First the ESA, was distorted significantly, when environmentalists destroyed the true meaning of species. That is the biggest problem that should be fixed by legislation. Specifically, the sockeye salmon in the can on the grocery shelf and the sockeye salmon in the upper reaches of the Snake River are both "Sockeye Salmon." Nope, according to environmentalists, each major river basin because of genetic adeptation has its own separate subspecies that needs to be separately protected. Similarly, the red squirrels from the top of the mountain are a different species from the red ground squires at the base of a certain mountain in the Western US and thus, development at the top of the mountain would threaten the habitat of the "top of mountain red ground squirrel."
All of the above is junk science. If in a Biology 101 Course in college, I had tried to dance such a tale on the definition of species, I would have properly flunked. It is only because of politically motivated legal interpretations that we have a new improved definition of species, not contemplated by those that wrote the law. This problem needs to be addressed by Congress.
Before, I leave this let me point out that exteme interpretation, which is what the environmentalists really are after - no growth & no development. If we went back in time 300 years and said that the bears, deer, and fish that were moving through what is now part of most major US cities were "unique species that needed to be protected," and there was an ESA, today all of those major cities would not exist, because development would have been stopped to keep the deer, bear, and fish. Actually, the ESA the way it is enforced today would try to have buildings destroyed and forest habitat planted where the building were, just to create a potential habitat that some might use in the hopes of trying to increase the population of the critters in the middle of the city.
Now for my second problem with what is proposed, modeling. In the early 1970's in graduate engineering school, I had a research traineeship and part of my assignment was to take the Club of Rome and the subsequent Jay Forester, Limits to Growth, Dynamo Computer simulation of how the world would end between 2005 and 2020 due to a combination of "over population, exhaustion of natural resources, and pollution."
I translated the Dynamo computer language into another simulation computer language and benchmarked the results. Then I created a multiple world model, i.e. developed economy (US, Europe & USSR) world, a sort of up & coming world, and a backwater world. I took limited UN data on the resources, populations, birthrates, death rates, capital, and plugged them into the models.
What I learned from the experience was that any model that attempts to forecast anything based on an implicit assumption of exponential growth and concludes that something gets so large as to cause a catastrophy, is just so much garbage. Modeling is fine, in my profession, I do lots of modeling. Common sense in the application of models and in the interpretation of their results is almost non-existent in academic circles. Most modelers I know have a great understanding of statistics and ways of twisting data to get "expected results." Most are also under extreme pressure to find something that is "interesting enough" to get the attention of professional journal editors (who want to sell journals or membership in professional societies) who will then figure out a peer review team to get the publicity generating article published. I suggest that if the academic community looked into the similarity between liberal media journalists and liberal journal editors it might find a strong overlap in agenda's. As such, shoving key aspects of ESA evaluation over to universities, isn't going to solve the real problems with the ESA.
Later, you wrote, “Now for my second problem with what is proposed, modeling. “ From what I’ve learned, computer modeling is a kind of lazy-man’s way of getting the work done required by the ESA. You pointed out that it is easy to manipulate the numbers.
On March 20, 2002, Randy T. Simmons, Professor of Political Science and Department Head of the Department of Political Science at Utah State University testified before the House Committee on Resources. Whether field data should be considered over computer models is a contentious issue, he said, ”The problem for policy discussions is that the grand predictions of species loss are not supported by field data” He said that the London Zoological Society’s internet site, Web of Life, claims that 137 life forms are driven to extinction each day—50,000 a year. Later he said, “IUCN can only identify about 1000 extinctions in 400 years…Internationally, the documented loss of mammals and birds has increased in the last 150 yeas from about one species every four years to one each year(Lomborg 2001:254)”
You clearly recognize the problem with computer modeling when you said, “What I learned from the experience was that any model that attempts to forecast anything based on an implicit assumption of exponential growth and concludes that something gets so large as to cause a catastrophe, is just so much garbage.
But, back up 3 paragraphs and it seems like you misunderstood what is happening. You said you have a problem with what is proposed, modeling. That is not the case. In fact, that is 180 degrees from what is proposed with HR2829/HR3705/S1912. I realize that the title to my broadside was misleading, but perhaps it is well that it has generated this discussion.
And I don’t see where some have reach the conclusion that key aspects of ESA evaluation is being thrown or shoved to the universities. Peer review is being called for with the proposed legislation and feedback from many sources will be required, from the owner of the land, as well. But modeling and a greater reliance on universities is not what I read in the proposed legislation. Please give it another look and decide if you can’t help change the way the ESA is enforced.