The problem here seems to be the word "public". Public in this scenario is all of us, not just a certain segment of society. Whenever public is mentioned it is assumed that they are speaking of the whole that uses whatever it is they are talking about. I fail to understand how a few hundred emails can be the deciding factor to decide these rules and regulations.
Now, on the issue of biological science, it is understood in the PTD that conservation rules and regulations should only be made for the purpose of conservation. Couple that with the Northwest Ordinance, which is what you trully have to do, and you can see where the rub comes in.
As I've stated before, the NO is one of the four organic laws of the United States, and without looking it up right now, I believe its article four that speaks of the "publics" right to use the waters from the St. Lawrence to the Mississippi and all waters that run into them for public purposes of fishing, swimming, bathing, or any other typical use of water for the general public. In reading up on this particular "law", it appears that most of the pundits agree that this means that the public has the right to use these waters in the above ways, and can only be changed IF it is for conservation purposes, therefore, if the biological science doesn't support these rules and regulations, by law they can't be done. I could understand if you don't want to agree with me on that, IF it were my opinion, but it isn't mine. In fact, this "Law" was used in the final descent decree with the Native Americans and their fishing rights, so therefore this is valid just as much today, as it was at its inception.
What I'm trying to say is, unless the biology dictates changes to the rules and regulations for conservation purposes, it can't be done legally, no matter what the fly fishing groups would like you to believe. At some point in time this whole thing will need to be hashed out in order to get us all on the same page, and as splitshot said earlier, our little group is all for creating new habitat and protecting the waters, and the resource, but we want it protected for all citizens, not just the chosen few. Also, as I've said before, it is the fly groups who have created this divide, and they created it with their attitudes and their snobbery. If you don't believe that, look at the Pere Marquette Watershed website and see what they have to say, or look at the minutes from the orginal meetings to see what these same folks had to say. I would be embarrassed to have said that about my fellow man, not that there aren't a few who may deserve it, but to say it as a blanket statement is just wrong, and that's where this all began. I also have some doubts about the true meaning of TU, they say they are a group of people who want to improve the habitat etc, but have you ever heard of them giving anything away that wasn't fly fishing oriented? Lets call it what it is, they are a fly fishing group that is after getting all the waters they can for thier own personal use, period.
As for biological studies, what we do know is these studies can be skewed in any direction you want them to go. I find it interesting that TU does studies that say one thing, but the DNR says another, so which is correct? I also find it humorous that the Anglers of the Ausable found it important enough to them to mention us in one their newsletters in the letter from the editor. I wonder why they would bother mentioning us, if we didn't make them at least a little nervous, and if we make them nervous, I wonder why. They didn't mention us by name, but the inference was there.
The bottom line is, social science has no place in determining fish and game legislation, and speaking of legislation, in the beginning of the DNR, which was called the Department of Conservation at that time, the administrative procedures act spelled plainly that the legislature was hands off the DNR in terms of how and why they make rules and regs, and this was because they believed at the time, these rules and regs should be drawn up by the experts, and it should be that way today, but we all know it isn't.