| You just know I couldn’t let this one go without making a comment. Over here in Montana things move quite slowly. I just got the fall issue of Esox Angler and finished reading the CFMS follow-up article by Rob Kimm and Steve Worrall (yes, our own MuskieFirst homeboy). I found it both enlightening and sadly disturbing. Both Rob and Steve laid everything out one last time and didn’t pull any punches…I find that refreshing when dealing with this mess. I’m sure the authors of the CFMS would just as soon it suffered an ignominous death. What surprises me is the deafening silence since the article came out...did no one else find it interesting??
Many who gave credence to the study asked that we all wait to pass final judgement after the whole mess had been sorted out. Well, it has become apparent this is as “sorted out” as it is going to get. It appears the authors not only can't substantiate their “conclusions” with the data but that they do not even have access to the information as the LCO band has locked it all up. Can you blame them?? I think the LCO band probably feels a bit hoodwinked at the moment. Rob Kimm’s comment about this being an opportunity maybe forever missed, of having fisherman and the LCO work together is so true.
Hopefully those who believed all the castigation of Ty Sennett understand what really went on now. Ty was mercilessly smeared for trying to substantiate the CFMS data. I understand some of the bashing still persists despite the evidence vindicating Ty in relation to the study. I think the personal smears have been found to be untrue also.
Steve has made extensive effort to obtain all the original data but the LCO is not likely to release it—I would probably feel taken for a ride in their position too. Mr. Worrall's most telling comment I think comes from Scott Allen himself, “In a taped interview, Mr. Allen states that there was not enough data to draw any conclusions from the CFMS Year One….” The CFMS articles sure seemed to draw many sweeping conclusions. Steve’s opinion mirrors my own from earlier in the year…the CFMS authors had significant personal interest in showing the Chip was a strong as ever. This bias is so evident through everything related to the study that I think actual data became irrelevant.
So, everyone is getting tired of reading this and saying, “So what?” Well, there are a few so whats to consider, learn from and hopefully remember. One, there were fishermen who based their fishing in the Chip on the articles “groud breaking findings” and consequently spent fruitless hours fishing (probably) “fishless” water and perhaps hurting their businesses in the process. Two, the authors have made financial gain by lecturing on the CFMS…that’s just not ethical with something so terminally flawed. Three, the LCO band has probably been forever alienated to all musky fisherman and consequently negotiating over any future possibilities of curtailing spearing is dead. Four, it makes real studies done by real fisheries professionals more suspect and perhaps more difficult to obtain funding for thus hurting everyone involved with musky fishing.
One last question needs to be asked….could we have avoided this whole fiasco after the CFMS was first questioned by handling it differently? You bet. When the questions first arose (and the authors realized they had been caught with their hands in the proverbial cookie jar)they just needed to admit the CFMS wasn’t really a factual, data based study but rather an anecdotal article (as Steve so concludes) drawn from the experiences of years fishing the Chip. Nearly all fishing articles are exactly that. Honestly, I would have accepted that with a small apology for misrepresenting the whole thing. But no apology, or even apparent remorse has come from that quarter. To my knowledge no admission of anything being amiss with the study has been forwarded by the authors. They instead chose to attack and smear anyone who questioned their conclusions and the study, knowing how little data they really utilized.. Such an opportunity lost and unnecessary damage done. Let me close this epistle quoting Rob Kimm, “As a source of valid scientific data, the CFMS, at least the first year’s results…is a near total loss” and then Rob’s quote from Rod Ramsell, a Fisheries Specialist with the Minnesota DNR, “While it is not my place to question or comment on projects in other states (unless asked for input by that state’s fisheries professionals), I will say that based on what I’ve read from various sources about the CFMS, I would be ashamed to have my name and reputation associated with as poorly designed and implemented project such as this in waters I am professionally obligated to study and manage.”
One Highly Opinionated Fisherman’s Opinion,
Brian D. Wight [:bigsmile:]
This is posted on MC also |
