The problem is that the people who have the power to delegate and
legislate do not separate science and politics. Yes, as a scientist, I
can and absolutely must keep my data "valid", but protecting nesting
areas or any ecological continuity has nothing to do with the validity of
nesting birds or thoughtful habitat management. It has to do with major
political, cultural, and philosophical conflicts over the rights of
increasing numbers of Homo sapiens to eke out every possible material
benefit from every possibly usable resource....survival of the fittest to
the extreme.

There has been done, and is being done, a lot of good science in the
field, and there are tens of thousands of pages of "facts" available to
make the decisions that need to be, but are not being, made. The
scientific process is scorned because it generates what it is supposed to,
something that represents near-truth. But, truth is used politically when
it is convenient! Humans, by nature, deem truth useful and convenient
when a crisis immediately impacts the powerful.

Well, I could go on........just a middle-aged former behavioral/
sociobiological scientist who doesn't like the handwriting on
the wall. I do environmental toxicology (whew-what we have done to our
world) now for a living; would rather do something else, like more
birdwatching in places that will be protected forever. As citizen
activists, we have to do two things simultaneously: Maintain the
integrity of our fact-finding while being really politically saavy! It is
so difficult.

This AM: Montlake Fill had loads of goldfinches, crowned sparrows,
yellow-rumped warblers, and fiesty Canada goose parents. Wonderful!

Maureen E. Ellis, me2 at u.washington.edu, Univ of WA & Des Moines, WA

***********************************************************************

On Thu, 2 May 1996,

Peggi Rodgers wrote:

> At 03:44 PM 5/1/96 -0700, Don wrote:
> 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 missed the first part of this debate, but, in my opinion, to keep your
> data valid and therefore usable as a weapon to protect nesting areas, you
> Must keep the science and politics separate. The survey protocol must be as
> unbiased as possible with "just the facts ma'am".
>
> I don't agree that we can't expect to separate science and politics. It's
> part of good scientific discovery/research to do that and entirely up to the
> scientist involved to make sure it is done.
>
> Just my two cents worth.
>
> Peggi
>
>
>
> Peggi Rodgers
> Oregon Research Institute
> Eugene, OR
> peggir at ori.org
> prodgers at efn.org
> "A bird does not sing because it has an
> answer, It sings because it has a song"
>
>