This is Paul Hertz and Jen Sweeney of Arizona State University. Uh
Speaking with Kurt Don Goski in Winslow, Arizona on uh August 15th of 2018.
Thanks for sitting with us today. Kurt, appreciate it. Can you um start
by telling us your name and the positions that you've held in the Adaptive
Management Program over the years and the years in which you've been
involved? OK. My name is Kurowski. Um My initial involvement with the Glen
Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program began in 1991 where I uh started
work at the Hopi tribe as a tribal archaeologist. In that capacity. I was
the uh representative for the Hopi tribe as a cooperating agency to um the
group that was developing the Glen King and Dam Eis and impact statement
of which the Adaptive Management Program became part of the final
environmental impact statement and the recommendations that came out of
the Rod, uh which then developed the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management
Program. Rod being record decision, right? Sorry. So when I use acronyms,
then I'll try to remember not to. Um Then in 90 I also represented the
Hopi tribe in the transition from the cooperating agencies into the
Adaptive management program 96 to 97. Um And I was the alternate am Wig
representative for the Hopi tribe and the Twig representative for the Hopi
tribe, the technical work group. Um Did you work with Lee Kuan S Yes at
that time. Oh Yeah. Uh Yeah, Lee Kuan Kuma was the individual who hired me
in 91 and I worked with him closely until 2003 when I left. So um so I
held those positions in the depth of management program representing the
Hopi tribe until 2003.
Um And also around 2000 and
one or two to I think, um I think it was like 2002 to about 2005.
I was the chair of the technical work group and then from,
I may have to leave these dates wrong. I have to check them and then there
was a, a two year hiatus and then I was the tweak chair again for another
two years. I think so in total, I've been the tweak chair for five years.
And then uh between when I left
Trophy in 2003, I became a uh consultant to the Colorado River Energy
Distributors Association Cultural Resource consultant. I was also their
alternate Twig representative uh from 2003
to 2000 and I think it was seven or eight
in 2008.
Um I then became the technical uh workgroup representative for the Pro
Sunni while it was the um consultant for Creta, I also worked, was hired
as a project director for Sunni Cultural resource Enterprise and work
there doing contract archaeology. Um And then in, in 2008, II, I left ZCRE
from 2006
to 2008 and worked for Urs Corporation in Phoenix. What do they do? Urs
Corporation is a, is a international engineering um
environmental compliance sort of corporation. So you do archaeological
clearances for them and well surveys. They, they were, they're consultants
to federal agencies that need, need archaeological expertise and stuff.
And so I found, um actually, I found the work with us nowhere near as
rewarding for me personally as working with tribal people. So I went back
to Zuni in 2008 and became the principal investigator and director of the
Sunni Cultural Resource Enterprise. And at the same time became the, the
Sunni Tribal historic preservation officer
and the Twig represent for Zuni. And you still hold that position. They
still hold that position today, right? So, um
we have uh in consultation with Larry Stevens in particular, um sort of
divided up the kinds of work and efforts being done by people involved in
the adaptive management program into primarily scientific research or
primarily policy and management or primarily social and institutional
engagement. And I'm wondering, do you, where do you place your work? Is it
sort of a little bit in all three or are you mainly in one of those three
categories of participation?
I think my work uh covers all three in terms of um science and research.
I'm the one who generates the reports on um
Sunni monitoring of the, of the river and taking their observations and,
and concerns and perspectives and putting it into a document that then is
um communicated to Federal representatives so that they try to put it in
language that they'll, they'll understand and appreciate
that can then influence policy and management. Yes. And then I also uh in
terms of policy and management, uh provide review of documents generated
by the Center, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center or the Bureau
of Reclamation. Um And the other one was
yes uh social and institutional engagement, like, for example, Mary Orton
was one of our interviewees and her primary responsibility was was to um
nurture the collaborative process itself to make the Adaptive management
program, you know, work in a way that's sometimes difficult when you have
so many diverse interests at a table. Right? And so in, in that realm, my
efforts go towards raising the consciousness of the other non tribal
stakeholders to um the perspective of Zuni, but also the responsibility,
the federal government, the unique responsibility the federal government
has to native people. Can you elaborate on that a little bit that unique
responsibility?
Well, right, I mean, Um If you talk, well, um the federal government has
trust responsibility to native American tribes. And it's a long history of
the interaction between tribes and the federal government. Um Ultimate. I
mean, initially, the federal government looked at tribes as sovereign
nations that they had to negotiate with, likely negotiated with um
European powers. Um And, and that was based on, I believe Spanish, the way
the Spanish were originally dealing with the, the native inhabitants of
North America and South America. Um But that became cumbersome for them in
, in terms of westward expansion and manifest destiny. Uh So the, the
relationship changed based on some of the, in the early 18 hundreds by
Chief Justice Marshall, who the, his Marshall trilogy is pretty famous.
But in, in that identified that there was a trust relationship between the
federal government and tribes. Most federal agencies uh interpret the
trust relationship as having to deal with um uh trust assets or things
that you can put a monetary uh evaluation on valuation on. Whereas I
believe that it goes deeper than that, it goes to preserving um
traditional cultural identity, traditional cultural practices and the
ability of native people to relate to their cultural landscape that has
been influenced by, you know, little unilateral political decisions
without the, without consultation with the tribe, by states and federal
entities and private developers too. And well, uh ultimately, if a private
developer is getting some sort of permit license or involvement from a
federal agency, then it's a federal agency's responsibility. There's no
real um relationship in terms of a trust relationship between a private
corporation to fill up something and a tribal group, it's strictly between
the federal government and the tribe. So this is probably a good time to
ask this question. I'm wondering if you think that tribes um are different
than other um quote unquote stakeholders in the adaptive management
process. And you know, when, when choosing who's going to be represented
at the table in this collaborative decision making process, um We hear the
term stakeholders and there's recreational fisheries are at the table and
uh there's the states are at the table and there's a, a sort of a series
of interest groups that have stakes in the process and tribes are one of
them, they've been recognized as, you know, important stakeholders. Um But
some people argue that they're different than the other kinds of
stakeholders. What's your perspective on that? They are? I think they are
completely different from other stakeholders. Um Often times are not
treated that way. But I think that the, the tribes have a deep time
connection to the Grand Canyon, Colorado River and it was, and before the
United States government decided that they were going to make the Grand
Canyon a national Park. Um The tribes had free access and use of that area
for the most part. And that, and for Zuni, the Grand Canyon the Colorado
River has been significant, extremely significant to their cultural
identity um since their emergence into this world. And so it goes back to
such a deep time that it's, it's, it's not calculate calculable. Um And so
the federal government comes in and displaces and dispossesses native
people of this place that's very important to them. So you can't come in
here anymore because we've determined that it's important. And so there is
a history of trauma that tries to experience because of that. And now
they're under federal regulations and how they access and use that place.
So I think that the federal government has a responsibility to recognize,
acknowledge and appreciate the fact that they've done harm to these native
groups by restricting them from a very important place and that they have
a trust responsibility to ensure that the tribes have access and use of
that place as they should have all along but were restricted from having.
And that um at these meetings, they also have to recognize that when the
tribes come to these meetings, there is a history of trauma that is the
backdrop of their interaction with the federal government and how that
stakeholder table. Um
just the way it operates. Uh There is a power dynamic
that the tribes are very sensitive to where the federal government holds
all the cards in terms of power. And that oftentimes the just the uh
interaction at a um at an, at the an wig or the twig table, one has to be
very assertive and that oftentimes is contrary to the, uh, cultural, um,
inclinations. Yeah, the, the way tribal people treat other people in terms
of respect that you don't confront, you don't argue, you know, you don't,
um, become real aggressive and assertive. Like, it's contrary to their
cultural beliefs, their, their cultural norms of how to behave like a
respectful zuni for instance, because there are so many trout and that the
thing to do is to reduce the numbers of rainbow trout and rainbow trout
are not native to that river system. They were introduced for game. They
were, they were introduced, uh, as I understand it in the early sixties
after the closure of Glenn King and Dam. But brown trout was introduced
into the system back more like in the early part of the last century, 19
twenties, maybe even earlier. And there a European trout. Is that right?
Or just, I think, I think it is. Um, but, but so, and they eat Humpback
job. They eat anything from what I understand. I mean, browns shaw are
very voracious bull frogs eat anything. I mean, well, Humpback chub eat
Humpback ch, you know, I think that if it's small enough and it's alive
and swimming in front of you, you go for it. Um,
so they, when I was working at Hopi, then they came out and talked to Hopi
about it, what they plan to do is do electrofishing stun the fish. When
the fish come up, then they, they collect all the non natives,
particularly the rainbow trout and then kill them and turn them into fish
emulsion. And, uh, that was offensive to, you know, it was offensive
because they were going to do it at the confluence of the little Colorado
river and the Colorado River. Um, and that's a sacred site for, well, for
most of the tribes forum, it is as well. Um And part of it is because,
well, the confluence represents a place of life um of the, the joining of
two rivers and there's a lot of uh life this spawning and stuff going on
there. And that, as Kuma stated, it would bring an aura of death over a
sacred place. Um And so for, he said, OK, we won't do it in front of the,
the confluence. We'll do it a mile up stream or a mile downstream from the
confluence. But when they actually did it, they did it right in front of
the confluence. They ignored, they, they claimed that it was uh a
miscommunication between the federal agency and their contractor, but I
doubt it. I, I don't believe it. Um Anyways, so when I uh was at Zuni uh
in 2008,
um a uh Sunni religious leader
came in and asked me, are they still killing fish in the Grand Canyon? I
said, yeah, he said, that's not right. They should stop that. And I said,
well, why? And um he explained to me, well, he explained to me this, this
story um that when the Sunnis emerged um at Ribbon Falls in the Grand
Canyon and began their journeys. Um A as the, the Sunni that uh people
were crossing a river.
Some say it's the Colorado river. Some say it's the little Colorado river.
It's the exact location is really not important. Um But as they were
crossing, they were told to hold their Children on their backs tightly as
they crossed the river as they began to, to cross the rivers, the Children
started to scratch them. And so they let the Children go and the Children
fell into the river and turned into a quiet beings turned into fish,
turned into uh water snakes turned into frogs, turned into um tadpoles and
things like that. And so everybody was um upset by that. And so the
remaining people crossed, they held tighter onto their Children. Um And
when they got to another part of the river, they heard the singing and
stuff and realized that their Children uh we're now aquatic beings. And so
this, I mean, this is a really brief rendition of the story. But um that
event
that all aquatic beings are Sunni Children are viewed as Sunni Children,
whether they're native or non native. It doesn't matter. And so from a
Sunni perspective,
you are killing these fish, you are killing Sunni chiller who are killing
beings that Zuni has a special relationship to. Uh and they find that
offensive because as one Sunni religious leaders stated that
because the, the um the Sunni is along the Zi River, the village of Suni
is the Sunni river runs right through the village of Zuni and the Zuni
river that's in New Mexico, in New Mexico. The confluences with the little
Colorado River uh and the little Colorado river conferences with the
Colorado River in Grand Canyon. Thus creating a spiritual umbilical
connection to Zuni. So every morning and every night, Zis go down to the
Sunni river even though it's a dry river now because they dammed it up at
Rama. Um They put offerings into the riverbed and send their prayers to
the Grand Canyon and so
killing fish at the confluence. Uh with the only motivation is that those
fish are not wanted is an abhorrent idea to Zi. And they, and they now see
the cause and effect of that, of killing those fish that people in Zuni
are dying early. That there is a drug cause in that relationship. The
people in Sunni are dying of cancer and other um reasons. And they
attribute that to
during that time, they also attributed to the fact that during the time
they were doing the electro fishing that the Zi policemen were uh where
were they were experiencing? The uni the Zuni policemen using an increased
use of tasers on Zuni people. So they saw that as a connection, the cause
and effect relationships and things out of balance in nature and it has
impacts on our culture, just like the interviews I was doing the last
couple of days that once you start messing with, with the balance between
the material world and spiritual world, you're looking for trouble. It's
gotta come, you don't know where you don't know when but it will show up.
Um And so based on that information, I started in 2008, raising the
objection of tweet meetings saying, you know, look, the Sunni have this
concern. You can't be planning more mechanical removal until you start
hearing what the Sunis have to say. I was ignored, completely ignored for
over a year.
So we finally got their attention bureau of reclamation and GCMRC, the
National Park Service and Fish and Wallet Service is that the Governor of
Zuni sent a letter bureau reclamation saying your mechanical re removal is
an adverse effect to a traditional cultural property which is the Grand
Canyon of the Colorado River or Zuni. It's cause and you have to address
the adverse effect. You have to mitigate that adverse effect and you
haven't done it and you haven't consulted and then all of a sudden
everybody's hair was on fire
and did it lead to change? You did. It did, but it took a lot of teeth
gnashing and beating your head against a wall because um
as, as part of this whole um dialogue between Zuni and bureau reclamation
and then he got to the assistant secretary's office. So Anne Castle came
out to Zuni to talk about that to the Zuni people. Um, the Zuni tribal
council and the religious leaders, we had a tribal resolution um in 2010
that um was geared towards the mechanical room and told, um, the bureau
reclamation exactly, uh, what soon he wanted because they had, we
criticized their science. Their science was circumstantial that rainbow
and brown trout were telling too many humpbacks were affecting the, the,
the humpback chub population viability. We were saying, well, you know,
what portion of any spawning population would just normally die because
they couldn't make it to reproductive age from either disease or predation
or who knows what, um, tell us what those percentages are and tell us, um
, what affect the predation and competition it's having on them. And they
couldn't. I said yet,
I mean, we're essentially saying, show us a smoking gun and they didn't
have one. We keep, and we kept hammering this at him and we kept saying,
well, they, they showed this one, article where they developed a model
based on the stomach contents of the trout that they killed, they killed
like something like 20,000 trout. And, you know, they took the stomach
contents out and analyzed them. Well, there was a very, it was less than
1% that they could actually identify as Humpback job. The, the rest were,
um, assumed to be Humpback chub or ones that they just, they couldn't
identify. And so based on that, they made a model that said, um, what was
it that, that
one Humpback or one Humpback chub would be eaten by one rainbow trout
every day or something to that effect. Let's go back and read it. But the
model was,
was not a well substantiated model. Nor was it proven through, um, good
ground truth things. And so their, their ex, their predictions of the
impact of rainbow trout on, on back chug populations, I think were
erroneous a bit best. And it was 2010, you were saying or later between,
yeah, around 2009
10 because they, at that time, they were proposing to add mechanical
removal in out your, um, scopes of work for the, for the center.
So you, you pointed out earlier that they originally thought the water was
too cold and that was why the Humpback chubs were suffering. And then they
decided that it was predation from rainbow and brown trout. Um, but they
didn't have great data for either of those hypotheses. Um, what do they
think it is now? And is this an example of adaptive management in practice
? You come up with a hypothesis, you try something, you monitor, you re
evaluate you tweak and you try again, is that kind of what adaptive
management is all about. And where are we now with our understanding of
why the Humpback Chub is not doing well. Well, the Humpback Humpback chub
actually is doing well. Yes, right now, uh, yeah. And in fact, um, several
years ago, the Humpback Chub populations are going up. So, were the
rainbow trout population at the same time? And so you, you, well, how can
that be? Right. Um, I think, is this a good example of adaptive management
? I don't know. Um, I'd have to think about that. Um, for quite a while
before I really would render an opinion on that. I think initially
reclamation went for the, the trout as the culprit because it took the
folks off the dam
because they're in charge of the water and the spill. So, if it's cold
water is the problem, the bureau of reclamation takes the responsibility
responsible. And so I, you know, it's not the dam anymore. It's those
pesky trout, right? But here's the thing too that you said, Zuni said,
look,
you can consult with us about building the dam. You didn't consult with us
about stocking brown trout. You didn't consult with us about stocking
rainbow trout. You did these three things without considering our
perspective and now base and now because you've done that your, um,
management paradigm has changed from privileging sport fish because they
tried to kill the native fish in the system before, uh, to get rid of the
Humpback chub and the, the speckled days and that sort of thing. So they
could promote sport fish. Um, but your management paradigm has changed and
now you favor biological diversity, particularly native biological
diversity. Um, and, and do you wanna get rid of the, the non natives yet?
The non natives have been there for almost 100 years. So we don't view
them as native or non natives anymore, But yet your management actions are
having a direct effect on us in a negative way
and
they never federal government didn't accept the position right away.
Um They thought I was putting the zoomies up to it.
I mean, really, I was like, are you kidding me? Shoot the messenger. Yeah
, exactly. And yeah, pushing documented that story. I told you back in the
18 eighties. So it's not like something the Zuni is just whipped up um as
a way to irritate the federal government or something that I just came up
with. I mean, it's documented, it's been documented for a long time. Um
And so it's consistent values that Zis have in their relation to that
place. But it was, it was really hard to get the Federal Government Bureau
reclamation and, and others to accept that and to um acknowledge and treat
uh in a respectful manner, the Zuni position.
So you bring up a couple of um thorny issues in adaptive management. One
is the difference between being listened to and being influential. And um
you mentioned that it took a long time to get the federal agencies
involved in the Adaptive Management Program to respectfully listen to and
accept the perspectives of the Hopi and the Zuni, for example, you work
for. But then the question remains, did they change management strategies
or policies as a result of finally listening to and respecting those
perspectives to a degree? So now um they have
uh more severe triggers bef you know, before the implement me mechanical
removal. So, um, the Humpback chub numbers really need to start declining
and the rainbow trout numbers need to really start coming up before they
decide to implement mechanical removal. So that's positive.
But they've also remember when that was that they made that, I think it's
, um, it began in the, um,
in a non native management plan that was developed by reclamation back
around
2011,
12. Ok. Uh, but then it was, um, implemented in the, uh, l temp the long
term experiment management plan. Eis. Ok. So it's part of that now, but
they've also included trout management flows, right? Which if they, when
the trout spawn, they lower the water from the dam so that they strand the
eggs and they, they desiccate right?
Toi you're just killing them at a different stage of life, right? For, for
no reason just because you don't want them there, you know. Um, so they
object to that too. Um, So at meetings, I said, you help, you've heard
from Zuni that can removal and drought suppression flows.
It's still
uh in uh negatively affecting Sunnis. In fact, they believe Sunni lives
are being taken. You still maintain those as viable management actions
that, that are in your toolkit to do the mechanical removal work. I asked
the federal government, what's the message you're sending Zuni that
Humpback ju lives are more important than Zuni lives.
And I get no answer. They don't know how to answer that but that, but
isn't that the message they're sending them? From my perspective? It is.
Well, that's the second thorny issue in adaptive management and all other
kinds of natural resource management decision making in complex
environments with a complex social uh stakeholders. What, what do you
think is the appropriate way to move forward when for example, a uh cult,
traditional cultural property and what those who care about that
traditional cultural property want done with it. Conflicts with s for
example, the Endangered Species Act. So, you know, early on the federal,
you know, the US Fish and Wildlife Service is required to not increase the
jeopardy on any endangered species and their best available evidence as
weak as it was at the time suggested that predation was, was a problem.
And so they interpreted their legal responsibility as we've got to reduce
predation. When the Zuni said, we don't like that particular strategy
because it's harming us significantly.
What what would you say is the appropriate way to move forward in a
situation like that?
In terms of that, I, I would,
I'm not convinced that there was rigorous in compelling science.
Um And I'm not convinced that the scientists or the managers at first
seriously took the Zuni values as being valid, credible and something that
they wanted to deal with. I think they saw Zuni and it's position as being
a thorn in their side and they just wanted to be done with it. Thank you,
Robert. I mean, um I mentioned the resolution passed by the tribal council
on this issue. With that resolution was appended a statement on the issue
by the Sunni religious leaders and it was signed by over 30 some Sunni
religious leaders. You know how unique that is from Zuni to get something
like that document. Very unusual, very unusual. Um And the Zuni Governor
had it to the uh the systems for water and science and castle at the time.
She just took it. You can hand it to the director of the Bureau of
Reclamation. Do you even look at it? I found that incredibly insulting in
front of the zoomies. I don't want
later. She came back and no, I mean, or no. Well, like I said that the
rhetoric is there all the right rhetoric is there in terms of talking
about Zi values and how the government's real sympathetic to it. But just
that mechanical action
at least to me signal that she really didn't care. Uh She really, this was
really something she wasn't that concerned about. And I think it, it was
demonstrated throughout her whole tenure as the uh with a designee. Uh huh.
So, um you're, you're suggesting that, um, tribes and tribal
representatives were not, um granted equal weight at the table and in
negotiations, they weren't granted full respect as stakeholders. Uh At the
beginning, at least I've heard you suggest that things changed over time
that there were some improvements. Uh looking at from the early 19
nineties to the present. Do you think there has been progress made in at
least granting a fuller, you know, respect and status for tribal
representatives on the Adaptive Management Program teams.
I think that um well, if you go to the, the AM wig or the twig and they do
a vote. So the tribe has the same sort of voting power as any other
stakeholder.
But I think if you talk about um the issues that are raised by the tribe
in a setting like that, um that there is more um deference given to you
Western Science, Western Science, but also the position of the basin state
representatives. Ok. Over the drives. So there's a kind of a hierarchy.
The federal agencies are really the power center, the state
representatives in the Colorado River Basin, maybe right behind them in
terms of being influential and then the rest of the stakeholders,
including the tribes kind of underneath that is that the schema you're
suggesting in terms of the power differentials
and that's been consistent over the three decades, no significant change
in shifts in those power positions in your mind. I mean, there has been um
a recognition of the need to have the drives at the table um because they
do fund the tribes at a base amount, do they do that for other
participants in the program?
Other than the federal agency, they certainly have their own funding too.
I think they reimburse uh state representatives and some other folks for
their travel and expenses um to go into AM wig meetings or trade meetings.
There's a certain amount of budget um that reclamation has for the other
stakeholders. Um They actually give the tribes um money annually for
participation, although that amount of money hasn't changed since it was
identified in 1999.
So it, it hasn't fluctuated, you know. And so they continue to ask the
tribes to do more with less, much more with much less. And so the same
thing with the funding Zuni monitoring in river trips, which I'm in the
process of trying to arrange one that, that money hasn't changed either,
the the amount for that hasn't changed either. So, while it's um
it's appreciated, at least from Zuni that this funding is there that helps
to support Sunnis participation and presence at those meetings. Um It's
certainly inadequate funding to probably participate at a level that Zuni
would like to participate.
Well, let's, um, let's shift gears just a little bit. And I'd like to ask
you, um, what significant changes in the program you've seen over time and
the broader Adaptive Management program itself? Um, are there any stages
through which it's evolved in your mind since the 19 nineties?
I think, um, the GC Mercy,
that's the Grand Canyon Monitoring Research Center in some respects has
become a monster that's out of control. In, in what sense in developing
the science and um the research and monitoring programs? Do you mean that
they have too much control over what gets funded for, for scientific study
or something else to, yeah, to a large extent there's that. Um but I think
they're um they become a bureaucratic. Uh Frankenstein.
Can you explain what you mean by that? A little bit more? I'm not sure
that if you read the EIS in 1995
it said that the Grand Canyon Monitoring Research Center was going to
essentially have a core of four or five people. One would be the chief,
then there would be a um physical resource program manager, a biological
resource program manager, a culture resource program manager, and then um
an administrative assistant helper sort of person. And uh all the science
and monitoring research was to be contracted out uh competitively. Uh But
now the US GS has created this, this monster with all these people in it.
So the US Geological survey took over the Grand Canyon Monitoring and
Research Center a few years after it was created, it was,
he was either supposed to go to, it was gonna either be housing
reclamation or in the US GS. And I can't remember who it was, who was
walking out the door during the Clinton administration that signed it into
US GS. Yeah. And,
and at the time, it seemed like a fairly good idea because people's who is
my, you can only speak for me. I just trust and reclamation was low that
they would do the right thing. Um
And so the US GS is
and maybe it's because I deal with consultation with federal so much on
behalf of Zuni that they are uh
callous to criticism
us GS is. Uh and they don't like to hear it. You, they don't like to hear
it. Now on day 10, they also don't think they have uh well, there's a
whole lot of things but um that I have against the US GS. But uh in terms
of that, but I think that the center itself has become arrogant um and has
be, has focused on things that I don't think are important to the program
such as, um well, since 2003, I've been arguing uh with the center about
the research on trying to quantify windblown sand in terms of
archaeological site preservation. Uh I thought the hypothesis was uh not
supportable. What was a hypothesis? The hypothesis was that um the, um
the reason archaeological sites are eroding in the Grand Canyon is because
there are no longer uh seasonal floods and there's no longer the sediment
in the system because it's trapped behind the dam that would come up and
deposit more sand on the archaeological sites and protect them from
erosion, protect them from erosion. So the sand is going away and there's
nothing replacing it. And so they, they felt that ok. So what we can do is
we do our um
our um experimental flows, the floods, she put the sand on the beaches and
then the wind comes and blows the sand onto these sites and that preserves
the sites.
And I said, well, you know, wimble and sand um could leave the site that
the site, the sand that's been contributed to the site could be gone by
the next wind event. As long as the winds coming from a different
direction or the next precipitation event could wash the sand, there's
nothing there to armor the sand to stay on the site. Um And
um
they're just spending a lot of money doing this trying to quantify it um
by using Lidar and uh toll station mapping and stuff like that. I said,
well, that, that seems, that seems to be um a lot of money spent um gazing
at your navel. Um It's, you're really not being effective. I didn't
believe it was. And so I continued to criticize it. Did you have some
suggestions for what you thought would be more valuable research? I, I
told them, um why don't you look at past excavations that have been done
in the Grand Canyon archaeological excavation and look at what the Strat
gray is of archaeological sites and determine how much is, is caused by
floods and how much is caused by wind deposit in terms of preservation.
Have they done that research yet? Well, the last time we've had, we had
this conversation, it was about a year ago. Uh a little more. So you're
still advocating. Well, I quit because um I I it's one of these other
issues that I keep pounding my head against the wall and nothing's
happening. You know, I keep, I think I bring up legitimate uh issues
regarding this and they had um
had a recent
technical work group meeting where we are voting on the next two year
budget work plan. The majority of the Tweed representatives voted to kick
that out, take that, that program out and no longer do it. And then
the center um the program that US GS was that you described that. So not
you were proposing, right. Well, so I was criticizing the continued a on
monitoring alien san monitoring and saying, you know, I don't think it's
producing the benefits that we want or is it it's going and for it to
actually, um, be validated in an archaeological site. You're going to have
to, you, you gonna be doing this for 100 200 years, you know, a long time
to make sure that it's a, it's a geomorphology process that's going to
preserve the site. This is ridiculous. You know, all you need to do is
look at it and see whether or not the site is eroding and do something
about it and to sit and try to figure out this process. I also said, if
you think putting sand on a site is going to preserve it, why don't you
get shovels and wheelbarrows and just go down instead of light? I Yeah.
Well, I, and put sand from the beaches in it and go up and dump them on
the sides and then watch what happens and watch what happens. Yeah. So,
and they defunded that recently that no, they actually, when the, when the
technical work group voted on whether or not to keep that in the majority
wanted to take it out. But then the center made a unilateral decision,
said thanks for the input. But we're not gonna do that because we think we
know better than you precisely what the, the chief of the center said. And
I so
so much for democracy. So you'd like to one of the changes that you've
seen in the program over time is an increasing, uh degree of, of power and
insularity on the part of us gs in determining what gets funded and what
doesn't. And we'd like to see more of the funding decisions controlled by
the stakeholder groups, by Am Wig and Twig. Yeah. Well, ultimately, um the
stakeholder groups are just making recommendations. So the actual uh
decisions for funding in theory comes to the sector of the interior. Uh
huh. Um So it's all centralized decision making anyway. And the
consultation. Well, and um who has um more avenues to the sector of the
interior Federal agencies, not the stakeholders. How would you change that
if you could?
What I mean, I think
what I've seen over time is that the center um
uses a tautological rhetorical argument about science and its authority.
So it says the program values science in making management decisions
were the science provi so and we are the science providers. So we tell you
about the science because the science is considered important by the
program. And so we are the authority. You're not. So we know better and
you're not. And I, and I think that from what I see is that it's not just
science, it's competition for a limited amount of money. So, and in the
years from
99 or 97 to today, the center for the most part slammed the door on tribes
from 1997 to the present. Yeah, there was, was the door open prior to 1997.
We thought it might have been, but with each um consecutive chief of the
center that door has been shut and locked.
Um And I think it's because the center views tribes as a source of
competition for a finite pot of money. Ok. In terms of doing research and
monitoring
at one, at one point in
2001, 2002, the center, um in terms of riparian ecosystem monitoring
invited the tribes to participate with them.
But the whole design of the monitoring was done by the center and, and the
places selected was done by the center, the tribes were just to come along.
So again, there's this power dynamic where the tribe doesn't have a say
the center is controlling the design of the system. And so how can you
adequately integrate tribal values or concerns or perspectives when it's
completely structured in a Western science perspective?
It's not gonna happen and, and that effort didn't pan out very well. In
fact, it didn't work at all. Um In fact, most of the tribes I think felt
um disenfranchised from the process.
Um There's something I was going to say, I it slipped my mind. Now, um
our interview with Kerry Christensen who works with the Walla tribe. Uh He
mentioned that um uh they got elders of the tribe down along the river to
uh sites that they were familiar with and interested in and they helped to
select which sites would be monitored and for what reasons. And he was
talking about trying to hoping that there could be greater involvement of
tribal members both in the design of the science. But also in what's often
called citizen science is non trained professionals doing observations.
And he thought that it would be nice if there was a lot more of that. It
sounds like you would agree that there's a role for tribal members to play
in collecting data in influencing research design and participating, you
know, start to finish in the scientific studies. Yes or no. Yes, I do. I
think there could be and I think it, it's something that we have tried to
advocate for. Um However,
it's been my experience that mostly the um the center is interested in
training native people to be Western scientists rather than being open to
a collaborative
co management or, or co research initiative that takes Western science
perspectives and values and indigenous perspectives and integrates them
together to create a more holistic, if you will uh approach to research
and monitoring, that's not happening, they're still, they're still a way
apart. And you're saying the reason that's not happening yet is uh the
oversized influence of the director of GCMRC in determining how studies
are designed and what gets funded. I don't think it's just the director uh
chief Center. I think it's the attitude of scientists who work there. Yeah
, I think it's, I think it's the attitude that um
there is only one way to understand that ecosystem. And that is Western
science because Western science equals truth
and that infuriates me to no end because there are multiple ways of
relating to the world. There are multiple ways of knowing the world.
Science is just one way of trying to understand cause and effect. The
sunnis have a
uh their own perspective of the ecosystem and identifying cause and effect
, which we talked about a little bit earlier
just because this society privileges Western Science. Doesn't mean it has
a unique monopoly on understanding reality.
Um Much of what Western science has done, especially when he's talking
about ecosystem science.
You can't tell me about fish populations when what you're doing is
sampling fish from being caught in weirs or, or electro fishing and you're
only grabbing a few and then trying to extrapolate what the entire
population is doing underwater that you can't see.
Um I find that to be really kinda squishy science. But the thing is, is
that what I'm getting at is that um
I think you need to assist the, the, the program to be very effective and
democratic if you will needs to treat native perceptions of the ecosystem
on an equal basis. It does. I don't advocate that it's a, it's a better
way of knowing the ecosystem. Um But it needs to be treated as equally
with Western science that's not happening. Uh I think uh much of the, the
scientists in GCR Cy are arrogant and are of that mindset that we are
after truth.
And I think it's encouraged, I think it's encouraged in university
settings where they, where they teach people to be scientists. And then
when they get into work, it's reinforced
person.
It, as we talked earlier too, there's something I think there's a lot of,
a lot of uh benefit that Western Science could take from the Zuni
perspective of this sense of stewardship and the sense that the
environment that you're dealing with is composed of multiple sentient
beings and that your actions on that environment have consequences,
long term consequences.
I think it would really make scientists much more respectful of the
animals, they handle how they treat them, how they deal with them, what
sorts of projects they, they want to uh design.
Um Let's uh let's step back, bigger picture and uh ask, I'd like to ask
you to reflect on whether you think the program has been overall a
beneficial effort. Uh Good use of time expertise and funding over the
years.
Yes,
it has been because because at least despite its flaws, despite its flaws
, yes, it has. I think it has overall been a positive program, positive
effect because it has um various stakeholders, a wide range of
stakeholders coming to a common table and discussing the issues in spite
of these um the problems at that table. I think it's better. It's it's
always positive when people are together talking about it. And the
alternative to this, that you think would not be as beneficial is what you
were criticizing earlier.
Too few people making to insular decisions is that, or the, or the, the,
uh, alternative
to the adaption management program would be lawsuits. Uh,
most of the time you cannot get a federal agency's attention unless
they're in court.
Um, and I, and I believe from over 25 years of working in consultation
with federal agencies on behalf of drives that um
if they don't think the tribe has the wherewithal or the potential to sue
them, they ignore him. Yes.
So this adaptive management program is valuable as an example of
collaborative democratic decision making. Uh Even though you see lots of
ways that it could be improved, um It should be, you think it should be
sustained primarily for that reason that it's,
it brings people of diverse perspectives to the table, forces them to
listen to each other attempts to get to a resource set of resource
management decisions that are based on a broader set of values, right?
Overall. Uh I, I might uh if I were king for a day
redesign the Science Center, uh huh.
Draw that up if you can, what, what, what would that look like? Well, um
you, well, I might put it under reclamation directly or under the National
Park Service because, um
because I think that those agencies would be more um responsive and
accountable if you will to the stakeholders, to the stakeholders but to
the tribes. Ok. Than the US G is, is, can you suggest why Bor or Park
service would be more responsive to tribes than Us GS? Because they have a
history of consultation with tribes? OK. And working with tribes, US GS, I
don't see that it does. In fact, the US GS sees themselves as not a land
manager, right? Um Not an action agency but a science provider. They don't
have their own land base that they're responsible for managing. They're
just a science agency. Ok. That makes sense. And that, and that um I think
that makes them callous to understanding tribal consultation and tribal
values. Interesting. Um I know they have tribal programs but again, that
is to turn tribal members into Western scientists. It's not too uh so, I
mean, it's, it's another form, right? It's another subtle form of
assimilation.
Yeah. Um There's a lot of people that don't think the Western scientific
perspective is part of a culture, they think it's uh separate and
independent from culture and it's, yeah, it's hard to change. Well, I know
it's when they say, well, I'm I'm objective. No, you're not all the data
that you look at, you're looking at through your own cultural lens. You
can't do anything but that and so, I mean, um
you need to be more reflexive
on how you do that. You have to take into account that you have bias and
how is the bias that you have affecting your conclusions of your end
result needs to be sort of like a feedback loop.
Yeah, there's a, uh there's a couple decade long tradition of scholarship
in the history of science and technology um that examines the ways in
which science and technology are cultural constructions. And uh it took a
long time for those scholars um like Sheila Yao at Harvard, um it took a
long time for those scholars to um make inroads in the scientific
community itself to help them understand the ways in which they do their
work and see the world are not, you know, objective, unfiltered truth, but
are, you know, a, a sort of a construction of particular culture and time
and place, right? And I've become very sensitive to that in terms of
archaeology. Mhm Most archaeologists are white and they approach it from a
Western science perspective. And so they're looking and interpreting the
artifacts features um from their cultural bias. And so when you take
zoomies out to sites that have been excavated, and archaeologists pick up
the the the most common artifacts, right? Ceramics, brownstone and lithic
or flakes, stone.
And as soon as you look through the deck, uh back dirt files and find uh
mineral concretions and stuff like that. What do they throw? These are,
these are important. And so there's a for, and then we interpret the
archaeological record, we write narratives about prehistory that is
completely divorced from the descendants.
It's their heritage, but we don't talk about them.
You're talking about Western archaeologists do that.
So, um uh narrowing down again to something more specific, can you um just
give us uh the names of some of the more important documents that have
been produced that you think should be highlighted in an administrative
history and some of the more important people who have been involved in
your opinion, that have shaped the program in significant ways, make sure
that they get highlighted in administrative history.
I'm not sure who I would documents. I mean, there's been a lot of
documents that are produced by the center uh or in, produced by the Twig
or the Am wig or in combination of the Twig and Am wig with the center and
stuff. And there are supposed to be documents that guide the program, but
they then ignore it and they don't um desired future conditions is one
that have been, you're the second person to mention the or, and it's now
just sort of uh there, there was sort of like developing this plan and I'm
not sure what's happened to that. Um
Yeah, you know, this might be a little bit off track, but I want to bring
it in is that in 1999
the GC Mercy um
contracted for a uh a peer evaluation battle to do the cultural resource
program of this center. And also the compliance program under um the
programmatic agreement uh of reclamation
the external peer review panel, external peer review panel and the peer
review panel made recommendations.
One of the recommendations that the peer review panel made was that the
program needs a Native American consultation plan. All right. So that was
in 2000, like a strategic plan for how to consult with and, and you know
how that would work out. They, they felt that that the engagement of the
tribes was not very effective and the consultation was not um mapped out
if you will for the entire program because you had reclamation doing
consultation, you had Park service doing consultation, you had GCRC doing
consultation or not. Um And so they asked for that,
the reclamation contracted the drafting of a consultation plan to the wall
by tribe and uh the Wallie um contracted Dean swag uh Beck East. Who's uh
how do you spell his last name? Suagee,
I think, and he's a lawyer who um has dealt with the wall of pie but dealt
with tribal issues for years and years. Highly respected lawyer in terms
of trial issues. The Wallabies is drafted a 44 page document that aligned
it and um submitted it. It was real comprehensive. Yeah, to the other
tribes and to the other federal agencies for comment.
So that was
uh and say that let's say that was in 2002, 2003 quite a while ago. 14
iterations later and same amount of years.
Um,
when the document got to the federal government, the federal agencies, the
federal agencies
had a problem. They weren't willing to commit to anything.
All right. So I went back and forth, back and forth. Um, and what was
actually, um, finalized as the consultation document,
um, back in 2016, I believe was less than six pages.
It was essentially a policy statement because the federal government
didn't want to um commit itself to anything to the tribes.
And I remember at one meeting, um the solicitor said, well, we also want
to put in this consultation thing that nothing in this consultation plan.
Um Hereby gives the rights to the, gives the tribes the right to sue the
federal government.
I said, wait a minute, the federal government, the entity they cause
genocide displacement, forced assimilation, structured racism
doesn't trust the tribes.
Are you kidding me? And um
II, I was appalled that the federal government wanted that in there. Let
me ask for clarification. Did they, did this document want um to be
insulated from lawsuits over the consultation itself or was it much more
broader insulation that was written into that? It was a very general
statement. So it wasn't sure what it was focused on? Ok, just that it was
unclear what they would be in what kind of litigation in and it hadn't
actually been put in the document the solicitors were asking to do that.
But, but the document then became
just sort of like um uh it's more of a philosophy about consultation
rather than an actual consultation plan. Was it ever formally adopted?
Yeah, it's just in draft form, I think it was formally adopted. Well, that
it would be interesting to go back and, and ask questions of the different
federal agencies that looked at and commented on that draft plan to see
how it evolved over time. That would be an interesting story. I'm sure it
would and and that information was not shared with the tribes, what the
internal dialogue was among the five interior agencies.
So your, your judgment is this 2016 consultation plan that was eventually
adopted doesn't have any teeth in it. Um It was a worthy effort uh started
out better than it ended up and you still think like what could be
improved in the consultation plan. Well, so what, so what that sent tells
me is that
the federal government is interested in having the tribes at the table,
but only so far they're only willing to, to listen to tribes in terms of
co management codecision making only to avoid they're not willing to
commit themselves to anything to the tribes. And so it tells me, tells me
that they're still uh intending on
keeping the tribes to some level disenfranchised from the process.
That's what I read. So there's a direction for improvement in the program
in the coming years. Um less of that hierarchical power differential that
you were talking about earlier and more uh shared authority and shared
decision making equal level. That's what I like to see or at least I like
, I mean, knowing full well that the way it's structured, the final
decision making it's done by the sect interior or reclamation at some
point. Um So that
because it's a legal decision and ultimately, you can't sue the entire
Adaptive Management program, you, you sue an agency that, that final
authority rests with the, with an individual agency um or an individual.
Um But I think it would be helpful if the decision making process up
towards the top was more transparent on how tribal concerns were
considered and uh put into the equation most of the time dealing with
federal agencies and even with this program, the tribal concerns go into a
black box and what comes out of that black box sometimes doesn't even look
like anything the tribe uh ask for or their concerns were expressed. It
doesn't look like anything that you've looked at.
So, um who, who would you say have been some of the most important um
participants in the program in your time? And who do you think we should
be sure to interview if they're not already on our interview lesson? I
think Larry Stevens something you already talked to him. He was our first
interview. Yeah. The wealth of information. Yeah. Um And he's largely
responsible for this administrative history being done. He pushed for it
for eight years
um
to rally.
Yes, he is on the list, but we have not interviewed him yet. And if he uh
tell us a little bit about who he is and why you think he's been an
important player. Um Dennis first start out with Arizona Game and Fish
department and did some research, think on fish in the Grand Canyon. Um
And then, and he,
I think you may have been a technical representative to the Arizona Game
official representative to the technical work group. But I'm not, I don't
quite remember, but then he was hired by reclamation
and um to do research along the river. No, to actually think you became
the for a while, the Chief of the Adaptive Management Program.
And so uh he was uh representing reclamation when I was Tweet chair
and the thing I like about Dennis, it's that he is uh very knowledgeable
and very patient and taking time to explain things to the stakeholders.
Um Those are good qualities for an adaptive collaborative process. And um
all right, anybody else that uh you think was had a particular valuable
impact on the program
um or is particularly knowledgeable about something.
Do you have Mike Barry, Michael Berry? He was a regional archaeologist. Um
B er Ry. Yes, rbarb er Ry Michael Barry archaeologist. Yeah, he's in it's
Durango, I think he's retired now. Um He's a very smart archaeologist and
um I think he was there b from, I'm guessing 2003
till about
maybe 2010.
That's probably why he isn't yet on our list because we're trying to get
the people who have been involved from the beginning while they still have
good memories of, of the program and sort of, you know, record and
preserve those memories and uh then move forward in time, Michael Berry
archaeologist Durango. And so um
Rick Gold, she, he was the uh regional director for reclamation during the
, the EIS. And then the first part of the I think he was still there
during the first part of the adaption menu,
Steve Carruthers. Yeah, Steve's been mentioned by a number of people and
so Steve Caro um was more or less my mentor in this program because Steve
Carruthers was hired by the Hopi tribe uh when the Hopi tribe became a
cooperating agency. And so um Steve and I used to go together to
cooperating agency meetings and he was able, he was because I was
completely a neophyte to this whole, the Grand Canyon and everything like
that
and the whole ecosystem management. And so he help me understand
the positions of the federal agencies and what a lot of the biological
issues were and stuff. So he had a lot of research contracts in the early
years, I suppose before GCMRC took over more of the scientific research
before GCRC there was a G ce S. Right. Right. Glen Ky environmental
studies and that was Dave Wagner who interviewed him in Tucson, who came
to Hopi to get Hopi as a cooperating agency. And so he's Dave Wagner is
also one that was very influential and instrumental in my understanding of
the program. Yeah, he had a lot of experience at the federal level with
the agencies and yeah, it was a very interesting interview.
OK. Yeah. These, and that's a good name as who else? Um, what's his name?
Um, God, I can't think of his name. The guy who worked for Ariz, I gave
him fish as well. Then move to GCMRC.
He was, I think the second Twig chair.
I can't stay.
Let's pause for a second.
All right, resuming recording.
So, Kurt, are you hopeful about the program's future? And do you think it
should be continued because it is quite an investment of time and money
for the federal government? Well, I mean, it's, is paid by, uh, power
revenues. So the federal government is not really putting any, that much
money into it directly. It's paid by ratepayers.
Um, yeah, ultimately. And of course, all the federal government money is
paid by taxpayers. It all comes from us, doesn't it? Um, the only really,
um, appropriated money, uh, is the money that is provided by the
Department of the Interior to help support tribal participation.
And that's, I think, begrudgingly given by each of the five interior
agencies that are part of the program, uh, out of their regular budget. I
would. I think so. Yeah, I, I don't know how that it took many, many years
to get that going. Um, I guess to answer your question, it depends on
which day you ask me and whether I've just been to a, uh, frustrating twig
meeting or not. But now the, as I give you today may be different from an
answer. I give you next Friday after I get come away from the amid
meetings, right? Or even on Wednesday morning after I've been to the, um,
pre am wig tribe. Do I agency meetings? Uh, you know, um, but I think, um
,
I'm a hopelessly optimistic about things, uh, in spite of my cynicism, um
, I do think that when people are talking
across the table to each other that, that is beneficial. That's when we
stopped talking and you start to get into trouble. Yeah. Yeah. In a sense
, this is a sociopolitical experiment, this adaptive management program.
It's an attempt to do natural resource decision making differently than
we were doing in decades prior. And just like a scientific study. If it's
not producing results, you can have that conversation about whether the
money ought to be spent money and time ought to be spent more wisely
somewhere else. So that's why I always ask this question of people who
have been involved. You know, it is a struggle there are disappointments
and frustrations. It does cost money. And uh so I always want to know from
people. Do you feel that it should be continued? Is it worth the
investment? I do. Um But I also think that the program needs to be more
reflexive. It needs to be, it needs to spend time analyzing how it
operates, analyzing how it gets to decisions. It needs to take a look at
what the power structure is within there and how that power structure
works to disenfranchise and silence voices.
You know, a long time ago, Mary Orton, uh in her interview with us, she
told us about a very important river trip that members of the program took
together to try to get over a hump in which there was a time in which
relations were strained. There were some strong personalities, there was a
lot of conflict and they needed to resolve those things and move forward.
And it took a river trip with everybody together outside of their daily
lives and uh talking through things. And uh apparently everybody who was
on that trip thought that it was a really remarkable experience. Were you
by any chance on that? Do we, do you think we need another one of these
sort of uh long term soul searching, reflexive, look at ourselves and
reimagine ourselves kind of experience. Would that be worthwhile? That
could, it depends on how long lasting that effect is because I think that
while you may be emotionally uh influenced at that time, once you get back
to the hard reality of your office and dealing with decision making in
that level where there's politics going on, that sort of Kumbaya feeling
kinda precipitate goes away. So, yeah. Well, that, that river trip
resulted in a document that set the path for the program's evolving future.
Uh And um I can't remember exactly the name of it. I'll have to go back
and look, I, I know what you're talking about and um yet came up with this
sort of preamble. Yes, for that document. Yeah. But like all documents
with this program, even though they are, are drafted, revised, finalized
and adopted, they're not power. Yep, they go on a shelf, they go on a
shelf, they're not followed. And so
all that work um doesn't seem to pay off, especially when you,
when you get a science program that becomes bureaucratized
and that it's more interested in self preservation than it is in anything
else. And that's what I see has happened. And I didn't, I read a article
on American anthropologist by a woman named Laura Ogden who did an
anthropological study of the debt of management program of the Everglades.
And she saw the same thing happening. I mean, that's where I went. Wow.
Yeah, that's what's happening here. Can you send me a link to that
article or at least the author and title after, after the interview? Um
um One second, we can find it right here.
Mm
Now that's the value of a personal library, mention something and then
pull it off the shelf. Well, this, this is not that um
let me look out where it is here. This is something
OK.
So this is something that um I co-authored but um confluence of values,
the role of science and native Americans in the Glen Cannon Dam adapted
management program. Great. And so this is actually
um describes exactly a lot of what I was talking about. And then um the
nurse
since the reference,
uh there's the Ogden article you mentioned right there. OK. Um I'll, we'll
make a copy of this or get you a PDF of that article. That would be
perfect. Really? If I get your uh I got your email address, so I get it.
All right. Great. Uh uh Last question, let's say uh you decide to retire
in the coming years and somebody else is gonna take over as a
representative of either the Hopi or the Zuni tribe you've worked for both.
What advice would you give the next person coming in to do the kind of
job that you're doing? Now, what advice would you give them? It takes a
long time to understand the issues. I mean, I've been doing this now for
over 20 years and it took a long time to try to understand and follow the
issues. And uh so it takes a lot of, of um
a lot of work to get up to the, the right speed to just even participate
in the program because there's been um so much that is going on and the
resource issues are very complex.
So read up a lot, be patient. Well, it's become knowledgeable and it's
good to have someone who can act as your mentor to help explain things,
not just the science what's going on there, but to also explain the
political dynamics that are going on with individuals. Because more than
agencies, it's the individual that represents the agency that you're
dealing with, that is really influential, whether they're open to you
other opinions, whether they're open to um considering um different views
and different aspects, whether they're really entrenched in for their
agency,
aren't willing to uh waiver either way. How did you find a mentor? Well,
right, Steve Crothers was hired by the op so, and you were working for
Hopi at the time. And uh so Steve and I went to meetings together. So find
somebody who has similar interests, who has more experience, who you can.
Well, I mean, if, if you are taking over for someone who's representing a
tribe or an organization in the Adaptive Management program, then your
agency or organization needs to put you with that person for at least a
good year to attend these meetings and stuff so that they can explain to
you what's going on, you can start to see the situation and hear it and
listen to it and start to feel comfortable with it. If you just get thrown
in it, you're gonna be lost. Uh huh. That's gonna be real intimidating.
And the other thing is,
don't be shy
because it's, you know, you have to be willing to, to, uh, put some skin
in the game and be willing to, um, put your neck out and you, it's gonna
get chopped and you're gonna take some bruises, but it's all a part of it.
You can't take it personally.
Good advice.
Anything else you'd like to add or any closing thoughts?
No, you, you'll be gone and I'll think of all sorts of things I told you
and send them via email. Yeah, Jen and I are gonna work on an
administrative writing and administrative history over the next six months
or so and, uh, we, we're happy to have any additional ideas or advice as
they come to you. Hope this has been beneficial for you. Yes. Yeah, I
really appreciate you giving us your time today. Kurt. Oh, my look, thanks.
Thank you. Let's see.