MIDCURRENT • April 30, 2020
As a nonscientist, when it came to fish and wildlife studies my assumption was always that if it wasn’t beneficial, and in fact necessary, we wouldn’t do it. However, after 20 years in the native fish conservation trenches, unfortunately, I’ve learned this is not always the case. Much of what I’ve seen is analysis/paralysis. Some studies go on far longer than needed, becoming as much a habit. And many studies go on year after year with little or no action taken. Some studies don’t have clear goals and objectives. And others are too vague to be of any real good. For example, Maine Audubon ran a volunteer citizen science study. In the early stages, the goals were very specific: Inclusion in the State Heritage Fish program. This changed as it became clear that they could not fulfill the promise due to resistance from Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife in regard to adding new waters. ~ Bob Mallard