Articles and Research – John Cox, M.A., Communications

Dogbert: So, Since Columbus is dead, you have no evidence that the earth is round.
Dilbert: Look. You can Ask Senator John Glenn. He orbited the earth when he was an astronaut.
Dogbert: So, your theory depends on the honesty of politicians.
Dilbert: Yes… no, wait…

When we consider our governments Research and Development situations, we assume credibility – But often, upon further perusal of these same documents, we find more often than not, the credibility simply is not there. It’s estimated that our government spends in excess of $8.2 Billion a year on Research and Development. The bulk of these expenditures are devoted to the physical sciences, for example biological and health sciences. Largely because of its origination as a series of individual-programs initiated in response to specific problems, much of the research and development system is diffuse, reactive, and focused on short range resolutions, derived from special-interests-driven information as realistic-evidence, or required from political, or, from special interests with “profit-only mind-set driven” solutions.

It is because mechanisms to coordinate the products of environmental research conducted by federal, state, academic, and nongovernmental institutions are weak, it becomes difficult to develop the comprehensive information necessary to evaluate significant change in the state of our environment. These situations develop into technical reports and research studies, when perused closely and references also checked, as incomplete information, bias information, and significant information left out due to this bias, and in the case of the Bureau of land management and the Department of the Interior, simply fraudulent activity within many research papers and technical reports.

The fact is complicated and what we must consider urgent in our environmental challenges, cannot be addressed in the piecemeal fashion of the past nor present process of collecting data, interpretation, and derived decision-making processes solely based on the same type of research. We find much of the DOI/BLM research to be flawed, when our Public Lands are involved as well as wildlife and wild horses. This becomes inexcusable.

We do see a resolution. The conundrum we find within government when we compare our Public Lands to their resolutions derived from inadequate research and interpretation of data, we see the need for change. We see the need to establishing more of a priority on our Public Lands as well as all wildlife and inclusive of wild horses, and the entire environmental protection of our natural resources. We see the need of a stronger effort to broaden, and better coordinate all resources, both government and private, in a more truthful and credible methodology – which does not exist right now in government or the private sector. We find the resources would be more focused on identifying root-causes and anticipating emerging problems that is ongoing within our environmental complex today.

The point is — we require strong and effective Research and Development programs as a prerequisite to attacking the programs successfully, and within a credible & truthful decision-making methodology. In doing so, we can establish a coordination, credibly, within our natural resources on our public lands and ourselves as a species. We are appealing toward a better situation between all of our ecology, inclusive of a large diversity of wildlife as well as healthy terrestrial environmental complex situations, and safeguard our natural habitats from human greed and destruction.