>Interesting debate, with Don and Herb on one side perhaps, and
>Janet and Scott on the other, of whether the proposed survey
>will accomplish its goals, and even whether those goals are
>valid or not.

Hmmm...I wouldn't describe Janet and I as being on separate
sides of the issue. I made a strong point that we can't
really expect to separate science and politics in our forests,
and hopefully made it clear that I don't blame the scientists
involved for this lametable state of affairs.

I also, I believe, made it clear that I thought the original
statement ("learn to do survey work to save the forest!") was
purely political, which I also find lamentable.

Perhaps I didn't write clearly. I pretty much agree with
Janet's assessment of the specific post, but don't agree
with the conclusion that politics can be left out entirely
of the scientific work. I agree it SHOULD be left out, and
that Gorton has no damned business telling scientists what survey
protocol is "good" or "bad" science).

If nothing else, scientists doing basic fieldwork need to fight
for the right of science to determine the ground rules of science.

Letting Slade Gorton define survey protocol is the intellectual
and moral equivalent of allowing the drivel published by the Institute
for Creation Research pose as science. Biologists have been forced
to fight politically (and legally) to exclude religon from the teaching of
science and it is clear that the same is true in the natural resources
arena.

It sucks.

- Don Baccus, Portland OR <donb at rational.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, at http:://www.xxxpdx.com/~dhogaza