment.

As for bluegills, few fisherman would be able to tell if a large fish they have caught is a younger, genetically superior specimen, or just a genetically-average old fish. Odds are, it's just an average old fish. These fish are going to die off soon, most likely within a season or two, making the next younger group the new superior breeding population. However, since the they have been disproportionally targeted, in favor of leaving the large fish, next season will have a lot smaller breeding population, meaning less eggs will be laid, meaning less fish in the long-run. It's shooting yourself in the foot. In my opinion, this defeats the entire purpose of fish management. Harvesting fish equally along the adult size range preserves the genetic diversity that populations need to maintain. Genetic diversity, not artificial culling, is what keeps populations healthy, and in balance.

And, as I said, it can be argued the other way as well. I just prefer to rely on experimental, reproducible data, rather than statistics that change every time they are conducted, depending on when, where and who did them. Any politician will tell you that you can use statistical information to prove any point of view, depending on what kind of spin you put on it. I do believe that statistical information can be useful as additional information, but not as proof of anything, and can only be relied upon very lightly. For science, it is the same as eyewitness testimony in a court of law....somewhat useful, but not enough to convict on its own.

And this is just my opinion, and is certainly not the last word on the subject. One of the things I love most about science is the free and open exchange of differing viewpoints, even with regards to itself, that transcend all national, and social boundaries. Even when we think we have proved something beyond all doubt, such as when we believed dinosaurs were reptilians, new evidence comes along, such as the idea that at least some dinosaurs may have been warm-blooded, that forces us to reopen the issue to attempt to arrive at the truth. I hope it never changes.....