HalcyonDaze
Contributor
Nicely put, Mr. Chen. I agree that this is something that needs to be debated.
Thank you for lumping myself and a number of friends and colleagues in with Japanese whalers. I would be exactly as justified to lump all divers in with the often-incompetent holiday warriors I encounter on Key Largo cattle boats. Or all divemasters and instructors with the twit who once criticized me as having a "low level of certification and a low level of activity" ... and gave a free pass to the wannabe who had less than a third of my total dives and got certified at some point after I'd racked up my 300th dive and worked on dive projects with three federal agencies and five major research institutes over an eight-year period. But he was going for his instructor cert after nine months and 100 dives, which apparently made him more qualified than moi.
Has it occurred to you that the particular scientists you're criticizing here are in the pickle of reporting not to fellow academics, but to elected or appointed public officials (therefore, directly or indirectly selected by John Q. Public, i.e. us)? NOAA is under the Department of Commerce, which means their mandate is not ooshy-gooshy Save the Fishies; it's to ensure that fisheries remain stable for future harvesting. They balance conservation interests against those of the commercial and recreational fishing guys. Sometimes this works spectacularly well - the Alaskan fisheries are generally considered a global model for sustainability. Other times it doesn't; you get complaints on both sides of either NMFS being too conservative with their stock estimates or giving the fishing industry too much leeway with quotas. This is why I would like to ask some questions regarding the ongoing pre-season "research fishery;" I want to know what data and policies are coming out of it and whether alternatives have been considered.
The Water Management Districts (disclosure; I occasionally work with the South Florida Water Management District under contract) are in an even worse bind. Employment scam? SFWMD got gutted a few years back, and when I was last there the then-new director (who is rarely if ever a scientist; instead it's typically some crony of the governor or one of his big donors) was quoted in the paper - before even talking to the staff - that he intended to cut the "dead wood" out of the organization that had already let somewhere around 100 people go and was heavily reliant on contractors for even basic functions.
I state this because the inaction you speak of is not scientists stringing out an "employment scam" - it is because the agencies they work for are directed by public officials (or appointees of said public officials) who (in this state, at least) are often elected largely on the promise that they are going to do certain interests favors. Among those favors is often the promise not to bother John Q. Public for pesky things like taxes to fund agencies or bothersome regulations about how you take care of your lawn or dispose of your sewage. All those reports and studies often come to nothing because the people who are supposed to translate that science into public policy sit on them. All the good science in the book doesn't come to squat if the people who are supposed to act on it are in the tank for the folks who don't want anything done about it. You want to change that, don't disparage me and my colleagues - put people in office who are going to listen to us the next time an election rolls around.
Thank you for lumping myself and a number of friends and colleagues in with Japanese whalers. I would be exactly as justified to lump all divers in with the often-incompetent holiday warriors I encounter on Key Largo cattle boats. Or all divemasters and instructors with the twit who once criticized me as having a "low level of certification and a low level of activity" ... and gave a free pass to the wannabe who had less than a third of my total dives and got certified at some point after I'd racked up my 300th dive and worked on dive projects with three federal agencies and five major research institutes over an eight-year period. But he was going for his instructor cert after nine months and 100 dives, which apparently made him more qualified than moi.
Has it occurred to you that the particular scientists you're criticizing here are in the pickle of reporting not to fellow academics, but to elected or appointed public officials (therefore, directly or indirectly selected by John Q. Public, i.e. us)? NOAA is under the Department of Commerce, which means their mandate is not ooshy-gooshy Save the Fishies; it's to ensure that fisheries remain stable for future harvesting. They balance conservation interests against those of the commercial and recreational fishing guys. Sometimes this works spectacularly well - the Alaskan fisheries are generally considered a global model for sustainability. Other times it doesn't; you get complaints on both sides of either NMFS being too conservative with their stock estimates or giving the fishing industry too much leeway with quotas. This is why I would like to ask some questions regarding the ongoing pre-season "research fishery;" I want to know what data and policies are coming out of it and whether alternatives have been considered.
The Water Management Districts (disclosure; I occasionally work with the South Florida Water Management District under contract) are in an even worse bind. Employment scam? SFWMD got gutted a few years back, and when I was last there the then-new director (who is rarely if ever a scientist; instead it's typically some crony of the governor or one of his big donors) was quoted in the paper - before even talking to the staff - that he intended to cut the "dead wood" out of the organization that had already let somewhere around 100 people go and was heavily reliant on contractors for even basic functions.
I state this because the inaction you speak of is not scientists stringing out an "employment scam" - it is because the agencies they work for are directed by public officials (or appointees of said public officials) who (in this state, at least) are often elected largely on the promise that they are going to do certain interests favors. Among those favors is often the promise not to bother John Q. Public for pesky things like taxes to fund agencies or bothersome regulations about how you take care of your lawn or dispose of your sewage. All those reports and studies often come to nothing because the people who are supposed to translate that science into public policy sit on them. All the good science in the book doesn't come to squat if the people who are supposed to act on it are in the tank for the folks who don't want anything done about it. You want to change that, don't disparage me and my colleagues - put people in office who are going to listen to us the next time an election rolls around.
not that i voted for him in the 1st place.
