Cea.

I also read that article. Did you notice that Mr. Micus was having bulls make runs at the cuts he had on his line. Ergo while fishing for cuts we know that there were some large bull trout in evidence in the same pool. Did you know that writers will often combine several experiences at different locations into one article to make the story jell a little better . For instance fishing at several lakes or rivers and taking the most interesting things from all those trips and combining them into one story. Perhaps one of those segments of his article were an experience gained at that river or lake where Bulls can be taken. His enticement of that bull trout may have been legal after all. Can you say for 100% sure that it was not so? He said that he didn't know the name of the crik he was fishing, trusting His friend that it was ok. Yet from the articles photos you have positivly identified them as illegal waters. Perhaps Photos taken from one stream were added to a story that happened at another stream so as to be more enjoyable to the readers. It is a writers perogative to embellish a story. Again you do not know that these were the waters the bull trout was in.
With the flimseyest evidence you have villified this fine gentleman when a pm or email to him would have been the sensible thing to do. If he is wrong and made a mistake then he could have asked the Administration to pull the story perhaps with an apology. You didn't give him the chance. Nor did you give the administration time to notice an possible conflict with Montana regulations so that they question the author about the content.