He is belligerent, disrespectful, pompous, and Kenai Centric. Anti personal use and most likely anti subsistence. Not everybody goes to the Kenai River, there are thousands along the Yukon and Kuskokwim that are hungry for subsistence fish. It is time to stop ignoring subsistence and appoint someone with good inter governmenal skills so the Alaska way of life continues.
A few points that need to be addressed: - Calling Maw a professor: there is no reference or indication that Maw has ever completed the tenure process at any university or college. The tenure process requires many years of research and academic accomplishments that are deemed appropriate by the university and his peers.
-The claims that Maw is science driven and would have brought science to the board process. Yes, to some, he appears to look good on paper; however a closer examination of his resume does not support his many claims. The resume he submitted (both for commissioner and for BOF) knowingly lacks current information. Seems he had time to write rebuttal pieces, but could not seem to update his resume.
-Science: there is bought and paid for science; advocacy science and peer reviewed science. Maw has written many papers, but these were bought and paid for by UCIDA. They have the UCIDA symbol proudly displayed on the front page. His ‘research papers’ are perfect examples of confirmation bias. Additionally, they have strong elements of advocacy science. Science that looks like science, but is narrow in its views and audience. In other words written to support a group’s point of view and masking it by trying to prove that view through a non-peer reviewed study.
-Unfortunately in this case UCIDA has put their efforts, time and energy behind a person that has a PHD in Forestry and a degree in Wildlife Management. Other than being involved in a fish identification book, there is no public record of any peer reviewed, scholarly papers on fisheries, other than his papers bought by UCIDA through the years, which are examples of advocacy science at its best.
-Peer reviewed science does not seem to apply to Maw. Most researchers and scientists know that peer review science published in peer reviewed journals or publications is the true- accepted method for advancement to tenure, and at the same time lends credibility to ones work.
In his testimony to Senate Resources, Maw claimed the UCIDA lawsuit to impose the ten national standards in the Magnuson Stevens Act on the state management of fisheries in state waters was simply a plea to the feds to do genetic testing of Chinook bycatch in the Gulf of Alaska in federal waters.
That's like saying the Area M fishermen should have sued Canada and Mexico for NAFTA violations in the UN court system in an effort to get the state of Alaska to fund the WASSIP studies.
Why did Dr Maw withdraw his name? Anybody know? I heard that the governor was not behind it, so Maw must have had some reasons. The chairman of the Senate resources committee said he was well qualified and there was strong support for him at the committee level. Maw wrote a hastily hand written note to the Governor after all this withdrawing. Why?
6:55. Take a look at yesterday's ADN. It is reported that he is being investigated by Montana authorities for some residency issues. appears he received resident hunting tags in Montana while at the same time getting PFD's in Alaska. This probably explains him withdrawing his name as the new BOF member. Walker was in such a hurry to fire the Chairman and put Maw, who had headed up fund raising events for him, into some position, that he forgot to vet him properly. campaign promises can be difficult to keep sometimes. According to the ADN article Maw would not have survived confirmation anyway. But this is a serious set back for the Governor. If he appoints someone else who upsets the BOF balance he will just make it worse for himself and his agenda. Hopefully he has got the message.
8:23. I disagree with you. It is a serious setback. His BOF decisions have been the main talk in lawmaker circles ever since he fired the chairman, and surprisingly to everyone, appointed Maw. Two big things have occurred since then. His appointee, Maw is now being investigated for numerous possible criminal violations according to all media sources. Second, he recently sent the Deputy Attorney General to Bethel to tell the District Attorney there that the Governor had fired her. Maw contributed over a $1,000 to Walker campaign. The Bethel criminal defense lawyer who complained about the DA contributed $1,500 to Walker. Maw was put on the fisheries transition team. The lawyer, on the Dept of Law transition team. The Chairman was fired, and Maw got his job. The lawyer got the DA fired. These politically motivated actions will have far reaching repercussions and are very serious setbacks for a new governor. He wasted a great deal of political capital when he needs it most going forward.
Another good man who puts science and responsible management above politics brought down by the unethical and dishonest KRSA lobbying machine.
ReplyDeletebarf
ReplyDeleteWell said- So true
ReplyDeleteHe is belligerent, disrespectful, pompous, and Kenai Centric. Anti personal use and most likely anti subsistence. Not everybody goes to the Kenai River, there are thousands along the Yukon and Kuskokwim that are hungry for subsistence fish. It is time to stop ignoring subsistence and appoint someone with good inter governmenal skills so the Alaska way of life continues.
ReplyDeleteA few points that need to be addressed:
ReplyDelete- Calling Maw a professor: there is no reference or indication that Maw has ever completed the tenure process at any university or college. The tenure process requires many years of research and academic accomplishments that are deemed appropriate by the university and his peers.
-The claims that Maw is science driven and would have brought science to the board process. Yes, to some, he appears to look good on paper; however a closer examination of his resume does not support his many claims. The resume he submitted (both for commissioner and for BOF) knowingly lacks current information. Seems he had time to write rebuttal pieces, but could not seem to update his resume.
-Science: there is bought and paid for science; advocacy science and peer reviewed science. Maw has written many papers, but these were bought and paid for by UCIDA. They have the UCIDA symbol proudly displayed on the front page. His ‘research papers’ are perfect examples of confirmation bias. Additionally, they have strong elements of advocacy science. Science that looks like science, but is narrow in its views and audience. In other words written to support a group’s point of view and masking it by trying to prove that view through a non-peer reviewed study.
-Unfortunately in this case UCIDA has put their efforts, time and energy behind a person that has a PHD in Forestry and a degree in Wildlife Management. Other than being involved in a fish identification book, there is no public record of any peer reviewed, scholarly papers on fisheries, other than his papers bought by UCIDA through the years, which are examples of advocacy science at its best.
-Peer reviewed science does not seem to apply to Maw. Most researchers and scientists know that peer review science published in peer reviewed journals or publications is the true- accepted method for advancement to tenure, and at the same time lends credibility to ones work.
Thanks Ricky.
ReplyDeleteIn his testimony to Senate Resources, Maw claimed the UCIDA lawsuit to impose the ten national standards in the Magnuson Stevens Act on the state management of fisheries in state waters was simply a plea to the feds to do genetic testing of Chinook bycatch in the Gulf of Alaska in federal waters.
ReplyDeleteThat's like saying the Area M fishermen should have sued Canada and Mexico for NAFTA violations in the UN court system in an effort to get the state of Alaska to fund the WASSIP studies.
Why did Dr Maw withdraw his name? Anybody know? I heard that the governor was not behind it, so Maw must have had some reasons. The chairman of the Senate resources committee said he was well qualified and there was strong support for him at the committee level. Maw wrote a hastily hand written note to the Governor after all this withdrawing. Why?
ReplyDelete6:55. Take a look at yesterday's ADN. It is reported that he is being investigated by Montana authorities for some residency issues. appears he received resident hunting tags in Montana while at the same time getting PFD's in Alaska. This probably explains him withdrawing his name as the new BOF member. Walker was in such a hurry to fire the Chairman and put Maw, who had headed up fund raising events for him, into some position, that he forgot to vet him properly. campaign promises can be difficult to keep sometimes. According to the ADN article Maw would not have survived confirmation anyway. But this is a serious set back for the Governor. If he appoints someone else who upsets the BOF balance he will just make it worse for himself and his agenda. Hopefully he has got the message.
ReplyDeleteThis is not a serious setback for walker
ReplyDeleteThis is embarrassing but let's move on
Certainly the final setback for maws career though
8:23. I disagree with you. It is a serious setback. His BOF decisions have been the main talk in lawmaker circles ever since he fired the chairman, and surprisingly to everyone, appointed Maw. Two big things have occurred since then. His appointee, Maw is now being investigated for numerous possible criminal violations according to all media sources. Second, he recently sent the Deputy Attorney General to Bethel to tell the District Attorney there that the Governor had fired her. Maw contributed over a $1,000 to Walker campaign. The Bethel criminal defense lawyer who complained about the DA contributed $1,500 to Walker. Maw was put on the fisheries transition team. The lawyer, on the Dept of Law transition team. The Chairman was fired, and Maw got his job. The lawyer got the DA fired. These politically motivated actions will have far reaching repercussions and are very serious setbacks for a new governor. He wasted a great deal of political capital when he needs it most going forward.
ReplyDelete