I'm the least educated, honestly, though I have tried my best to learn how gov works and how to go about something in the manner in which gov works.
I approached the original reply simply pointing out a different perspective. I ran the risk, in my reply, of sounding condescending, true. My intent was not that at all. There is humor if we step outside of ourselves, myself included, when we wind up yelling at the sky.
Don and myself are on the same page, I can't make that clear enough. BUT, we would approach this very differently.
How the heck can you fix something when you can't identify if there is a problem, based on the entire gammut of how our system of fisheries mgt works? For example, and one of many, many possibilities... if the introduced browns are down but the native pike are up, and the gov mandates support natives, then is there a problem? Until you know what is truly is, you can't possibly adjust. Bill Clinton was perfectly right to ask what the definition of is is. Until you know what it is, how do you define the problem, or if is truly is a problem.
Then, you have to play by gov's rules if you want to play with the gov folks.
Further, I do not believe that the problem is anything perfectly tangible. I see aspects of Alberta as sliding into being the energy waste pile of N America to some degree, and in so going that route, are sacrificing things like the introduced brown trout population in Stauffer for economic gain. Things like habitat shifts (and the gov types have many studies and reports that call for bios to shift management to accomodate for managing fisheries in a warming climate... that's what happens when you clearcut the foothills and build roads that fill critical 5th stage tributaries with sediment and allow every seismic line to remain to become ATV hwys) seldom come thanks to one, clearly defined variable shift. Hence, my point, you can't logically, rationally scream to the sky to "do something or get out of my way!" when you can't identify what the issue is, much less when dealing with a gov that has allowed pretty much every conceivable environmental insult to occur thanks to our main big industries, while simultaneously allowing virtually unchecked use and abuse by recreational users, be it atv, 4x4, fishing, etc. All the while collecting absolutely useless biological data (as I opened my first reply with).
This is why I made the comments in my first reply... this is a perfect location to start a shift in how we manage fisheries in Alberta... a perfect, relatively closed location to actually practise biology, which will provide benchmarks to take such fisheries into the future and establisha system that could be duplicated to other waters to ensure we have something to reference as we move forward in our continued, likely non-sustainable use of our natural resources.
Instead, I get the response to essentially stuff myself by someone who has no good data to rely upon, and no direction to take because there is no substantiated data to show __________ is indeed occurring.
And if you're still reading, some kind of system that accounts for people like Don and myself that have used our personal data sets to change fisheries in Alberta, combined with the system I'm talking about here is likely the best future outcome.
Cheers
|