I'm just curious--are you putting "sciences" and "definitions" in quotes because you feel like they should not have changed, changed too rapidly, or something else?
New F&W job opening
- Thread starter Paul_
- Start date
A
Anonymous member 148
Guest
If I made 97k a year the post man would get really sick of delivering my omaha steaks, patagonia and sage of the month club boxes.
Rob Allen
Life of the Party
What has changed in fisheries science of the pacific northwest in the last 30 years?
We still have hydro projects that kill fish
We still have habitat destruction
We still have hatcheries breeding inferior fish
We still have harvest that decimate annual adult abundance.
And. We still have poor ocean survival.
We have known all these things for decades. Very little has changed.. well. That's not true. Fishing regulations have become more restrictive. And we spend a metric ton of money every year to come to the conclusion that dams kill fish, habitat destruction kills fish, hatchery practices cannot mitigate the Los of wild fish ,that harvesting fish kills fish. And that we've turned the ocean into a garbage heap that cannot support the life it once did.
We have known for several years now that runoff from streets kills adult coho in the fall. What's being done to keep that from happening? Maybe we should study it more??
Woo hooo for science led management..
Science is awesome when you use it to fix your problems.. it's just stupid when you use it to explain your problems.
Ok run my mouth too much... shutting up now
Totally with you on the need to address habitat destruction and 6PPD from car tires (the main thing in stormwater runoff from roads that kills salmon).What has changed in fisheries science of the pacific northwest in the last 30 years?
We still have hydro projects that kill fish
We still have habitat destruction
We still have hatcheries breeding inferior fish
We still have harvest that decimate annual adult abundance.
And. We still have poor ocean survival.
We have known all these things for decades. Very little has changed.. well. That's not true. Fishing regulations have become more restrictive. And we spend a metric ton of money every year to come to the conclusion that dams kill fish, habitat destruction kills fish, hatchery practices cannot mitigate the Los of wild fish ,that harvesting fish kills fish. And that we've turned the ocean into a garbage heap that cannot support the life it once did.
We have known for several years now that runoff from streets kills adult coho in the fall. What's being done to keep that from happening? Maybe we should study it more??
Woo hooo for science led management..
Science is awesome when you use it to fix your problems.. it's just stupid when you use it to explain your problems.
Ok run my mouth too much... shutting up now
I appreciate your reply.
I think one disconnect here is that I believe the new advertised position is intended to help identify strategies to achieve better conservation outcomes. In my humble opinion, the reason why not enough is being done fast enough (to the satisfaction of many of us, anyway), is because the rest of the public (people who don't care or don't understand) does not demand it. So I think the strategy behind the new position is to:
1) figure out where public sentiment is (yeah I know you think a social scientist is not needed for this, got it)
2) identify the gaps between public sentiment about conservation, and WDFW's conservation goals
3) work to close those gaps (maybe this is through educating the public. maybe it is through adjust WDFW's goals. maybe some of both)
4) use the power of this newly achieved synergy between public and agency conservation goals to get stuff done. harder than it may seem when written like that, but I believe it is a logical strategy within the existing management/governmental/societal framework
Also, can I just say that the people who isolated the constituents in road runoff that are killing coho in polluted runoff, narrowed it down to something in tires out of thousands and thousands of compounds, then figured out which single tire rubber compound was the responsible one (in spite of the tire companies not working with them since their formulations are proprietary secrets), in a few freaking years, did freaking amazing work! And, at the same time, they figured out that all you have to do to treat the polluted runoff is run it through soil filters which removes the toxicity, in a few years. That is good science. You know what is needed, Rob? We need people to demand that tires not be toxic, and to demand better treatment of runoff. That takes political will, and money. Hmmm, how in the world could we get people to understand this stuff and support the changes that are needed? Maybe some better education and outreach? Maybe we should figure out what is the best way to do that education and outreach.
Discovery of tire-related chemical that kills coho salmon sparks widespread response | Puget Sound Institute
Scientists, legislators and manufacturers are responding in various ways to the recent groundbreaking discovery of a deadly chemical derived from automobile tires, a chemical that can rapidly kill coho salmon swimming in urban streams. Researchers are trying to better describe the chemical...
www.pugetsoundinstitute.org
Last edited:
Rob Allen
Life of the Party
I'd say what is needed is filtration of run off water because people aren't going to demand changes to their tires because tires are already considered expensive and changes will come with added costs.I appreciate your reply.
I think one disconnect here is that I believe the new advertised position is intended to help identify strategies to achieve better conservation outcomes. In my humble opinion, the reason why not enough is being done fast enough (to the satisfaction of many of us, anyway), is because the rest of the public (people who don't care or don't understand) does not demand it. So I think the strategy behind the new position is to:
1) figure out where public sentiment is (yeah I know you think a social scientist is not needed for this, got it)
2) identify the gaps between public sentiment about conservation, and WDFW's conservation goals
3) work to close those gaps (maybe this is through educating the public. maybe it is through adjust WDFW's goals. maybe some of both)
4) use the power of this newly achieved synergy between public and agency conservation goals to get stuff done. harder than it may seem when written like that, but I believe it is a logical strategy within the existing management/governmental/societal framework
Also, can I just say that the people who isolated the constituents in road runoff that are killing coho in polluted runoff, narrowed it down to something in tires out of thousands and thousands of compounds, then figured out which single tire rubber compound was the responsible one (in spite of the tire companies not working with them since their formulations are proprietary secrets), in a few freaking years, did freaking amazing work! And, at the same time, they figured out that all you have to do to treat the polluted runoff is run it through soil filters which removes the toxicity, in a few years. That is good science. You know what is needed, Rob? We need people to demand that tires not be toxic, and to demand better treatment of runoff. That takes political will, and money. Hmmm, how in the world could we get people to understand this stuff and support the changes that are needed? Maybe some better education and outreach? Maybe we should figure out what is the best way to do that education and outreach.
Discovery of tire-related chemical that kills coho salmon sparks widespread response | Puget Sound Institute
Scientists, legislators and manufacturers are responding in various ways to the recent groundbreaking discovery of a deadly chemical derived from automobile tires, a chemical that can rapidly kill coho salmon swimming in urban streams. Researchers are trying to better describe the chemical...
I remember first seeing the runoff/ coho issue in the news maybe 15 years ago. Because this was happening in urban Puget Sound. The first thing that went through my head was that we need to filter the water before it gets to the stream. At the time I do not believe that the deaths were being linked to run off and certainly nothing so specific as tires.
Bit if someone like me can see a 2 minute news that street runoff needs to be filtered just as common sense. Was all that science really necessary?
And in terms if wildlife management and conservation solutions that involve the fewest members of society have the greatest chance of becoming reality.
Solution for coho and run off.
1. Intensify street cleaning efforts in August and September to reduce toxins.
2. Filter runoff as best you can.
So since we're just using common sense, what type of filter should be used for this process?
Since science isn't needed, do we just start with coffee filters and hope for the best? What guides these common sense actions if not science?
... or brain science ...Coffee filters sound good to me...
They're cheap at Costco, so that way the funding will be easy, just use the executive membership
and with the cashback you can fund the streetsweepers.
This ain't rocket surgey here...
“Communicates formally (group presentations, webinars, technical write-ups) and informally (one-on-one discussion, less technical blogs for wider audiences) on the use of conservation social science tools, resources, and research to address natural resources management challenges/questions, to increase conservation knowledge of laypersons. Present data utilizing visualization and story-telling techniques to incorporate and influence social science information and influence behaviors around conservation and the Department’s recreational and commercial opportunities.”
A story teller huh? We really have become non-objective... but hey.... you must now trust the Social Science.
A story teller huh? We really have become non-objective... but hey.... you must now trust the Social Science.
Coffee filters sound good to me...
They're cheap at Costco, so that way the funding will be easy, just use the executive membership
and with the cashback you can fund the streetsweepers.
This ain't rocket surgey here...
Translation: try to make shit interesting to people who won't engage otherwise.
Not sure if you've noticed, but a lot of kids these days have no use for the outdoors. Maybe we should figure out some more gateways to get them interested, get them outside, get them in nature, so they care about conservation.
B
bennysbuddy
Guest
get a year round job at Boeing & work some over time , you'll do betterNot sure what world you're in, but 97K starting is pretty good if you just came out of a post doc
View attachment 4181
Get the job you really want - Zippia
www.zippia.com
cheers
cody-
Steelhead
Idk, man. My PhD advisor (engineering discipline) uses "story telling" and "tell the story" all the time when trying to get us to frame our data/results better when preparing conference presentations or journal articles. We know it's not about making something up, but rather being more concise and engaging for our audience. And to put emphasis on the implications of the findings.
Last edited:
wanderingrichard
Life of the Party
Sorry, but demanding a minimum of a Masters, while wanting a PhD.?? One degree gets a median financial compensation commensuate to their education level, the other degree isn't even going to look at that pay scale as commensurate.
Sorry, Rob, I disagree with you that those are high end wages .
I can get behind that logic... look clean objective statement!
"High wage" means different things in different places. In the housing cost thread, I noted that my 3bdrm Vermont house sold for $275K and that was a good price there. Rents were commensurately lower there, too. So $97K would go a lot further in Montpelier, VT than in Seattle or Olympia.
Rob, I think you are in Colorado, maybe in a rural area? If so, maybe $97K is an an extremely high salary where you live. But it is just above the median salary ($92,263) in Seattle.
wanderingrichard
Life of the Party
Had to look this up because i thought it was a b.s. buzzword ;
Article Talk
Ecopsychology is an interdisciplinary and transdisciplinarity field that focuses on the synthesis of ecology and psychology and the promotion of sustainability.[1][2][3] It is distinguished from conventional psychology as it focuses on studying the emotional bond between humans and the Earth.[2][4] Instead of examining personal pain solely in the context of individual or family pathology, it is analyzed in its wider connection to the more than human world.[5] A central premise is that while the mind is shaped by the modern world, its underlying structure was created in a natural non-human environment.[6] Ecopsychology seeks to expand and remedy the emotional connection between humans and nature, treating people psychologically by bringing them spiritually closer to nature.[3]
RELATED ARTICLES
Ecopsychology
Article Talk
Ecopsychology is an interdisciplinary and transdisciplinarity field that focuses on the synthesis of ecology and psychology and the promotion of sustainability.[1][2][3] It is distinguished from conventional psychology as it focuses on studying the emotional bond between humans and the Earth.[2][4] Instead of examining personal pain solely in the context of individual or family pathology, it is analyzed in its wider connection to the more than human world.[5] A central premise is that while the mind is shaped by the modern world, its underlying structure was created in a natural non-human environment.[6] Ecopsychology seeks to expand and remedy the emotional connection between humans and nature, treating people psychologically by bringing them spiritually closer to nature.[3]
History
Beliefs
See also
References
Further reading
External links
RELATED ARTICLES
Theodore Roszak (scholar)
American social historian, critic and writer
Chellis Glendinning
American writer (born 1947)https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_psychology
I have noticed that. Just not with my kids. They love being outdoors. But you've got a good point.
I should start inviting their friends along when we get out. Maybe make a few more outdoor lovers along the way.
