Be Careful Out There

[DonAndersen]

Dave,

 

Being as I've already done a lot of the work doing hardness, P & M alkalinity, water analysis, I'm pleased that you finally came around. Been looking at these issues for sometime with funding from Edmonton TU.

Curiously, neither the govt or anyone else exhibited any interest although I've made the offer many times.

As far as the biomass it is the same now as it was in 2005 with an the numbers of trout falling and an increase larger browns was due to the partial C&R regulations. If you are interested in being about what has been done, I could send you all the data.

Seems like my hissy fit may finally get some govt action but after 30 years of doing diddly, I expect the govt will again snooze along.

I'll be busy for a while doing this and that but if you send along an email address, I'll get you up to speed.

 

Don

[DaveJensen]

Yes.

The downfall in our communication a year or two back was that you were screaming that something had to be done NOW & I didn't agree there was any issue. But there was no way to show there was any issue, no data set that was pertinent to anything about anything to show any cause and effect. My point then - as it is now - is that your efforts had to be tied into a larger effort that - over time and allowed time to be shown - could track and substantiate cause and effect, not just be random, widely dispersed and somewhat irrelevant data left on its own. So, obviously, tying your data into something larger and focussed and allowed time, will benefit the fishery you've spent a ton of time on. That's where I was coming from. And it has to include observations over time that includes your stuff but goes further and professionally / consistently gathered evidence. And hopefully you see today that this isn't a shot at your efforts - it's to make sure that there is consistency in data collection to substantiate that it is valid, or at the very least consistent.

 

I have only really ever been saying there has to be framework to show what you were screaming about was true/not, and you didn't want to allow time to develop that framework. Now that we know the biomass is ok and the stream isn't in imminent trouble, we can allow time for that framework to be developed and expand the data we collect. I honestly think that you were on a good path all along but your view lacked the structure needed to affect change within the system of biology. Our in-our-faceness with each other didn't help, but we're getting there. It ain't like I'm perfect or anywhere near it in my approach.

 

Like you - my goal is to keep pushing the idea ahead to those with the power to institute that change. There are a ton of similarities/commonalities to what we are saying. All along, I've only ever hoped that we can set something up to take Stauffer into a healthy future, transitioning from what you've done to ongoing monitoring and data collection, applying what we can learn from Stauffer to a broader scope of applicability. It screams benchmark fishery.