Junk science, weird science And just plain old nonsense
At a recent three-day hearing before an Idaho federal district court on whether the court should restrict oil and gas and ranching activities over a vast area of federal land in western Wyoming, an expert summoned by the environmental group that filed the lawsuit testified, “The greater sage grouse is one stochastic, catastrophic event away from extirpation in Sublette County.” That the moment passed without the judge, lawyers, and spectators convulsing into laughter indicates just how absurd what passes for scientific debate about the Endangered Species Act (ESA) has become. After all, everything on the planet is “one ... catastrophic event” away from annihilation.
Sadly, the outcome of that hearing, following briefings last month, is deadly serious. At risk are the future of energy development in Sublette County, which has two of America’s largest, producing natural gas deposits, and the fate of family owned ranching operations. It is just the beginning; the Sublette County case involves but one of 16 federal planning areas, covering 25 million acres in six western states, in the Idaho court. Worse yet, environmental groups demand the sage grouse’s accommodation, regardless of the cost to humans and other species, all across its former range: 156 million acres in 11 western states. In response to one such plan, an expert called the sage grouse, “the northern spotted owl on steroids!”
The Wyoming case, says Dr. Rob Roy Ramey, illustrates the plan by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) and environmental groups—one of whose leaders said, “[Why] sit in trees when there’s [the ESA to] make people do whatever we want”—to narrow infinitely the ESA’s focus and to widen exponentially its application. Dr. Ramey, the wildlife biologist who blew the whistle on the junk science used to list “the so-called Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse (PMJM),” says problems with the ESA go far beyond a lack of effective peer review.
The problems begin for the ESA when the FWS defines a “species,” “sub-species,” or “distinct population segment” because the FWS has no consistent thresholds and its listing decisions are highly subjective. For example, the “so-called PMJM” did not qualify for listing, argues Dr. Ramey, because the degree of measured difference between it and other purported subspecies of meadow jumping mice is less than that among mouse populations of the same subspecies. Dr. Ramey argues, only half jokingly, that applying the FWS’s approach to Homo sapiens would yield numerous subspecies and distinct population segments of mankind.
Moreover, as the Sublette County lawsuit shows, the FWS and environmental groups label a species “imperiled” in one location despite its vitality elsewhere—the sage grouse, for example, is a game bird in Wyoming and Montana. They make the same argument for species “peripheral populations” that are naturally at risk because the species have colonized, perhaps during unique climatic conditions, historically inhospitable areas. Finally, species advocates use national boundaries to create pockets of “imperiled” species that thrive across the border.
“Scientific findings” historically meant “reproducible” findings, but not for the FWS, which now uses models to predict conditions 30 to 100 years hence! Furthermore, the agency increasingly relies on published studies that are incestuous or self-serving (posted online by environmental groups, e.g.) and for which the underlying data are never made public. The FWS’s greatest deficiency, however, is conflict of interest: its work is the product of “species cartels” afflicted with group think, confirmation bias, and a common desire to preserve the prestige, power, and appropriations of the agency that pays or employs them. For example, in a recent sage grouse monograph, 41% of the authors were federal workers and the editor, a federal bureaucrat, had authored one-third of the papers!
There is good news: Congress, at least one federal judge, and conservation experts worldwide question the FWS’s approach and call for reforms. But meaningful change will not come in time for areas targeted by environmental groups and like-minded federal bureaucrats.
Mr. Pendley, a Wyoming attorney, is President and Chief Legal Officer of Mountain States Legal Foundation and a regular columnist in Loggers World.
brought to you by forestindustry.com