Thank you so much for the shout Michelle (and also going through that giant policy document for the rest of us haha). Conservation already does not get enough funding as it is, and it's scary to think about what something like Project 2025 would mean for listed species. I'm wondering what we, as scientists and science communicators, can do to at a local level in our communities to galvanize change. I'm really excited to hear about work scientists are doing in terms of dynamically assessing how we perform recovery, like with the Extinction Solution Index, and how that could help practioners in their decision making!
Thanks, Olivia … and great thoughts. Personally I would love to hear more stories about recovery that aren’t dramatic “rescues from the brink” … it’s partly the media’s fault that we don’t hear more about the realities of recovery and restoration, but maybe there are some untapped ways for scientists to get those stories out there.
So happy to find you here! I am not professional in the conservation realm but an avid supporter of it. Your column here makes it easy to access this critcal field of interest and science.
Thanks, Michelle. I work a lot with government staff, from the county all the way up to federal. Right now, I'm working with EPA and Ecology to get testing going for PFAS in private wells and small water systems. As in other cases, including conservation, EPA has money available, but there's no channel to get it to where it's needed. I tell them it's like virga - it's raining money, but it never hits the ground. The problem is, it makes goverment look bad.
I hear you—I know, this kind of thing is endemic, and it makes people associate government with frustration. I often think about Elinor Ostrom’s design principles and her idea of “polycentric governance” … for the commons to be governed effectively there have to be good relationships between the government and the governed, and among the different levels or spheres of governance.
Goodness, thank you for taking that one on for the rest of us! I'm reminded of the blithe "cut red tape" line from Montana's leadership, which doesn't get into specifics much but waves temptation to many saturated in "government is the problem" (especially when it comes to running a small business or a farm or ranch) for decades.
Thank you so much for the shout Michelle (and also going through that giant policy document for the rest of us haha). Conservation already does not get enough funding as it is, and it's scary to think about what something like Project 2025 would mean for listed species. I'm wondering what we, as scientists and science communicators, can do to at a local level in our communities to galvanize change. I'm really excited to hear about work scientists are doing in terms of dynamically assessing how we perform recovery, like with the Extinction Solution Index, and how that could help practioners in their decision making!
Thanks, Olivia … and great thoughts. Personally I would love to hear more stories about recovery that aren’t dramatic “rescues from the brink” … it’s partly the media’s fault that we don’t hear more about the realities of recovery and restoration, but maybe there are some untapped ways for scientists to get those stories out there.
So happy to find you here! I am not professional in the conservation realm but an avid supporter of it. Your column here makes it easy to access this critcal field of interest and science.
Thanks Sue! Glad to see you here too.
Thanks, Michelle. I work a lot with government staff, from the county all the way up to federal. Right now, I'm working with EPA and Ecology to get testing going for PFAS in private wells and small water systems. As in other cases, including conservation, EPA has money available, but there's no channel to get it to where it's needed. I tell them it's like virga - it's raining money, but it never hits the ground. The problem is, it makes goverment look bad.
I hear you—I know, this kind of thing is endemic, and it makes people associate government with frustration. I often think about Elinor Ostrom’s design principles and her idea of “polycentric governance” … for the commons to be governed effectively there have to be good relationships between the government and the governed, and among the different levels or spheres of governance.
Yes, I love Elinor Ostrom!
I spent way too much of my activist life connecting federal, state, and county staff across agencies and silos.
Goodness, thank you for taking that one on for the rest of us! I'm reminded of the blithe "cut red tape" line from Montana's leadership, which doesn't get into specifics much but waves temptation to many saturated in "government is the problem" (especially when it comes to running a small business or a farm or ranch) for decades.