To the FWGNA group:
Thanks to all of you who responded to my post of 23Dec05, "Idaho
Springsnail Panel Report." My message seems to have been circulated
widely through the US Fish & Wildlife Service, at least in the Pacific
Northwest, which I consider to be a compliment. Ultimately I received
about 10 - 12 replies and comments, all positive and supportive.
Here's an especially thoughtful message I received from a fairly high-placed manager
in the FWS, followed by my reply.
Dr. Dillon -- I was forwarded a few of your FWGNA postings concerning
the Idaho springsnail science team process. I found the postings quite
enjoyable.
I'm not sure what you are suggesting, however. Here we often experience
some of the difficulties you imply in the relationship between science and
policy, yet is there another option? Science holds a unique position in
the implementation of natural resources policy, unlike religion or worldviews
(though these obviously can play a role, though usually an unstated one), as it
ostensibly supplies the terra firma from which we make our policy calls.
Yet, science alone does not lead us. Policy is not strictly the morphing
of science to fit regulations; rather it involves filtering science through
political, ideological, even religious lens.
I know this type of thinking doesn't often endear me to my Service or academic
colleagues, yet it seems to me an obvious truth. The mix of science and
policy is messy, but what other choice do we have?
(signed)
Searching in Oregon
Dear Searching,
Good to hear from you. And you make an excellent point. In
retrospect, my essay of 23Dec05 looks like a lot of undirected fussing.
Shame on me for complaining so loudly about a problem, while at the same time
offering no solution!
Well, I do have a "solution." I put quotes around that noun
because I fear that my solution is not practical in the real world. In
offering it I am assuming, for five zany paragraphs, that science might indeed
"supply the terra firma from which we make our policy calls," as you
so poetically put it.
I would suggest a biotic survey, right now, quit screwing around. I don't
know about any other organisms, but the freshwater snails of the United States
can be completely surveyed, catalogued, and ranked by their abundances in ten
years, for just some thousands of dollars per state.
Are you familiar with the "Freshwater Gastropods of South Carolina"
web site? I put that site up all by myself, with essentially zero
financial support. I paid (out-of-pocket) about $500 to an adjunct
faculty member here for the GIS work, and $500 to my daughter's college
roommate for the web design. Table 1 (view from the Discussion page)
shows the entire fauna completely ranked by abundance:
http://www.cofc.edu/%7Edillonr/FWGSC/
In 2005 I completed North Carolina, and at this point Virginia and Georgia are
mostly surveyed. I've had a couple thousand dollars of support for this
expansion, and I do have several colleagues helping me. We're in a
holding pattern web development for the NC site right now - integrating it with
SC is going to take some doing. I've paid the husband of one of the
faculty members here $300 out-of-pocket to get started, and he's made some
progress. He will need another $300 soon, and I'm tapped out from
Christmas. Anyway, most of the North Carolina maps are currently viewable
from the South Carolina site - check out the individual species pages.
So you can sense my frustration. For the amount of money it took to put
on that Boise conference, fly us all to Idaho and set us to jabbering in a room
for five days, my colleagues and I could have completely prioritized the entire
freshwater gastropod fauna of the American west.
And I strongly suspect that P. robusta wouldn't even rank in the top 50%
of the western species for conservation concern. There are dozens, maybe
scores, of freshwater gastropod species much more deserving of protection than P.
robusta. The current system is just a terrible waste of money,
resources, time, energy, and effort - a crying shame.
In conclusion, I feel compelled to repeat a joke I heard during my year as a
AAAS fellow on Capitol Hill. A Pig and a Butterfly wanted to get married,
but there were obvious problems with the union. So they went to the Wise
Old Owl for advice. The Owl heard their story, thought about it very
deeply for many hours, and then said to the pig, with a grave and serious
voice, "You must learn to fly." The pig replied, "But Mr.
Owl, how can I fly? I have no wings!" To which the Owl
replied, "Sorry, I only deal in policy options."
Cheers, Rob
The proposal of a national biotic inventory I offered to "Searching
in Oregon" earlier this month was obviously nothing new. But from a
policy standpoint, I might as well have suggested that pigs fly.
"Searching" wrote me a nice reply, confessing that the FWS has no
money for general surveys, but rather must focus on species of conservation
concern, like P. robusta, which of course is where we got on this
merry-go-round.
Again I insist, science and public policy are incompatible -
"nonoverlapping majesteria." And the only solution I can think
of comes by analogy from that third majesterium, religion. Science and
Religion must leave each other alone. And so must Science and Policy.
Heaven help us,
Rob
Return
... to FWGNA home.