I started reading my copy yesterday, and I'm about half-way through it. Outstanding photography and a very good read up to this point. I do want to take a minute, though, to gripe about a couple of things. The first chapter that's Lani's writing is chapter two and there are two glaring factual mistakes within the first several paragraphs. First of all, he states that Mt. St. Helens is in Oregon while it clearly is in Washington. Though a mistake like this is all too common in periodicals due to the tight timelines involved, it should not happen in a book of this quality. That's something that should have been caught by an editor. The very next paragraph is even more disturbing, though. He says, "the scientific community proclaimed the steelhead to be a closer relative of the Pacific salmon than they were of the rainbow trout." The next several sentences continues that thought. In fact, the scientific community has determined that the steelhead and rainbow trout are identical and therefore carry the same taxonomic designation, Oncorhynchus mykiss. I re-read that paragraph and the one following it several times and he clearly wants people to believe that that is the designation for the steelhead only and that rainbows are still in the Salmo genus with the brown trout and Atlantic salmon. In a book specifically about that species this type of an error should have been caught. Had the editor or Lani simply read the first chapter in the book, written by Bob Hooton, they would have found that he got it right. I met Lani one time and he is a gracious and humble person. I'm sure some of you know him way better so it's tough for me to get into all this. However, whether it is Lani's fault or the fault of the editor(s) it just should not happen in a book costing $40.00 and that is likely to be a "bible" for decades. Heck, I just re-read Trey's bible again last year. I guess my biggest question is, "Who read the galley proofs?" Thomas McGuane, Yvon Chouinard, and Dave Whitlock are all quoted on the back of the dust jacket. Those ringing endorsements usually mean that they've read early proofs, but I can't imagine any of those three guys having read the book, especially Dave, and not pointing out both of these errors. While I'm sure some of you will say that it's no big deal, I'm saying that in this case, for reasons mentioned above, I think it is and doesn't reflect well on Stackpole Books at all. I'm sure Lani is aware of both of these by now and my gut says he's really embarrassed by it. Factual errors of this type effect the credibility of the rest of the writing, though like I said I've now read roughly half the book and found no others and have, for the most part, enjoyed it.