[DaveJensen]

I'm not arguing anything against Don.
I agree with what you say.
I am simply trying to find a way to make sure that I'm not in the same situation when I'm his age.
Unless we find a new system to mange fisheries - a way to start and fund true biology in this province - I'll be in his shoes.

There has to be a way to mix what he's talking about now with finding a new system that gets true biology going to find a way to make sure it doesn't happen on other waters in the future. Without true biology and science, we have no way of defining what the issues are. It becomes pie in the sky - and knowing how this present gov works they will see his data as pie in the sky and lacking specifity, hence it is almost impossible to fix something in those terms. Which is why I'm pressing the so-called study -> gov wouldn't accept it as a true study and with no findings how can you fix something that has no parameters? It's easy when you have set data and parameters like walleye in a trout lake. It's completely another when discussing why fish are skinny, slowly dwindling in population/dynamics, why redd counts are down. Sure, it seems obvious, but unless you know what is actually happening, what are you going to do about it?
As I said before here, that's the kind of fisheries mgt we've had all along, and it leaves people like Don in the predicament he's in right now: something's wrong, can't prove it, it's obvious, but there is no system to correct something that isn't definable, much less ensure it won't happen elsewhere in the future.

But bullying tactics like 'fix it or get out of my way' do nothing to address the issue, much less seek a better future.