Spotted owl roosting on dubious science?

The Washington Times ^ | January 19, 2003 | Gary G. Stevens

[xsysmgr]

By February 2003, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must decide whether the California Spotted Owl is to be classified as "endangered," or "threatened." Will it base its decision on sound science? Or will environmental politics determine the outcome?

Much as we would like to believe that environmental decisions are simply based on science, far too often this is not the case. In fact, there have been an increasing number of cases over the past decade in which faulty science has been used to justify poor environmental decisions.

[Support Free Republic]

Tom Daschle, This One's For You!
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

[jimtorr]

Remember the hoo-haw about the Northern Spotted Owl, in Or. and Wa.? Nobody bothered to check the science then. The allegation that nobody bothered to check on was that this owl would only nest in Old Growth Forests.

The way that they faked it up was to only count the owls actually nesting in Old Growth Forests. Since OGF are prime candidates for logging, there was less and less OFGs, therefore fewer and fewer owls.

It has been proven since that the N. Spotted Owl actually could not care less where it nests, it merely prefers big, old trees as a first choice. The critters will nest anywhere.

[WorkingClassFilth]

Not only that, but the Court's ruling, based on the specious evidence, closed off thousands of acres of forest to lumber sales and sank dozens of small industries and hundreds of rural jobs. Generational enterprises went belly up and rural America was depopulated just a little bit more.

But then, the real intent of 'environmentalism' isn't really to save the owls, is it?

[Muleteam1]

As one who used to write and review biological opinions for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), including the spotted owl, I would say the Agency will only allow sound science to enter their decision-making process only to the extent that it aligns itself with the Agency's strong left-leaning environmental policies.

I might add, whether a species is listed as "threatened" or "endangered", rarely affects the amount of protection the FWS gives it. Thus, any members of the public who are now adversely impacted by current protection measures for the California Spotted Owl, will continue to be impacted after a reclassification. To reclassify a species from "endangered" to "threatened" only allows the FWS to have an example of where the Agency has assisted the survival of a species. This latest FWS decision should be perceived by the public only as a political ploy, until sound science proves that it is truly warranted.

The listing, or the changing of listing status, is an internal Federal agency action that very likely will not see the light of public scrutiny. The Endangered Species Act (ESA), unlike the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), does not require the Federal agency, in this case the FWS, to allow public review and comment on the agency's proposed action. If Congress truly wants to the make the ESA better, they would make the ESA more like all other Federal environmental laws which require the public's participation in the Federal agency decision-making processes.

Muleteam1

[Free the USA]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list

[farmfriend]

The U.S. Court of Federal Claims found the evidence marshaled by the Forest Service lacked any rational basis in scientific fact and appeared biased by the "personal predilections" of government officials.

I think this is one of the main reasons my father retired. Couldn't stand the internal stuff that was going on.

[Grampa Dave]

Thanks for posting this excellent article. I have bookmarked it. This part of the article is critical:

Courts and agencies have the tools they need to ensure that sound science underlies environmental decisions. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Daubert vs. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., has endorsed the "gatekeeping" function of federal judges to screen out expert testimony based on unsound science, and call for outside peer review. And the U.S. Office of Management and Budget has issued new guidelines that allow court challenges of information that doesn't comply with rigorous scientific standards.

It remains to be seen whether judges will take up these tools, or whether politics will continue to trump science on environmental issues.

I would add two more steps that must be taken re the judges, in particuliar in the 9 circus court:

1. Any judge who is a card carrying enviralist and activist in the enviral group in the past 10 years, must recuse himself/herself/itself from any case involving enviral cases.

2. The moment any judge refuses to admit scientific data or to block typical emotional enviral bravo sierra mantras, the lawyers for our side should immediately demand a mistrial for judicial bias and incompetence.

Then any judge who allows the bravo sierra instead of scientific evidence should be a target for impeachment. The impeachment of a couple of these enviral thugs pretending to be judges would send a loud and clear message to the other judges.

[Grampa Dave]

Thanks for the ping, and your father was an honorable man for refusing to be part of this dishonorable system of lies and Green Jihadist Mantras versus scientific data!

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!

[Carry_Okie]

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I could not have articulated the insubstantial difference between Endangered and Threatened status.

Still I would differ on one point:

If Congress truly wants to the make the ESA better, they would make the ESA more like all other Federal environmental laws which require the public's participation in the Federal agency decision-making processes. No. Returning control to democratic whim is little better than to socialize the asset. Democracy is just as manipulable to the pleasures of the politically dominant as is buying the fealty of agency appointees and foundation grant hustlers. You won't get objective science that way, much less an honest and efficiently executed balance among competing risks.

I ask that you read this for a more detailed articulation of the distinctions among democratic and bureaucratic control systems and their consequences.

There is a better way.

[Carry_Okie]

Courts and agencies have the tools they need to ensure that sound science underlies environmental decisions. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Daubert vs. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., has endorsed the "gatekeeping" function of federal judges to screen out expert testimony based on unsound science, and call for outside peer review. And the U.S. Office of Management and Budget has issued new guidelines that allow court challenges of information that doesn't comply with rigorous scientific standards.

I would argue that this is a completely incompetent system design.

First, the judge is no judge of scientific accuracy, whether by the initiating analyst or the "peerage."

Second, if truth were subject to peer review, we would still have a Ptolemaic universe and Galileo would have died as an unknown heretic.

Third, some circumstances are too dynamic for a judicial process to have efficacy; i.e., you can't have the answers you want in time before the damage becomes enormous. I would remind you how much more Malathion we used on the Medfly because of the judicial deliberative process.

We have a system that is competent on paper, but in execution is incapable of succeeding at its purpose. There is a better way.

[justshe]

What amazes me, Grampa Dave, is the POWER the Office of Management and Budget has to impact this process. IIRC, the Director is a political appointee of the Clinton administration , an appointee who spans administrations and has butted heads with the GWB administration. My questions are:

1. Why does this office require an appointee who spans administrations; and

2. Why does this office make determinations about fed. agencies re: litigation?

"...the U.S. Office of Management and Budget has issued new guidelines that allow court challenges of information that doesn't comply with rigorous scientific standards."?

[B4Ranch]

Dang it, Dave! There you go showing your common sense again! Do you realize how old this makes you appear to us youngsters out here? I'm only 56, but I know that you must be in your 80's or 90's. (sneeky grin)

[bigfootbob]

How could a person of honor knowingly work for a morally bankrupt outfit? Not possible.

Without a doubt the USFS and the NMFS are run by a diabolical group of madhatter bureaucrats intent on turning the West coast into some version of their psychotic drug induced utopian dream.