Can someone please translate this, or dumb it down so even a dummy like me can understand it? It sounds like these guys are in support of the Hatchery on the Elwha.

Times Editorial

They are basically saying, in a rather verbose manner, that we should have an outside independant review of the restoration of the Elwah prior to building a new hatchery. They are also concerned with preserving whatever may remain of the Elwah wild stocks.

I write for a living, (story problems) and work with people who write like this. I find that style to be burdensome. Anytime the average reader feels the need to look up words, the writer is doing them a disservice.

I think they meant to impress themselves more than the readers, and that they could have gotten their point across much better writing at an 8th grade level.


ETA: I do agree with them though. It should be studied first before we act.

Thanks, when I read stuff like that a lot of the times my eyes glaze over and it's like reading from the Charlie Brown view of an adult speaking...Wah, Whu, Whawwwww.

Lars has a PhD in biometrics. Most people have no idea what biometrics is. Lars also speaks with a thick Swedish accent. Most people have no idea what Lars is talking about anytime. Lars is also head of Mobrand Biometrics, which does complex biological fisheries modeling. Lars couldn't write at the 8th grade level no matter how hard he tried. Long Live the Kings does contract fish recovery work for the state and feds. The writers, among other things, happen to be qualified to monitor and evaluate restoration and recovery of anadromous fish in the Elwha.

Sg

My interpretation was the author was implying that a lot of time and energy is being invested into the "protection" of wild stocks through hatchery propagation, which makes sense because of the potential for excess sedimentation. But, while it makes sense when looking at it through the usual scope of hatcheries being viable for increasing harvest, its potential fallacy is that the other realistic alternatives have not been properly assessed. Meaning letting the fish bounce back naturally has been taken into little consideration. This is because the Tribes and the Feds planned all this on their own accord, without seeking outside entities for guidance. I Think if it wasn't worded the way it was, it'd sound like an anti-trbal fisheries management rant. This is a good thing because what the author is saying is important.

SG,

I have no doubt in their credentials, and I agree with them whole heartedly. I also know what biometrics is.

Sometimes though, a writer needs to take their audience into account. Deals I approve are short and succinct. Deals that go another level up, a bit more detail, and things that go to the top are another matter with attachments, footnotes, etc.

That is why when I post stuff here I write on a 3rd grade level.

Hopefully they get their message across.

DF,

I understand about writing to the audience, and if I had to guess, I'd guess they weren't writing that editorial piece to every Times subscriber. I'm not sure why they wrote that piece. Haven't seen Lars in a while.

It must be really disappointing when you're misunderstood here then.

Sg

Happens all the time.

What I got out of that wordy waste of time is that everything is going to be business as usual on the Elwha, whether or not more study is needed or not.

I suspect there will be plenty of funds spent on study along the entire watershed for all kinds of "important" data collection, but I doubt very seriously that any of that will alter anything of significance.

A lot of chest pounding and posing, then same old, same old.

The fix is in. The Tribes supported dam removal as long as they could keep fishing. I think Lars et al are saying that not enough thought has gone into what fish to use for restoration, that not enough thought or money will go into evaluation.

But we will have a fee-flowing river in what will be the best habitat south of central BC. If it fails it won't be because of habitat or hydro.

sounds like they want to get in on the cash and write a review

I haven't read the article yet, so I'll just make some general comments...

1. Lars has never seen a hatchery he hasn't either loved, or tried to get paid to fix, or consult on.

2. Lars' company is exactly the ones he would probably recommend to do such an "independent inquiry"...it's what he gets paid to do.

3. Lars has been paid many dollars over the years to help Washington tribes build and run hatchery programs.

All that being said...it doesn't mean he's wrong, perhaps an independent review is appropriate in this case...but do be aware, as always, of where the money trail goes that seems to follow "science" everywhere these days.

Fish on...

Todd