{"status": "ok", "message": "Success!", "html": "\u003Cp\u003EBill Nye used to say... consider the following. With that in mind I\u2019ll throw out the following ideas as food for thought\u2026 This is offered as constructive feedback  - not as a negative/critical assault against Doug or other people or agencies.\u003C/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003E1) Has anyone wondered who exactly sits around a table to set the science/monitoring priorities for this national park/reserve? Does/should the public know the names and scientific credentials of those people? The names of the planning panel for this exercise are known, but not the names of a nahanni science oversight group (if one exists)\u003C/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003E2) What is the science/monitoring budget for Nahanni? Is that budget adequate? How will that budget be spent and how much more is needed to address the needs of an expanded park-reserve? Where is this part of the budget amount reported?\u003C/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003E3) Is there a need for a national or park specific science advisory board to guide and monitor science in this and other parks/reserves? What has been learned by using this public advisory approach in Banff? Would an ad hoc or a formal Nahanni science board have more teeth and respect than it does in Banff?\u003C/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003E4) Is staffing adequate for this park? Is a professional geoscientist position being proposed/funded? If not, why not?\u003C/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003E5) We all know there are \u201cissues\u201d related to mining and possible \u201cgeo-hazards\u201d\u2026 Will a formal mechanism/board be developed to ensure transparency in the discussions that should be ongoing between the public and industries and Park\u2019s Canada? \u003C/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003E6) Good science operates on a peer-review process. Detail is all important in science. However, there is a reason why government reports are called \u201cgrey literature\u201d. Let\u2019s get rid of the grey literature and while we are at it get rid of the silly red-green characterization that Parks uses to report on environmental health. Where are the raw data and the methodologies reported?\u003C/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003E7) Post reports online\u2026 don\u2019t ask us to write you and add to your office work when we could easily download pdfs IF they were posted to your web site. Make the park science worth something\u2026 test hypotheses\u2026  publish the methods, data and interpretations in peer reviewed sources.\u003C/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003E8) Post research projects/questions/priority areas to the web so as to encourage/attract research (as is done in Ontario Parks). Ask for scientific input from the global scientific community \u2026. Again, this can be done by an online posting. If this is a world class park \u2026 ask the world.\u003C/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EJust a few ideas... perhaps they belong in a different section?\n \u003C/p\u003E\u0026nbsp;"}