Gary Wilson
Commentary
Sometimes to go forward it helps to look back.
Here’s an example.
In 2005, the Washington Post introduced an article about efforts to get Great Lakes restoration moving with this sentence:
“Sea of studies doesn’t help restoration of Great Lakes.”
The article’s essence was that the lakes had been studied ad nauseum. Now it was time for action.
The Post referenced a General Accounting Office report that said ….”years of studies and committees have not resulted in significant restoration.”
Indeed, that became the mantra of advocates for restoration. The time for study was in the past and it was now time to fund and implement an action plan.
Fast forward to last week when two news stories caught my eye.
The Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory announced a major study of Lake Huron and said it was the “least studied of all the Great Lakes,” according to a Great Lakes Echo report.
And Michigan Tech University announced the opening of a new $25 million Great Lakes Research Center.
The facility’s director, Michael Abbott, told the Detroit News that “this is a place where, finally, we can bring people together who are interested in research relating not only to Lake Superior but all of the Great Lakes…”
These news reports caused me to reflect. Don’t we already have a lot of studies in process? And it seems that we have plenty of research entities.
I decided to give myself a little test. How many current Great Lakes studies and research facilities could I quickly list, without a Google search.
Studies — there’s one on upper Great Lakes water levels, two on separating the lakes from the Mississippi River, a Canadian Asian carp study, a wetlands study, a plastics in the lakes study and one on coastal flooding.
Research facilities — University of Wisconsin- Milwaukee has one as do Ohio State University, Grand Valley State University, Central Michigan University, the previously mentioned Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab and Michigan Tech’s newly minted venture. Toss in the International Association for Great Lakes Research in Ann Arbor and the work that the USEPA and the International Joint Commission do and yes, we have research entities.
Remember, this was off the top of my head and I’m not in the field.
The more important question is how the well-being of the Great Lakes is served by this scientific community and its work.
Are there too many studies? Are they focused on the most pressing issues or are they science for the sake of science? Will they help policy makers and on the ground managers make informed decisions that lead to results? Or should scientists be left to their work without interference from external interests?
Big questions, so I contacted two experts from different disciplines for their thoughts. A surprisingly quick consensus emerged.
“Our science has been good at telling us the state of the Great Lakes ecosystem” said Cameron Davis, the Obama administration’s senior adviser for the Great Lakes. “But we need to push our science to do more, faster and better, including giving our policy makers more time to react.”
Davis said that Great Lakes science needs to be more predictive which will help managers develop preventive strategies.
Patrick Doran from the Nature Conservancy echoed Davis’ sentiments on the need for science to be more predictive and went further.
He cited the need for the research community to improve on what he calls “the continuity of conservation.” That is “integrating scientists with managers who have to deliver on the ground results,” Doran said.
He said there are “disconnects all along the conservation continuum” and recommended that scientists ask themselves “what is our goal” before launching into a project. Doran is the Conservancy’s director of conservation for Michigan.
Where does that leave us?
Striking a balance between letting scientists work unfettered by external influences yet having the work be relevant for policy makers and managers is tricky. And both are beholden to their funding sources because nothing happens without money. And those funders may have their own agendas.
Part of Davis’ job is to demonstrate to a budget-conscious Congress that the money it appropriates will lead to results. They won’t spend limited taxpayer dollars for more study, measuring or monitoring and have made that clear.
It causes me to pause when I see policy makers trying to influence scientific priorities. That can open the door to unwarranted compromises if not carefully managed.
But we now have a system where the Great Lakes research community’s work is only helpful at the margins for policy makers and managers, the people who need it most.
The Obama administration’s Davis says if scientists want to help the Great Lakes they need to communicate to wider audiences and make their case to disciplines like law and economics.
The Great Lakes restoration community has prided itself on collaboration over the past 10 years. But collaboration seems to be in the background within the Great Lakes research community and externally with policy makers and managers.
It would be beneficial for the lakes for those groups to find a way to work together – to understand the each other’s issues. We don’t want Great Lakes restoration to drown in a “sea of studies” that don’t lead to measurable results.
Having just dealt with the NRC and the MDNR, the 123 pounds of alewives per chinook rule still controls the actions. They changed the public statements to include: “balance, self sustaining,diversity, promote native species abundance, protect spawning/nursery areas” etc… But the official goal never changed alewives dominant, whether stocked or wild spawned, each chinook requires 123 pounds of alewives minimum. More studies wont stop that. They’re managing the lake for one fish, but they can’t put that in a study. That would be tellin!
Update-
Ok, two more Great Lakes research entities have opened shop in recent weeks.
A consortium of Canadian and U.S. universities…
http://communications.uwo.ca/western_news/stories/2012/October/initiative_unites_scientists_studying_great_lakes_basin_.html
…and the University of Michigan… which is also a member of the above consortium.
http://www.ur.umich.edu/update/archives/121030/glmain
Gary Wilson
JGML, Big problem, all these committees and all these studies, by law the DNR’S fishery people can and do ignore them. Advisory, which we’re about to get 2 more committees, EPA, And Michigan.
Frankly, I think the public needs to mobilize on this issue and as the author suggests, question exactly how smart it is to spend taxpayer dollars on these types of management practices.
Dear JGML, Thank you for your comments. The One Hudred and twenty Three pound rule has been controling the lake since 1985, when as you pointed out, they found out too many predators would wipe out the alewives. Of course failing too mention native predators can do this as well. It takes 123 pounds of alewives per chinook to get to 17 pounds. If we keep the chinook, then we have to protect the alewives, and sacrifice the native “biotic-resistance” predators that could control the other 180 some invasive species. They want to reduce salmon numbers predators to increase alewives for the “salmon stakeholders” however what happens in Lake Michigan affects everyone in this country, and canada. The Gobies, Zebras and Invasive white Perch have got out and are spreading across the country. If the Asian Carp get a foothold in Lake Michigan, all the other “stakeholders” get them. It appears Minnesota is gearing up to increase native fish populations before asian carp get thick. They don’t have to worry about alewives. We have hudreds of oprtions where we can work with nature and fix these problems. However the 123 pound rule is holding up the whole works, regardless of how many studies we did or do! I have a paper from 1966 Tanner hisself, they exactly what alewives do to native fish, (eat larval fish) then, and they know it now, but we still have to keep doing it?
Gary, I love your articles. My situation, while rare is an extreme example people should be made aware of. My studies really tie a lot of problems to inhibited ice flow from Lake Erie to Lake Ontario. That is done by the New York Power Authorities use of an ice boom (for those of you not familiar with me or http://www.bantheboom.com) They stand behind or more like hide behind 60 year old studies that assure everyone in the Lower Great Lakes area that no serious harm is being done. Yeah, right. Now I went to everybody who is anybody trying to get them to look at my studies or research. They were too busy doing their studies to consider anyone else’s studies. A big shame. Common sense has fled and the advocates are paid off to stay out of it. Brutal and synical view? maybe? but my story speaks for itself. The I.J.C. is a joke and just a buddy back scratching method for people to get patronage jobs apparently because they don’t do anything when faced with facts. I need an army of people that care. Thanks, Joe Barrett author of “Ice Boom Theory”
First – I appreciate the article and you make great points throughout, it’s important all around.
On the Great Lakes Echo homepage at this moment, under the headline for the article it reads:”The Great Lakes has plenty of studies underway. And certainly there are plenty of research groups. But just how well are the lakes really served by the scientific community?”
And, in the article in one of the last lines you write, perhaps as a sort of response to the question above: “(But) we now have a system where the Great Lakes research community’s work is only helpful at the margins for policy makers and managers, the people who need it most.”
Scientists provide data for “shovel ready” projects that makes sense politically and economically all the time, but politicians think short term as evidenced in the case of alewife and salmon in Lake Michigan. All data may not as easily translate to shovel ready projects, but much of it becomes an important component of needed information to move forward.
If anything, we need more research – the Great Lakes are dynamic, and in just the last decade there have been huge ecological perturbances on lakewide scales from invasive species, and losses of native species which science has not even begun to grasp. We can;t take action without good information, and we can’t provide good information without research that reflects current conditions out in the lakes.
Funny you should use the word “drowning” in your title and not any of the programs and facilities you listed off you head really have any concern about “drowning” in the Great Lakes whatsoever! Recent report, as of August 6, 2012, indicates that there are already 69 drowned in the Great Lakes this year. Do any of the policy makers or funding supplier’s even care?
JGML… thanks for weighing in.
A few thoughts.
1. Please note that the “years of study and committees…” statement comes from a GAO report as reported by the Washington Post, not me. Though I can say without hesitation that that was the prevailing thought from 2002-2009.
2. You say “blame politicians not scientists.” There’s no blame here, not by me nor I believe by Cameron Davis from the EPA or Patrick Doran from the Nature Conservancy.
My purpose was to ask questions, raise issues and seek comments from key players. To drive an examination of the issue. I know both Davis and Doran and I’m sure they expressed their concerns and opinions in the spirit of making the system work better.
Thanks, Gary Wilson
“Years of studies and committees have not resulted in significant restoration?” Really? Where you been the last twenty years? Lake trout and sturgeon restoration – no progress? Restoration of walleye and perch in Saginaw Bay, Lake Erie? Improvement of water quality? Mayfly restoration? The list goes on.
What about scientists who want to make progress in say, Lake Michigan by stocking the heck out of non-native salmon so they can finish off the alewife, another invasive species – it’s originally why fisheries managers brought salmon into the Great Lakes in the 1960’s – to make the alewife go bye-bye. That was the explicit purpose of salmon stocking when the program was conceived.
We talk all the time about getting rid of invasive species and restoring ecosystems to natural states and in the case above it is as easy as 1 + 1 = 2. STOCK A TON MORE SALMON, THE INVASIVE ALEWIFE GOES BYE-BYE and many native species, including lake trout, and walleye will recover. The data out there to support these conclusions is plentiful and well known. If you want a healthy ecosystem and progress, lets get rid of invasive species — most people follow this thinking. Sounds easy right?
It’s not — Those who like to catch salmon have a problem with this, and thus it does not get done. I have personally sat in a room full of high level decision makers, the folks who determine the exact numbers of salmon that get stocked, and guess what – they know that if they stock too many that the salmon fishery will collapse as alewife dissapear. In the meeting, there were some very interesting lines in the sand that were drawn between these provincial, state, and federal level Great Lakes resource managers — some from some states bordering supported increasing salmon stocking, some vehemently did not — depended on many things as to what shaped their views and in large part who their constituents were.
So, even though we have actionable solutions to meet simple goals such as in the above case it does not happen. Is the inaction the scientists fault who did the research to make these conclusions, the fault of Science Center that supported the researcher, or the politicians fault who influences decision makers employed to manage natural resources and who are worried about ruffling feathers with their constituents in the Great Lakes?
Blame politicians not scientists. Sure sometimes we do obscure science, but sometimes obscure science leads to fascinatiung results with huge, and actionable implications. There is money wasted in everything – it’s unavoidable, but to claim the scientific community has not made progress, or to undervalue us is just wrong.
You have to spend money to do research to gain knowledge. You cannot take money away from scientists because we provide the data — without it, three blind mice leading three blind mice.
Lastly, per the above, if you want to talk economic sense, one clear and simple example where we can save lots of money is by stocking the heck out salmon over a few years to make the alewife go away, and by then never having to spend money on stocking salmon again.
A concerned Great Lakes fisheries scientist,
JGML
They need to study the effectiveness of implementation projects–but, first, implement some projects!
I echo Stephanie’s comments.
I know about programs and/or projects that use variations of Integrated Assessment approaches that involve researchers from multiple sectors and disciplines, including those with expertise in economics and social sciences, and various stakeholders in the Great Lakes region, that have come together from the start of the process in order to make sure the science was going to be relevant to state and federal decision makers and the public.
Hi Gary,
I think it’s great to ask questions like this. Loads of money goes into research and it’s not always clear if or how it will relate to people or action (or if it needs to). I wanted to add one thing:
I’m a little biased because I’m part of Michigan Sea Grant, but that’s exactly what our program does – support and perform research that’s focused on actionable results. We take an integrated assessment (IA) approach to research on the Lakes (important side note: we’re able to do IAs because there is good data available, gathered from all of those studies you mentioned). IAs bring together decision-makers, people who live in the community, universities, researchers and on and on. The inclusion of stakeholders is just as important as the research, which is just as important as the outreach and the usable outcome generated. You can learn more about it here: http://www.miseagrant.umich.edu/research/approach/
In short: It’s really cool!
“Too many studies?” is the wrong question. There are many fundamental things about the Great Lakes that we still do not sufficiently understand. And many–if not most–restoration projects that I’m aware of would be much more effective if they were informed by better data/information. The real problem is when studies are not coordinated or are ill-conceived because the end user (and end use) was not sufficiently considered. Even more frustrating are the studies that are redundant (and not coordinated). These are very frustrating issues, but that doesn’t mean we know everything we need to know about the Great Lakes. Restoration dollars are precious, so it can be frustrating to see expenditure on research. But restoration is also very expensive, so we need to make sure that our restoration dollars are being spent in the most effective ways. And that means more studies–BUT they should be well-informed and well-coordinated studies.
We have all the studies we require, I am not against more studies when needed. Example. $485,000 bucks to study Perch spawning areas. Already done, very nice map already exists, redundant in the dictionary says “see fish studies” We need action to go with studies, talk is expensive, action costs little.