Again, not so at you but in keeping with what I'm conveying bigger picture.
Don, at the core of your concerns is what I discussed in my reply. Biology.
There is very little actual, active biology occurring. Within biology, the active study, you measure and account for variables within the complete ecosystem and their interaction. By so doing, you establish what is occurring. Because there is little to no biology occurring, we don't know what is causing the alleged state or even if the alleged state is true.
Scientifically speaking, your studies and data sets are not valid. Sorry to burst your bubble but they aren't. They might be the anecdotal evidence that induces a study, which would then spin-off data or show a need for more study, but your data is incomplete, to say the least. Any angler's data's would be, but it can be used to kick start some action.
Hence, and this is where I'm afraid I'll lose you, you shouting to Alberta Gov "DO SOMETHING", means almost nothing. You / we / they haven't:
A) Determined if there is a problem (if fish biomass is being re-distrbuted or if overall fish biomass has dropped and do note fish boimass and not just trout).
B) Determined what the problem is if an issue is found.
Your report "only reports the facts" - no, your report only reports the facts of a study that is biassed to its variables and incomplete in its methodology. Apologies for being so up front but you do come across quite adamant that your data is complete. It is not and the methods are suspect, to say the least.
To answer your second paragraph you have to establish whether you have a biomass, ecology, or _____ problem. If fish biomass is stable, but not encompassed by trout as high as it was 30 - 40 years ago, you have a habitat issue that is shifting in response to the habitat change. And if, say, fish biomass is stable but is shifting to suckers and pike, then who are we to say that the exotic species should take higher priority than the natives when we have a series of Gov policies and procedures in place that favors the natives? At that point, how can that be a problem? Alternatively, if the overall fish biomass is down, is it habitat or is it over use, over harvest, etc? Both angles here lead to quite a flow chart of variables, and those aren't the only possibilities, just two obvious first starting points.
But you haven't even identified what the problem is yet, and have no subtantiated data to support there to be any problem, much less offer any direction on solution. You may indicate that the entire gov is aware of the issue... but what is the issue? Again, the gov simply looks at cyclical, periodic sampling intervals which aren't worth the $. You want to truly find out if there is a problem, you need to invest time and $ and do some complete, all encompassing biology.
Sorry, at this point shouting "FIX IT OR GET OUT OF THE WAY!" when you have nothing to substantiate there is a problem is psychologically funny. Really? Fix what???
I'm 40 and love the process of study, in a manner that allows us to establish a foundation for the future, that references the past best it can encompass... to ensure that we have benchmarks that take us into the future, based on fully appreciating the full set of variables represented in biology and not just doing yet another knee-jerk reaction to appease an in the moment, alleged crisis. That has been the Alberta way, the way we've bought into, and look where that has led us: Don Andersen yelling at the sky to fix something he himself doesn't even know if there is something to be fixed or how to fix it.
And I'm not sure if you get how on your side I really am. There simply needs to be some foundation and structure built into this, or you'll go to your grave shouting for something to be done about something you can't quite put your finger on.
Again, just a different perspective.
Cheers
|