I agree with Bob Warren's post that name calling is detrimental to discussion of issues in this forum. People inevitably have different opinions on different subjects. As scientists, we must endeavor to maintain our objectivity in professional settings (the list should be considered at least quasi-professional) and save the mudslinging for politicians and talk shows. Otherwise, we risk polarization and retrenchment into positions that may eventually prove untenable in the light of reality. We also must admit that every side of an issue demonizes (as Bob aptly put it) the other, instead of maintaining false piety that the position we take is the only correct one, therefore invalidating the others and justifying insults. As an aside to this issue, I think Steve Meyers has a valid point in that we must be careful in overregulating. While we probably do not have enough regulation in certain areas on certain points, the institutional enforcement of tremendous layers of new regulations and beauracracies may in the long-term prove more detrimental than helpful. Not so much in what they would do to species or ecosystem preservation, but how they would affect the political and social climate of the country. One of the main reasons the Endangered Species Act has come under fire by some is its relative inflexibility and the way it has been implemented on occassionally. Many people don't view it as a tool to preserve the remaining biological legacy we have inherited, but as a weapon to keep them from using their land (or public land, for that matter) as they choose. As professionals, we must convince the public why policy changes instituted by the ESA are necessary and appropriate and consider their objectio ns to its implementations. Otherwise, they will feel alienated from the process of environmental protection and perhaps disinterested (if not hostile) with the regulations. Upset enough people nationwide, and structure that we have spent so many years trying to support could collapse in a few months. I'm not saying we should junk the ESA or other regulations, but be more careful and considerate when implementing them. We also should realize that good science does not always result in good policy or good management, and that are actions have more of an effect on some people than others. I think that many of the participants in these controversies (on both sides) tend to swoop into an area, engage in their battles, and then return to their distant refuges to lick their wounds and search for the next confrontation, leaving the locals to pick up the pieces of their lives and try to figure what to do next. Anyhow, that's how I see it. Don C. Bragg dbragg@geog.usu.edu
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0