MANAGEMENT BY MYTH
Misinformation,
inaccuratel0y presented information, scientifically unsupported concepts, or
scientifically unsubstantiated opinions, presented as if they were scientifically
credible.
Many ideas are attractive and
gain acceptance because they are attractive, even if they are not supported by
science.
Wishful thinking is not a
strong basis for management.
If an idea is repeated often
enough, it may become ‘dogma’, even without scientific underpinnings.
If something is said often
enough and loud enough, with enough conviction, at least some people will begin
to believe it.
Despite the best available
science, many people believe that their lawns ‘need’ mowing and their shrubs
‘need’ pruning.
Belsky (1987) found that many
plant ecologists believed that mowing stimulated growth of their lawns.
While there have been many
carefully designed scientific studies that refute the claims of Allan Savory
concerning impacts (and benefits) of livestock (e.g., those reviewed in
Holechek et al. 2000), Savory’s claims are attractive to many ranchers and land
managers, and have gained acceptance.
When MYTHS become attractive, they can gain acceptance
– unless we force public land management agency to use BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE.
If there aren’t references, question it.
If most or all of the references are from ‘gray’ or
‘popular’ literature, question it.
If the statements seem iffy, question it.
How can one tell if PUBLIC LAND management projects will
work?
The short answer: IT’S THE
SCIENCE!!!
A lot of what is showing up in NEPA, ESA documents
Is not supported by science
Is ‘supported’ by junk science
Become familiar with good
science and good scientists.
Get to know a few scientists you can trust --- including
ones that won’t always tell you what
you want to hear.
Union of Concerned Scientists [March 2000]
has defined ‘junk science’ as “results that, while presented as legitimate
science, fall outside the rigors of the scientific method and the peer review
process.
“It can take the form
of presentation of selective results, politically-motivated distortions of
scientifically sound papers, or the publishing of quasi-scientific non-reviewed
journals. At its worst, junk science is opinion and speculation being lent
undeserved respectability by scientists financially supported by
self-interested lobby groups trying to confound the real scientific debate….
“This
definition does not, however, imply that criticism of scientific orthodoxy is
illegitimate or inappropriate. Junk science does not include well-formulated,
testable hypotheses from honest researchers challenging the majority viewpoint,
nor peer-reviewed results that don't conform to that consensus. Indeed, these
normal scientific inquiries may modify, even replace, the current paradigm and,
ultimately, advance our understanding….”
Learn the jargon.
MYTH: The public should accept on faith that
public land managers are familiar with and use ‘best available science’.
References are not needed in management and NEPA documents, and may be
inappropriate for the general public.
MYTH: ‘Best available science’ (as required under
Endangered Species Act, Council on Environmental Quality regulations, etc.) is
whatever the management agency want it to be.
The agency need not evaluate additional or alternative scientific
information provided by the public.
MYTH: Grazing
is a natural process in all plant communities [grazing vs. herbivory]
MYTH: One
species of herbivore can be substituted for another
MYTH: The extinction of paleo-ungulates and destruction
of native ungulates left ‘empty niches’ that livestock fill
MYTH: Domestic livestock are surrogates for
paleo-ungulates
MYTH: Paleo-bison were grazers
MYTH: The fossil record provides evidence of large
herds of Pleistocene ungulate grazers west of the Rocky Mountains
MYTH: Most of the public lands in the West can
support livestock without significant negative impact
MYTH: Some
species of plants (at the whole plant level, not just fruits or seeds) benefit
from being grazed or browsed
MYTH: Being eaten is the only threat to plants
from livestock [if a plant is not palatable, it will not be impacted by
livestock]
MYTH: Livestock feed primarily on herbaceous
plants (particularly grass), so they do not impact woody vegetation
MYTH: Many
species of plants are 'adapted' to grazing
MYTH: Grasses
and grazers have 'co-evolved'
MYTH: Grasslands
'evolved' with grazers, and are therefore 'adapted' to them
MYTH: Livestock frequently increase biodiversity
[native vs. total]
MYTH: There are large areas of the arid and
semi-arid West that are naturally without cryptobiotic crust
MYTH: Livestock have limited impact on
cryptobiotic crust, mycorrhizae, etc.
MYTH: Livestock impacts on soils are minimal
MYTH: The erosion occurring in the West is
natural, and not related to livestock
MYTH: Uniform utilization by livestock is
generally attainable
MYTH: Moving livestock upland away from wetlands
is sufficient to protect sensitive habitat
MYTH: Livestock are effective tools for
controlling weeds
MYTH: Livestock are not significant weed vectors
MYTH: Livestock are not significant disease vectors
(plant or animal)
MYTH: Livestock have a positive impact on
nutrients and nutrient distribution
MYTH: Livestock dung is an important mechanism for
redistributing nutrients
MYTH: Livestock are effective tools to reduce fire
MYTH: Livestock are an effective surrogate for
fire
MYTH: Some alien species have become so pervasive
that we need to consider them ‘new natives’
MYTH: ‘Range improvements’ benefit native species
and have few (if any) negative impacts
MYTH: Most management programs include adequate
and appropriate monitoring
MYTH: We know the impacts of grazing and not
grazing (including impacts of sudden changes in management)
MYTH: Current non-grazed areas
are adequate for valid data collection and comparison to grazed areas
MYTH: Not range scientists
and managers, foresters, The Nature Conservancy, Allan Savory and disciples,
RangeNet, nor any other group or individual has all the answers for public land
management
MYTH: Public land managers are obliged [through
directives] to ‘meet the demand for forage produced’
MYTH: Mitigation measures specified in a
management or NEPA document are flexible, and need not be met if funding is not
available