If in the meeting it ends up that we have a whole bunch of science already done here to support these limits. Then heck i am all for it.

I think the reason people are getting up in arms about this is twofold...

#1 at its root everyone can agree that if regs are not based on sound science and just based on someone saying this is what we should do.. that's never good. So people are worried that if the state starts making snap judgements on whims, they might do the same for other stuff. (at least that's a major concern for me)

#2 secondly... most of the people posting on the other forum are from the SW part of the state where there is a has been different regulations from the rest of the state in regards to speckled trout. A lot of people are strongly questioning why this was done, because they are seeing that a fishery that was once considered to be a trophy hotspot is rapidly being turned into just a good place to catch a limit. (wrong or right that's the perception out there) It certainly have some scientific legs because it has been proven in many different ways that when a water body become's overpopulated with a certain type of fish they quickly become stunted and don't reach their growth potential.

I still think half the folks over there are crazy for jumping on the we wont support conservation program X because of this little itty bitty thing.

All in all during this discussion I probably agree with you more than anyone else, But i do think putting a little bit of pressure on folks to show the science / get the science to support a decision is a very good thing.