striblue said:
Your rambling.....:roll: Calm down..no need to get personal. You ask for an opinion and then when you get one you don't like you explode....why ask then? You offer a "relaiable sourse'...no first hand knowledge..just blame and unsupported wild accusations.....to that location. I ask a reasonable question since I do not know... and then you don't have the answer either. No real evidence, no proof...no "anything" specific to the location... then you blast me...Don't ask opinions of others if you just want to be coddled. I have said all I am going to say about this and will not engage further. You are rude and condecsending, and probably a misanthrope, and can only get away with this stuff hiding behind the internet.
Your personal attacks on me amount to quite a poor attempt on your part to wiggle your way out of this.
As I'm sure you are well aware:
1. I am not rambling.
2. There is no need to calm down since I'm perfectly calm.
3. Any statements I made that you claim as getting personal were made to reveal a tie-in between your misinformed, biased opinion and your hidden, golf related agenda.
4. The first explosion was you accusing me of being testy.
You've probably made a career out of finding ways to belittle people.
I never asked for an opinion and certainly not from someone of your caliber. My, oh my, you really are fond of making things up.
You say "You offer a "relaiable sourse' ". How could anybody expect credibility from someone who spells so poorly?? You get more laughable with each passing word you write.
You hit another low by saying "just blame and unsupported wild accusations" when there's no reference to me blaming or throwing wild accusations at anything.
Your so-called reasonable question was answered in my original post. How many times do I need to tell you that??? Locations and names of organizations do not need to be divulged here. In fact, to divulge them could cause other problems.
You say "You are rude and condecsending". (Again, learn to spell.) But if that is true, maybe it was because I could see in an instant that you had no business responding to my post in the way that you did. I might add that it would be easy to become a misanthrope if I came in contact with people like you all the time.
In conclusion, let me say this. Much of this rather disagreeable discourse started because it was stated by Striblue that he felt that had the Fishing conservation groups with their level of examination been involved, it would have likely cleared the golf courses of some role in the demise of the green drake. I don't think Mr. Striblue, in his lengthly (and I might add impressive) profile, has little background into what goes into the development of chemicals that might be used on a golf course. In contrast, I have over 30 years experience in the development of chemicals for various applied uses. While I have none specifically for golf courses, I would be greatly surprised to learn that scientific tests had been done anywhere to clear any chemical for use in applications where toxicity on the green drake could be a problem. Such testing would pose the difficult and expensive problem of setting up laboratory scale habitat for this insect, although I'm sure it could be done.
I also want to say that I am not proposing that courses located in green drake habitat be prevented from using chemicals. But there is a strong need to thoroughly and scientifically evaluate the effect of chemicals on this insect, and come up with ways to stop, or at least minimize, the damage resulting from their use.
Some may wonder, "Why all this fuss over a little insect?". Well ... suppose you had been frequently fishing a river that you just knew had to contain a good population of large trout, but had limited success in hooking any. Then comes the time of the year when the green drake comes on the water and there seems to be big fish everywhere taking flies off the surface. You would never have to ask that question again.