Bob R, thank you for replying.
I'm glad you bring up "the difference between hearsy and evidence". It is the fundamental problem I have with your posts on this subject.
In reply to Barries piece you publicly ask for "scientific evidence". You are not going to accept the conclusions put forward, based on simple hearsay.
Fine, I have no problem with this.
What I do have a problem with is that in "another thread" (as one example) that ran recently (which I read through the archives) you quite plainly made a number of accusations and statements (which you claimed supported your case) based on "the word on the street" and (if I may use the phrase) Chinese Whispers. Particularly after those people involved came back and said they were there and you were wrong. You had no proof, yet happily believed the hearsay and fobbed them off. (Or so it seems to me).
And now, with eye-witnesses (Blunderer et al) putting their reputations on the line, you won't believe on the same basis???????
There is a word for this.
I like to see people express their opinions (right or wrong), but I think you do your fellow forum-users an injustice, by your inconsistency. If you require "scientific evidence", ALWAYS ask for it. If you're happy with hearsay, ALWAYS be happy with it. Cherry-Picking means you are Playing To The Gallery.......and undermines any genuine point/opinion you may have.
Please sort this out, it would save a lot of argument. ;-)
Most species travel large distances in rivers (relative to the size of the system and any barriers), but it doesn't stop them settling down in Stillwater. Regardless of size. They travel as far as they need to. In this case a few yards. This is imho a Large Red Herring.
Woody, the "What's the Point" has, from what I've read, been done to death. This is beyond that. This is purely about Unaided Stillwater Breeding. Or did I misread Bob R's intro post and title?