“The Interior Department’s scientists say that wolf populations are healthy enough, and state protections strong enough, to take the animal off the endangered species list in Montana and Idaho. We do not share their confidence in the states. De-listing allows for some hunting, and hunters in both places are itching to start firing away. Mr. Salazar should be ready to restore protections the instant the long-term survival of the species seems at risk. ”

Does that make the NY Times “anti-science” ?

1) Because a regulatory agency employee requires you to do something does not mean that it is “scientifically correct” or will work in the real world. The term “scientifically correct” is in quotes because reasonable people can disagree about what will happen in a given situation, given the same literature, because it is very rare that the literature is completely relevant to the situation and judgments must be made. I don’t think I can remember a situation where there is only one “scientifically correct” answer as to how to proceed, even where people agree on the science for need to act (like climate change!).

2) I think what you are terming bureaucrats are probably people with the same kind of technical background (wildlife, fish) transmitting recommendations from agency experts. When the CNN story said that “But the determination of what “no harm” meant rested with agency bureaucrats instead of scientists” they are asserting that federal employees with expertise in wildlife and fish with regulatory agencies are “scientists” and those with the same expertise in land management agencies are “bureaucrats”.

Again, I don’t think the background of the people (“scientist”/technical specialist) is the key issue; its the role of regulator compared to land manager. It’s a healthy tension in my view, but not a “science” issue.

Another good point was made in the press release for the final rule “Additionally, nothing in this regulation relieves an action agency of its responsibilities to ensure that listed species are not harmed during the completion of the Federal action, regardless of whether consultation is undertaken or not. In such cases where an action agency determines that consultation is not required and harm to a listed species results from that agency’s actions, full civil and criminal penalties, as laid out under other sections of ESA, remain in effect.” http://www.doi.gov/news/08_News_Releases/121108a.html It’s a pretty obvious, but also pretty important, point in all this press information.

3) What you point out is an interesting question- the issue of resolving technical/scientific disputes between the regulators and the regulated. It’s almost as if there should be an independent panel (say in each state, due to more specific local knowledge) to review the scientific/technical disagreements. It would not be surprising to you to know that costs of government projects, funded with taxpayer dollars, can go up for the same reasons. Of course, setting up panels would also have costs. Still I think the arguments and counterarguments, say posted on a public website, would be helpful for science education, as well as to improve the quality of scientific/technical discourse and the regulatory and land management decisions made. Perhaps that is something to be discussed to increase openness and transparency of public decisionmaking.

“Jae- I am not clear on your point- it sounds like the regulators told you to do something not very real world oriented, were they wildlife biologists or bureaucrats?”

Well, the “guidance” was handed-down from the bureaucrats, of course. The strange thing about this case is that there could not possibly been a scientific reason for the requirement. We almost certainly would have won the argument in Court, or maybe in an official hearing, but those avenues were not pursued, due to cost and political considerations. It was far cheaper just to shut up and plant the trees.

Another thing that irks me about these consultation process is that every agency involved seems to have the attitude that the entity proposing the project “owes” each agency something, and the agency will not “sign off” on the project without getting its “share.” So, for example, NMFS gets the trees planted, the state Fisheries Dept. gets logs and rocks placed in the stream for enhanced fish habitat, EPA requires a big “what if” modeling exercise, etc. So It’s just like blackmail. The costs of projects goes up exponentially due to these things.

Consultants really love the consultation processes.

One role or responsibility is to be a regulator- to see that the regulations for ESA are followed. Another role is to be the expert in the land management agency- to give advice on how to protect species, both endangered and other.

There is a preference for independence, in that the land management agency experts might be inappropriately influenced by peer pressure to not be objective. However, it might be pointed out that regulators can take advantage of their position to pursue their own agendas, and also not be objective. However, I agree with the preference for independence- unless the regulatory agency is so underfunded that the projects to be reviewed are backlogged for years, or the regulators are so busy that they have no time to give the review serious attention.

To me the difference is in role of the agencies, not in the amount/level/correctness of science involved. Regulation is inherently no more “scientific” than land management. Regulation and management both collect scientific information and then make judgments about what is best for political/policy/practical purposes.

Jae- I am not clear on your point- it sounds like the regulators told you to do something not very real world oriented, were they wildlife biologists or bureaucrats?

While the “science” vs. “nonscience” rhetoric is a bit much, the shorthand in the articles you criticize still seems basically accurate: that federal agencies whose primary missions have little or nothing to do with endangered species preservation are being asked to clear the possible ESA impacts of their activities with the agencies that are primarily charged with such responsibility.

I can attest that this is often true. As one outcome of this “consultation” nightmare, I was once ordered to plant many trees on the NORTH side of a famous trout stream to help lower water temperature, DESPITE my repeated protests that the sun just don’t shine from that direction and the trees would do absolutely no good. The stream may be prettier now because of those trees, but it is not cooler. True story.

The regulators are now so afraid of lawsuits from environmental-extremists that the nation is very close to complete gridlock, as far as new development. I am fairly certain that wind-farm progress would be immediately stopped, were it not for the fact that it is currently PC.