Probably as appalling as the " Boston Letter," is that any publication would publish an anonymous thing like that. This site and all publications, with a sense of ethics, should never promote unsigned writings without documented sources, whether they've been published in a newspaper, or any other place.

<i>
Finner,

The "Boston Letter" was very disturbing and should be followed up on. If that letter is determined to be authentic, further action should be taken. Simple as that in my eyes. Unfortunately, the letter was unsigned and may not have further follow up because of that. Could be a provocateur, something to stir the pot maybe? I really hope something like what was described in that article would not happen. I hope it is a hoax on a grand scale, intended to gut hook the collective recreational angler instead of something based on reality. But if it is real, it deserves comment and investigation, even if it has a 50-50 chance of being legit.

Do you think something like that should be followed up or discarded due to lack of signature? I can see that publishing that article would be a bad decision if it were not mentioned that its authenticity couldn't be determined but is it ethical to not investigate that because of lack of signature?

As far as the content of the letter, true or untrue, what do you think?

Thanks,

John
</i>