Your observation is well-put, but I'd like a little more information. You
imply that the problem is primarily in Europe when you cite the large sums
of money expended. Is this implied geographic distribution correct?
Personally, I'm aware that 99% of the students with at least a Masters
level education from the University of Alaska are recruited by the federal
and state fisheries management agencies in that state. I've heard
similar, though not as high, statistics regarding the University of
I have long held that today's new fisheries scientist has to fine-tune
their education to specialize in some aspect of fisheries to stand out
from the crowd. General Biology, Environmental Science, or some other
major cannot alone prepare students to enter the highly competitive job
markets. Plenty of people want to work in the outdoors, but you can no
longer rely on a generalized education to provide the foundation for that
entry level job.
This begs the question: Is there a skewed geographic or education level
distribution among the people you've cited?