Blog

Salmon and the problem of protection and proliferation remains based on bad management decisions with data obtained from bad science; or what most refer to as junk science.  This article takes the explanation of “junk science” a step further and demonstrates how this type of science becomes detrimental to our environment as well as expensive to taxpayers.

The environmental issues of today are complex.  Few are more complex than the issue of Salmon and the need to protect them, especially on the Klamath River, in southern Oregon.  Several reasons for the river’s failure, some being obvious, and others not quite so obvious, are just now coming to the forefront of open debate.  The situation serves as an example within many other areas across theUnited States.

The fact is and as you will read, government researcdh and technical reports can no longer contain false information, incompetent research procedure or data analysis, or research based on a political agenda.  It is simply too costly, bad decisions based on erroneous reports and with no positive result.  As well, serious administrative and management decisions are based on these same misinformed reports that simply do not work.

The Klamath River serves us as an example not only of bad-research not-working in resolving environmental issues, but in reality making matters worse, more costly, and actually prolong the excuse for more costly research and extreme resolutions, for example unneeded Dam Removal.  All this a simple waste of time and money!

What may have started as a simple environmental issue can now be explained as extraordinary, or prohibitive, whereas, government and corporate intervention and collusion simply confuses issues and makes matters even more worse.

Politically based research is spread throughout the United States.  Rather than using good scientific research to develop an approach toward a positive resolution, our environment becomes destroyed because of decisions based on false information.

Today money plays a significant motivating factor in the ruin of theKlamath River.  Doing research on the river, the money always the priority instead of the tool, and then all is lost within that environmental equation.  There is so much to gain, yet so much too loose when avarice and greed take their toll.

Besides greed there are other equal dynamic problems in the protection and propagation of Salmon on the Klamath.  From a public policy perspective, a major problem with limits imposed by nature becomes paramount.  Another is the jurisdictional levels for intervention, as both State and Federal domains may exist on one river, with both claiming jurisdictional authority.  Often the actual land owner, beside the river, winds up the looser with their land lost to government intervention and worse, to confusion.

The balance between public and private participation in the process equates to Salmon fisheries versus farmers and ranchers; thereby no resolution, rather time wasted and everyone involved looses something.  Mostly it is government intervention at fault.  Then there is the water problem, which is always a political football, being kicked around so often it becomes static or neutralized.  Many current Salmon issues, always directly related to water issues, illustrate this to be a fact.  There exist five government agencies along the Klamath River doing the same thing, water control, and has become costly and confusing.

The number of stakeholders is always large, and the trade-offs between protection and economic costs are difficult within the Salmon fisheries.  Too many government agencies involved in one area always leads to chaos, leading to no resolution and an ongoing problem, as history shows time and again.  This fact often avoided in many technical reports, but obvious when you read something like, “. . . more research required.”  This means, “Taxpayers hold on to your wallets!”

In the case of threatened species such as the Pacific Northwestsalmon, the main concern is their long-run status.  Salmon stocks fluctuate considerably from year to year.  It is a fact (debatably) that the species will not disappear, but not substantially replenish themselves in favorable numbers, and over a time of years rather the present and inconsistent yearly population.

Because restoration would require policies similar to recently established oceanic refugia biospheres, it comes at a high cost, both in regulatory measures and protective man-hours.  Or is this alternative one of debatable proportion as well, brought about by false research and politically oriented data?  The Klamath River had a limited area where Salmon would run, false data (found upon closer scrutiny of the reports) stating previous Salmon run the length of the river would simply cost the taxpayer millions of dollars, and for “zero return” once again.

There is always a substantial social dislocation in many of these situations.  The probability of success for Salmon population increases, most often, is low if at all.  We can see this from the scientific approach on theColumbia Riverhabitat, the estimations, and then the often obscure and at times surprising results.  None of which were in managements assessment.

Many times the Fish and Wildlife Service, and other responsible government agencies, and along theColumbia River, awkwardly predicted the near-end of the species; then a record breaking series of Salmon runs happen.  History shows this as fact.  This also serves as a good example of research acquired with a political agenda rather than a resolution toward the actual problem.  If research is done adequately the result confirms the research.

Public support of Salmon, as government scientists say, is unpopular with the public at large.  Unfortunately, history shows this to be untrue.  In reality the public would like to see the Salmon increase, but without government intrusion.  The fact is the public in general, because government researchers have been wrong so often, no longer want to support government intervention and often consider their results to be incompetent at best.  History records show this to be a fact.

Key policies to promote Salmon recovery are often summarized as the four H’s: habitat damage recovery, harvesting policies, hatchery practices, and hydroelectric dams.  Though often deficient, these same principles categorically never improved upon, although manipulated politically.  Political agendas combined with fulfillment of abstract requests to fund the research create an information flow inadequate to add new and enlightening data to improve the Salmon fisheries.

As in theKlamath Riverexample, a Salmon run did not exist above the first dam on the river, and then the attempt to change history was made.  Falsification of reports developed by government agencies followed.  All were politically maneuvered.

All this creation was for the money, millions.  Unfortunately, these same reports eventually find their way into the information and data stream.  Future government researches, afraid to deviate from the established norm, then use this same data.  Often resolution is never achieved, taxpayer money once again gone to waist on research based on a political agenda.

Ironically, this issue of the misuse of science in influencing policy is not often discussed.  Yet, obvious, as in theKlamath Riversituation, false scientific “facts” and supposedly expert opinions are generated and then used for political ends.   Policy preferences are based on false scientific criteria, compounded with little reference to values, culture, lifestyles, and economic costs.

To show this as fact peruse the report titled “Klamath River Panel of Experts” and the “Scientific Assessment of Two Dam Removal Alternatives on Coho Salmon and Steelhead,” dated April 25, 2011 (i.e. Dunne, Dr. Thomas, et al., Scientific Assessment of Two Dam Removal Alternatives on Coho Salmon and Steelhead, Final Report, April 25, 2011, pp 318).

Throughout the report one reads from the “Expert Panel” that the available research given them was indeed flawed, questionable in nature, and basically unusable.   As most experienced environmental journalists, including this journalist, will tell you the report assumptive at best containing no substantial information to base a management decision upon.  So taxpayers once again paid for something basically worthless in regard to theKlamath Riverhabitat.  When will it end?

This is significant as too many government agencies become involved in one project; redundancy occurs, then dominates and leads to confusion during the regulatory management phase.

Government staff will always swear there are just too many problems involved in theKlamath Riverregion to settle within an economic way.  But obvious to most is the fact that the “problems” are developed from the redundancy of too many government regulations developed by too many redundant government agencies, and simply too many agencies making management decisions based on bad science.

Government intervention is what causes the Salmon fisheries to decrease, for example oceanic over fishing had led to decreased numbers of Salmon in theKlamath Riverin 2006.  Regulatory management was inconclusive at that time, later found the regulatory decision being based on false and politically generated data of previous research from the Federal Fish and Wildlife agency and the Bureau of Reclamation in the Klamath region.

This particular situation cost the taxpayer $60.4 million dollars in what they termed “disaster aid” to the fisheries and going to “. . . commercial Salmon fishermen, tribes, and related businesses affected by the commercial fisheries failure of 2006,” along the Klamath River (see _______ , Letter, House and Senate Appropriations Committee, 109^th Congress, Congress of the United States, Washington DC 20515, dated January 4, 2007.

Until these situations resolved, the environment within the Salmon Fisheries and theKlamath Riverwill suffer.  With true and appropriate scientific research, with competent researchers and staff, with no political agenda within the research, only then resolution may prove to be eminent.

References:

2100, 11 REVS. IN FISHERIES SCI. 35, 47, 78 (2003).

Edward L. Miles et al., Pacific Northwest Regional Assessment: The Impacts of Climate Variability and Climate Change on the Water Resources of the Columbia River Basin, 36.

J. AM. WATER RESOURCES ASS’N 399, 405, 410, 418 (2000) (finding institutional conflicts associated with decreased water supply with climate change).

Philip W. Mote et al., Preparing for Climate 2008] SALMON PROTECTION IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST 561.

WASH. REV. CODE § 36.70A.010 (2008).

Robert T. Lackey, Pacific Northwest Salmon: Forecasting Their Status in 560 N.Y.U. ENVIRONMENTAL LAW JOURNAL [Volume 17].

Pac.CoastFedn. of Fishermen’s Ass’ns v. United States Bureau of Reclamation, Civ. No. C02-2006 SBA (N.D.Cal.2006).

Jeff Barnard, Federal Agency Declares West Coast Salmon Fisheries Disaster, SEATTLE TIMES, May 1, 2008.

Press Release, Pacific Fisher Management Council,SacramentoSalmon Forecast at All-Time Low (Feb. 28, 2008).

Proclamation, Governor of the State ofCalifornia, State ofEmergency:Sacramento RiverFall Run Chinook Salmon (Apr. 10, 2008).

Cox, John W., Grass Root Efforts May Deny the KBRA/KHSA Dam Removal, Free Press, John Cox – Investigative Journalist, 2011, CBS News and World Reports, 6 June 2011. et al.

For further information on Technical Reports by Government entities, or the ongoing debate Google KBRA KHSA, or Klamath River Issues.

Our Rights are Being Ignored – Is there a lesson here?

 The past three to four years journalists and photojournalists have experienced or witnessed many questionable acts of harassment, and even arrests by government officials.  They were arrested or harassed for being journalist’s or photojournalists.  Forgotten is the fact that without a free press you cannot have a democracy.  One thing these people or legal representatives have in common is the fact that they’ve violated the Constitution and the freedom of the press, as well as its ideology.

The problem here is simple, once the press, that is journalists and photojournalists, are neutralized and essentially taken out of the “Freedom of the Press” equation, essentially there is no longer a checks-and-balance system in place to protect the public from the government, and the very foundation for democracy.

Journalism is both a profession and a craft, since journalists draw on specialized skills and adhere to common standards. So what makes journalism different from other occupations like medicine or law, which could be described in similar terms? Perhaps the greatest difference is the special role the news media play in a free society.

Journalists in a free society not only have certain legal protections, they also have responsibilities.  In some countries, these responsibilities are spelled out, and in others they are implicit.  But in almost every case they amount to the same thing: to keep citizens informed, journalists have a responsibility to provide information that is accurate and reported fairly — and independently — from outside influences.  If the situation is compromised, or attempts made to compromise journalist rights, then democracy no longer exists.

This system is designed to protect the “American citizen” and safeguard their rights.  This keeps the government and other officials who have a diverse responsibility to uphold the laws, to do so within a responsible, legal, and honest manner.

If we assume that when a journalist is threatened or is harassed by government officials or criminals that the journalist is bad, has lied, or untruthful, we as Americans have over stepped the parameters of responsibility.  We have killed the messenger to spite ourselves.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights.  The amendment prohibits the making of any law . . . “abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.”

Originally, the First Amendment applied only to laws enacted by the Congress.   However, starting with Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), the Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the First Amendment to each state, including any local government.  Important here is the fact that Federal law supersedes state or local laws.

Examples within the past 3 to 4 years of violating these laws are plentiful.  Arrested journalists along with their material confiscated and then returned once the Courts intercede, remain plentiful.  This covers the entire realm from college newsletter reporters having their coverage of a small campus “protest” confiscated by local police, to the outright beating to death of a man by a police officer in Fullerton, California, and then the cover-up by local police afterwards, “One-Eyed Cop In Fullerton Beating Death Emerging As a Very Scary Individual.”

Bothersome is the fact that legal entities, ignoring the Constitutional aspect in total (for example “Long Beach Police Trained To Detain Photogs Not Producing Photos of “Esthetic Value” is profound to say the least.  Volumes of books, both philosophical and ideology, as well as artisans’ books on photography have attempted to define “esthetic value” in photography since its origins.  Thereby, we can assume that photographing Rodney King being beaten has no esthetic value, therefore the footage of the beating itself should be confiscated by government or legal officials.  We have fought wars, many had died, to keep this type of behavior by government and legal officials out ofAmerica.

Federal law dominates in this situation, but the harassment and antagonistic behavior by law enforcement in using the local law remains plentiful.  Legal entities calls this irresponsible behavior and a violation of a persons rights, but still done by law enforcement, arrogantly, none the less.

Or the event of the Houstonpolice, “Houston Police Threaten To Arrest Photographers To Protect Their Own,” covering a drunk policeman, one of theirs, from press photographers on the scene filming all the beer cans in the back of his truck, and the open and spilled beer cans in the front seat.  As well, when one photographer filmed the drunk driver of the truck, essentially the policeman going to work drunk, is when the threats and confiscations of the footage developed.  This drunken police officer crashed into a school bus.

These examples are horrible.  Nevertheless, the hundreds more (without exaggeration) are just as horrible as these examples given in this article.  So it is with antagonism toward the offenders this journalist, and Vietnam Veteran, looks on to those who knowingly over ride our constitutional support, indeed for this democracy, in order to attempt some type of persuasion, intimidation, or even the profound attempts at demeaning journalists as a group.

This type of irresponsibility is uncalled for and throughout history has never been this bad, especially in a time when the checks-and-balance process in respect toward our government administrators and legal entities system needs to remain in-place.

The responsibility has been placed on the press, despite the comings and goings of the popularity of the journalists or photojournalists themselves.  A friend once stated to this journalist, when receiving negative feedback from an article against nuclear power on theColumbia River, “If you’re not making enemies as an investigative journalist, then you’re not doing your job right.”

Attempts at punitive measures toward journalists, or covering-up the conduct or crime, especially within questionable behavior by the parties investigated, demonstrates unquestionable guilt by those same parties.  The dynamic becomes toward what extend the punitive measure is developed, how illegal or contrary to law it becomes, to what extent they have used their position of responsibility toward collusion; which only then equates to the overall extent of the cover-up, or put simply, the lie.

Journalists have to “clean” their backyard as well.  What is termed “embedment” and consists of questionable reporters, often locally, that generate bias material in coordination with local authorities.  This amounts to a “cover-up” also, and favors exchanged by both and for favorable articles, are common within this situation.  This is not part of the checks-and-balance system as mentioned in this article, rather, it is part of the questionable conduct presented here, unfavorable by many journalists, as well as create hardships for many independent and honest journalists.

Lawsuits are going to become prevalent soon and in defense of what one can consider our democracy.  Ironically, it’s the taxpayer or common American that looses, as it is our tax money used in an irresponsible manner, in this case by law enforcement and other government officials, which necessitates the legal action to condemn and put a halt to their irresponsible conduct and behavior.

So when a radio announcer or government agency discusses how the press has done them wrong, or how the press should be packaged into a box with narrow parameters and controlled better, think about the veterans, the men and women who have died for this democracy.  Or when someone disputes what the press had to say about them, and in the same conversation speaks outright animosity toward the press, remind them what democracy is all about.  There is nothing perfect about what we do, but it is necessary.

In summation, one thing comes to mind: the fact that those who say they are patriotic Americans while waving our flag, and then violates our Constitution arrogantly and ignore our democracy, in all reality dislike Americans andAmerica.  This is unacceptable both legally and ethically.

References:

Clark, Roy Peter and Cole C. Campbell (eds.) the Values and Craft of American Journalism: Essays From the Poynter Institute.Gainesville,FL: University Press ofFlorida, 2005.

The First Amendment Handbook.Arlington,VA: the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 2003. http://www.rcfp.org/handbook/index.html

Hachten, William A. Troubles of Journalism: A Critical Look at What’s Right and Wrong With the Press.Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum Associates, 3rd edition, 2004.

Hamilton, James T. All the News that’s Fit to Sell: How the Market Transforms Information Into News.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress, 2003.

Overholser,Geneva, and Kathleen Hall Jamieson. The Press.New York,NY:OxfordUniversityPress, 2005.

Sloan, W. David and Lisa Mullikin Parcell (eds.) American Journalism: History, Principles, Practices.Jefferson,NC: McFarland & Company, 2002.

Sullivan, Marguerite H. A Responsible Press Office: An Insider’s Guide.Washington,DC:U.S.Department of State, International Information Programs, 2001. http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/pressoffice/