I currently work in a lab that primarily does otolith based growth and aging. It is and has been my primary job for over 7 years (although I don't do that actua

I currently work in a lab that primarily does otolith based growth and aging. It is and has been my primary job for over 7 years (although I don't do that actual reading of the otoliths, I work with the data that comes out of it) I think you are misreading my comment. I did not say that it was easy or that it was always consistent and reliable. I said it was one of the most consistent and reliable aging methods, which is an inherently relative statement. Compared to other common aging techniques such as scales, fin rays, and vertebrae, it is exactly those two things: more consistent and reliable. It can be more and yet still not particularly. And, in many cases, yes, it is not always very reliable and in many species it has not been specifically validated. But it is still the best, more reliable technique we have for aging fishes. In addition, please note that literally the first sentence in my comment was the importance of validating an age technique. I am well aware of the issues in aging. Those issues absolutely do not amount to the (implied) conclusion of your comment that they are garbage that shouldn't be relied upon. Also, just a piece of advice: you do not come off as particularly authoritative when you make wildly hyperbolic statements like contesting claims of 800 year old fish.