STILL THREATENED?
Grizzly Delisting Splits Scientific Community
By Bill Schneider, 3-20-06
 |
|
 | |
| Caption: Courtesy U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service | |
|
At least until today, the last day for official public comments, any informed observer would say that the delisting proposal has plenty of political tailwind to go ahead even with at least 150,000 public (translate, non-scientific and insignificant) comments total, mostly in opposition. Agencies often say such decisions are about science, not a popularity contest, but now that most scientists oppose delisting, the decision to proceed will be much more difficult for proponents, mainly state and federal wildlife agencies, conservative politicians and companies involved in resource extraction, as well as ATV users and people who use oppose closing forest roads, even in prime grizzly habitat.
In the letter to Dr. Christopher Servheen, FWS Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator, the scientists concluded as follows: “We, the undersigned scientists believe that there are many reasons that the Yellowstone grizzly bear population is not biologically recovered and should not be removed from the list of threatened and endangered species.”
"While the Endangered Species Act rescued the Yellowstone grizzly from a tragic future confined to Yellowstone Park, we still have a lot of work to do before we can say this job is complete," noted Dr. Lance Craighead of Bozeman, MT, son of Frank Craighead, director of the Craighead Environmental Research Institute, and one of the three main spokespersons (along with Drs. Barrie Gilbert and Craig Pease) for the scientists.
NewWest participated in today’s conference call with the three scientists, about ten other reporters, and the Natural Resources Defense Council, a nonprofit opposed to delisting and involved with the coordination effort to build a long list of scientists recommending keeping the grizzly bear on the threatened species list. On the call, the three scientists urged federal wildlife managers to take a long-term view of grizzly recovery instead of merely doing the minimum necessary to get the bear off the threatened species list.
“We feel the proposal to delist the grizzly has many inadequacies,” Craighead said. “More bears are necessary to maintain a viable population. Mortality rates are not taken into account. More habitat must be protected. And we are understating risks.”
Pease, a wildlife population expert, said there is a “huge amount of uncertainty” as to how many bears we have. “The government used the number of 588 based on 2004 data, but if they used 2005 data, it would only be 350. We need at least 2,000 bears to overcome fluctuations, and there is simply not enough room in the Greater Yellowstone Area for 2,000 grizzly bears. That’s why we need to develop bridges to other populations.”
The scientists agreed that developing a core population in the Selway-Bitterroot and Frank Church-River of No Return area in central Idaho was “absolutely critical.” However, they worried about the prospects of this happening with Idaho Governor Dirk Kempthorne coming on board as Secretary of the Interior. As governor, Kempthorne vehemently opposed the return of the grizzly to central Idaho and single-handedly blocked a planned restoration effort backed by a broad-based consensus group and wildlife scientists.
.
Gilbert and Craighead both expressed concerns for “problems related to hunting” and compared it to wise investment. “We’re investing in grizzly bears for a long term,” Criaghead said, “so we should set aside the principle and not draw from it and then spend the interest,” referring to the likelihood hunters will be allowed to hunt grizzlies on the fringes of Yellowstone Park. The scientists worried that there would not be any bears in bridges to other grizzly populations or to central Idaho because “people will shoot them.”
Newwest inquired how there could be such a dramatic split among leading scientists, and Craighead replied that “The future of the grizzly bear depends on good luck and good will. Scientists outside the agencies are more skeptical based on the track record.”
Pease added that non-agency scientists have not been given full access to scientific data and that the International Bear Association, a leading international group of bear scientists, has not endorsed the delisting.
"The government needs to consider the best science," emphasized Pease. "If you need brain surgery, you want the latest MRI technology, not a 1970s-era X-ray. The same is true in conservation."
The scientists cited several specific reasons for their recommendation, such as:
· An isolated grizzly bear population of 500 or fewer bears is at risk of long-term extinction;
· The Yellowstone population is much too small genetically;
· Major food sources face major threats;
· A delisted population would be vulnerable to additional human-caused mortalities; and,
· Agencies plans call for inadequate long-term habitat protection.
World-renowned scientists Drs. Jane Goodall, Michael Soulé and John Craighead, Sr., who with his brother Frank Craighead pioneered grizzly research in Yellowstone in the 1960s also signed the letter.
The letter and a complete list of signatories is available at this website.
[End of article]
There are some major scientific elements to the raging dispute over whether grizzlies should be delisted, but at its core this is a conflict of values and cultures.
Anyone who wants an excellent primer on value disputes disguised as science disputes should read Daniel Sarewitz's 2004 paper "How Science Makes Environmental Controversies Worse" (published in Environmental Science & Policy; on-line at http://www.cspo.org/ourlibrary/author/ .
"How Science Makes Environmental Controversies Worse"? Good provocative title. Most of the time, we would assume we're better off with science, the more the better.
A lot of the time, that's a correct assumption. But not when we have no clarity about what the goals are, says Sarewitz.
With grizzlies, we fight over whether or not the population is "viable," without clearly saying what "viable" means. Some scientists and conservationists have made it clear what they mean by "viable" -- usually stated as a particular probabilit that the population will be around and healthy for a particular time horizon. The popular one seems to be 95 percent odds of survival for at least 500 years.
And from there, we can estimate how much / what kind of habitat is going to be required to lead to a population that meets those thresholds.
Unfortunately, the Endangered Species Act doesn't prescribe any particular threshold in those terms. The 1973 law was roughly 10 years ahead of anyone talking in those terms.
Could we update the ESA to have some thresholds like that? Sure, but the Pombos of the world have ESA supporters terrified to open up the question for fear of what they might get. Plus, don't expect science to tell us what those threshold ought to be -- another values call, based on how much you value a particular species such that you're willing to tolerate sacrifices in order to minimize risk to it.
Science can help us understand the consequences of our choices, and can help design means of reaching our goals, but it can't and shouldn't be expected to make those choices for us.
I expect there will be a lot of comments on this story, a lot of them hotly disputing the assertions of Craighead and colleagues. About how there are plenty of grizzlies and we need to start thinning them out. How we need to "get the feds out" of grizzly management. Craighead et al. will be denounced as "academics" or for using "junk science." Or, the worst villification of all, of being "biased" and having an "agenda."
In other words, all the scientific arguments in the world aren't going to convince some people, and they will, to quote Hanah Arendt, "turn any statement of fact into a question of motive."
So, is there a way forward? Can we have a reasonable discussion about what's really at the core of our regional arguments about big carnviores like grizzlies and wolves? I think we can, as long as we don't confuse our value disputes with science. We need to say what we really want and need, and maybe why.
No point in trying to say it better than William Kittredge did:
"What did I really want? A process, I think, everybody involved -- ranchers, townspeople, conservationists--all taking part in that reimagining . . . I wanted them to compare their versions of paradise, and notice again the ways we all want so many of the same things--like companionship in a community of people we respect, and meaningful work."
And with that, I'll shut my mouth and open my ears.
Primm asks his question about a reasonable discussion. No way, dude, there's an ideology at stake, and advocacy science points to be scored.
I will say that the "scientists" who signed this letter (haven't looked yet, but I'll download it and expect to see lots of familiar names) are periliously close to academic self-immolation.
Many of the signatories of other "scientific" petitions have also expressed themselves in values terms in other forums. That's fine. All science should be conducted in a values framework. But when the defense (or offense) of a values system begins to override the science and its defensibility...the science loses its value.
I see that Steve Primm's attempt to open an honest debate over values has no support from Dave Skinner. Steve is attempting to get people to think in terms of the common interest in grizzly bears, while Dave Skinner is interested only in his anti-bear bias.
The fact is, the more we learn about bears scientifically, the more we realize how little we know about bears. It is precisely this lack of knowledge that filters into the values debate, between those who support grizzly bears and those who don't.
Historically and scientifically, we know that the values represented by Dave Skinner, when carried out on the ground, have caused changes on the land that make it difficult for other species to survive, and in the long run are making it more difficult for us to survive. This is practically undeniable.
Now, the primary conflict in values is between those who think the world is here to serve man, and those who think that the world is here for all life, not just us.
The evidence from failed civilization after failed civilization over thousands of years is that as long as the values of the former prevail, not only other species, but ourselves as well, are and will continue to be in big trouble. From this conclusion comes a principle of human action--the precautionary principle, which may be stated simply, do as little harm as possible and think strategically. This is opposed to the idea of progress, which may be stated simply as, "damn the torpedos, full speed ahead." Right over the edge.
If we drive bears into extinction with no concern for the consequences, that's only a prelude for driving ourselves into extinction. Take your pick. I pick the precautionary principle.
As far as delisting is concerned, as a resident of Wyoming, I have found the delisting debate from those who are demanding delisting fundamentally dishonest. The Wyoming Game & Fish Department about four years ago commissioned a scientific opinion survey about grizzly bears from Responsive Management, Inc., a well respected survey firm that specializes in public opinion about wildlife and natural resource isues. RMI conducted its survey and found that attitudes in Wyoming were far more moderate toward bears than is claimed by the rather vocal anti-bear people, led by various county commissions in Yellowstone bear country and the livestock industry.
When the data were recalibrated to break out attitudes of residents of Yellowstone bear counties, the same moderate attitudes were demonstrated. Those were, bears should be allowed to go where they will as long as conflicts were immediately dealt with.
This is far different from the "no bears, no way" stance of what is clearly and scientifically demonstrable a minority opinion.
I conclude that the claims by various county commissioners that they represent mainstream opinions in their counties concerning bears to be false. The fact is, in Wyoming as a whole, and in the bear counties in particular, one of which I live in, the attitude toward bears is relatively positive, as long as conflicts are dealt with immediately.
Yet, at a meeting in Riverton a year and a half ago sponsored by the G&F;Dept. to discuss where bears would be "allowed" to go in Wyoming, the so-called bear occupancy meetings, G&F;Assistant Wildlife Division Chief John Emmerich admitted that the Dept. was ignoring the scientific survey and reopening the "debate" over bear occupancy standards solely because the county commissions and the livestock trade organizations demanded it. It is this demand behind the G&F;plan to restict bears from entering perfectly suitable habitat.
In other words, bear policy in Wyoming is solely devoted to the demands--and values-- of an acknowledged but powerful minority, effectively ignoring the values of a majority of people in Wyoming.
This is not in the common interest.
Neither is delisting bears in the common interest. If the conflict over bears is primarily a conflict over values, we also have to recognize the pursuit of values have real, material consequences. The pursuit of the value of "progress" has had clear, undeniable, irrefutable negative consequences on not only our lives, but the lives of all species on this land. It is precisely because of this fact that many of us pursue the values reflected by the concepts of biodiversity and the precautionary principle.
Progress is no longer a practical, moral, or rational human value, and it is certainly worthwhile to question its legitimacy as a human value.
The scientific opinion survey about grizzly bears from Responsive Management, Inc., sparked virulent opposition from griz haters in Fremont County.
At one of the community meetings Robert mentioned above, speakers faulted the judgements of female housewives from Cheyenne, as having any merit compared to the judgements of Fremont County residents who recreate in the Wind River Range.
If one considers an opinion poll as some sort of proxy for democratic voting, then there is an emerging argument that non-locals do not and should not have any say-so in management of public lands and public resources. This is reflected in Interior's policy emphasis that locals should have a predominate say-so on management of public lands.
Conversely, Fremont County commissioners who distained the opinions of Cheyenne residents about grizzlies, are voting today on a gravel pit/asphalt plant expansion that locals oppose.
So far, these commissioners have indicated antipathy toward local residents, emphasizing instead the primacy of do-what-you-want-to-do property rights over local opposition -- the very thing they railed against when it was the feds imposing grizzlies on unreceptive locals.
As Robbie the Robot would say, "This does not compute," as his circuits shorted out amidst a shower of sparks.
The only amusing aspect of the otherwise very ugly public meeting in Riverton over bear occupancy, if amusing only to a few of us, concerned the Responsive Management survey. Bear hater Jim Allen, a local outfitter, stood up and noted that only 200 people from the bear counties were represented in the survey, whereas there were more than 300 people alone present at the Riverton "bear occupancy" meeting who absolutely did not want bears in Fremont County. In his view, that proved that the majority of the people in Fremont County didn't want bears around.
I note that no one from G&F;attempted to explain to Mr. Allen the concept of sampling.
The bear conflict is primarily a conflict over values, but there is a valid scientific component, and what has been very clear to me is that those who are determined to drive bears into extinction not only haven't a basic understanding of science, they are determined to expunge valid science from any discussion of the issue. It doesn't help when the Wyoming G&F;Department and other agencies misrepresent the science of the issue. This massive censorship makes it hard to find the civic space in which to even have a reasonable debate over what we know and what we don't know.
I found Dave Skinner’s “No way, dude” response to the idea of a reasonable debate about the value conflicts in grizzly conservation very interesting, but not particularly clear.
Does Mr. Skinner mean he himself doesn’t want to have a reasonable discussion about grizzlies? Or that he’s skeptical that people with different perspectives are incapable of having a civil discussion?
And I’m not at all clear what “academic self-immolation” means. They’re going to set themselves on fire, literally or figuratively? If there is any chance for constructive discussion, we have to start by being clear.
Mr. Skinner seems to be arguing against people who would ignore, obscure, manipulate, twist, or maybe even invent “facts” – all in the pursuit of a particular set of value preferences.
I’m against that, too, especially when those people trot out their formal credentials to legitimize the misleading, purely speculative, mis-informed, or erroneous things they’re saying (please see http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html).
With that in mind, let’s look at the Craighead & Colleagues letter. Are they using misleading information or arguments? Or are they pointing out areas of uncertainty (e.g., what WILL happen to Yellowstone grizzlies if they don’t have whitebark pine?) and concluding, based on their values and the available evidence, that there’s more risk of bad outcomes than they’re willing to tolerate?
I think it’s the latter.
I fault the Craighead et al. letter for not explicitly stating what their value preference are – i.e., they speak of how the population is not “biologically recovered,” yet don’t disclose the underlying value preferences that go into that assessment. Many biological scientists aren’t trained in these philosophical issues, and aren’t used to thinking of themselves as having values and biases that inevitably make it impossible for anyone, on their own, to be “objective.”
Certainly, the scientists’ letter is part of the political drama that is being acted out around grizzly delisting, so we shouldn’t expect too much clarity and socio-cultural insight – maintaining the “useful ambiguity” we see all the time in the mass media. You can find similar ambiguity in pro-delisting position papers by other scientists.
In an ideal public decision making process, we would minimize ambiguities, get the values out in the open, get all the relevant, accurate information at our fingertips, plus the uncertainties in the information, and cultivate an honest politics as our forum for resolving what we should do when the science is uncertain and a lot is at stake.
As Bill Schneider pointed out recently here (http://www.newwest.net/index.php/main/article/6839/), this fantasy is pretty far removed from the process we have today.
Until we develop that new, honest forum, expect more of the same. Expect people to swamp public comment periods with tens of thousands of postcards and emails, despite all the assurances that “this isn’t a vote or a popularity contest.” Expect Jane Goodall and a cast of hundreds to sign on to letters against grizzly de-listing, while other scientists similarly remote support it.
We can pretend that we’re plodding through a “rational” process, but rationality only works when we broadly agree on goals and are clear about the core value disputes. Just like you can’t rationally plan your vacation unless everyone involved agrees on where you’re going.
In this situation, a supposedly rational process to uncover information is impossible. It will degenerate into political theater. Talk to any veteran activist, and they’ll tell you they use public comment periods to loudly express value preferences and demonstrate support for their preferred outcomes, despite the advertised purpose of the comment period (see p. 69882, third column, of the delisting proposal).
We cannot leave it to “science” to choose our goals and value preferences for us, even though some scientists wrongly think that we should (because they don’t recognize value disputes when they see them, nor do they acknowledge their own inherent lack of objectivity).
Science has its place. It can help inform our value preferences, it can forecast the consequences of the choices we make, it can help us design means of reaching our goals, and it can monitor progress toward goals. It is not designed or intended to make up our minds for us.
So, is it “no way, dude” or could we really work to have the kind of conversation about grizzlies that could lead to genuine progress? I don’t know. I guess if you want to focus on what you don’t like about the current situation and claim that it precludes a reasonable discussion, we’re probably stuck here. We won’t know until we try.