Trying to keep the other thread focused on what the OP wanted. As posted elsewhere, the latest study by the DNR showed harm to the experimental streams and therefore potential to harm other streams should the limit be raised. The study also showed no increase in angler participation. Phil provided an update on this study, showing summary results that had been presented earlier in the month to the Natural Resources Commission. Data from 2012 to 2016 for electrofishing, creel, postcard, and internet surveys were compiled and a couple of questions that had been raised at the NRC meeting were clarified. Contrary to predictions going into the study, it was found that the ten-brook trout bag regulation had potential to negatively affect abundance and size structure of local brook trout populations and the opportunity for higher harvests did not result in increased angler activity. The audience commended Fisheries Division on their forthrightness in conducting the study and sharing findings. Dexter provided additional info on how study results will be incorporated into further discussion of this topic at the December NRC meeting. Fisheries Division has recommended against the increase and the majority of the public has opposed it, but the appointed members of the NRC have chosen to move forward with options for raising it. Reactions from members here have varied from silence to lukewarm statements that "if the science shows it's bad I guess I would oppose it". Several posters have offered opinions without knowing about the study had been done (there was no press release) and I hope now that they have seen it we can stop wondering if brookies are overpopulated. Ok, so what's my gripe if you care? I'm sure many of you don't but you've already made the popcorn. Here it is. One of the primary arguments against GR water, maybe the primary argument, is that science doesn't show that they are needed. We have heard of conversations with and even seen some quotes from biologists who guessed that because of the high mortality of trout current fishing pressure made no difference. Other biologists who disagreed were also quoted and their bona fides and motivations were called into question. This especially applied to brook trout which have the highest natural mortality. Many times it has been said that if the science showed it was needed there would be no argument. It has been said that the next round of regulation negotiations would be a tough fight for the GR guys because scientific management and the PTD would be brought in and GR didn't have a leg to stand on. Well, now we have the latest study that shows even a small increase in harvest on brookies in the UP had a negative effect. Where are the pro science guys? Where is the outrage that science is being ignored for something that has been shown to do harm and have no social benefit? There has been only silence or milquetoast hedging. Certainly no apologies offered for questioning the integrity of biologists who drew different, and now obviously correct, conclusions from the data. What does that pre-eminent science based group, GLFSA, have to say about it? They had at least three members in attendance at the meeting where the results of this study were presented.* They had at least one at the meeting where it was explained that the NRC intended to move ahead anyway. Why haven't they responded? Where are the cries for science based management? I'll leave it to them to explain themselves but it is starting to look like they were never that interested in conservation or rights and greatly interested in being able to take as many fish as they could by whatever means struck their fancy. *I know this because of the attendance list and because they posted here that they attended. I am not part of the Deep State with spies everywhere.