🚀 go-pugleaf

Professionals and Media being coopted by Bush

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/40488.html

headline:

Political Beasts Attack Biology

By Charles Seabrook
Cox News
02/10/05 9:19 AM PT

The environmental groups who conducted the survey say that the Fish and
Wildlife Service always has been subjected to some degree of political
pressure. The survey shows, however, that political intervention has
become a way of life with the Bush Administration.


Free E-Mail News Alerts from ECT News Network
Keep up with the latest breaking business and technology news from ECT
News Network. Receive real-time alerts as stories break -- or a daily
version dispatched once each day. Easily add or eliminate keywords and
modify service right from your inbox. Target your news today!

Politics is altering the conclusions of numerous scientific studies by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, thwarting efforts to protect
threatened and endangered species, says a survey of hundreds of agency
scientists.

And the scientists, who anonymously filled out a 42-question survey
form, say the political interference is pervasive.

More than 400 biologists, botanists, ecologists and other Fish and
Wildlife scientists answered the questions despite directives from
agency managers that they not do so. There were no direct threats of
penalties.


Bush's Control
The environmental groups who conducted the survey say that the Fish and
Wildlife Service always has been subjected to some degree of political
pressure, but the survey shows that political intervention has become a
way of life with the Bush Administration.

"Politics, not biology, has become the dominant discipline in the
service," said Rebecca Roose of the Public Employees for Environmental
Responsibility.

The organization, along with the Union of Concerned Scientists,
conducted the survey that was released Wednesday. Of 1,400 scientists
currently working in the agency, 414, or about 30 percent, completed
the questionnaire.

The agency's scientific studies help determine whether businesses and
individuals can obtain permits for mining, cattle grazing, construction
and other activities on public and private lands.

Political Pressure
"I would say you really can't trust the science coming from the
agency," said Sally Stefferud, a retired scientist with the agency.
"That's a sad state of affairs."

Agency officials could not be reached for comment on Wednesday.

According to the survey's results:

A third of the respondents said they are not allowed to do their jobs
as scientists.
More than a third said they could not openly express "concerns about
the biological needs of species ... without fear of retaliation."
More than half knew of cases in which "commercial interests" succeeded
in using political pressure to force agency scientists to reverse or
withdraw unfavorable scientific conclusions.
An example cited by the environmental groups is a case in south Florida
in which the agency issued a permit to a company for a rock quarry,
despite scientists' objections that the land was habitat for the
endangered Florida panther. The scientists said they were pressured to
fudge the numbers in favor of the project. One was fired.

Agency officials said that he was dismissed because of "performance
factors."

http://www.ems.org/nws/2005/02/10/fish_survey_vali

headline:

Press Release

For Immediate Release: Thursday, February 10, 2005
Contact: Chas Offutt (202) 265-7337


FISH & WILDLIFE SCIENCE POLLUTED BY FLORIDA POLITICS
Survey Validates Concerns Raised by Panther Whistleblower

Washington, D.C.- Political intervention to alter scientific results
has become pervasive within the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS)
but is particularly rife in Florida, according to a survey of its
scientists by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER)
and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). The survey results echo
charges of scientific fraud made by a Panther biologist whose case is
coming up for hearing in early March.

The two groups surveyed more than 1,400 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
(USFWS) biologists, ecologists, botanists and other specialists working
on Endangered Species Act and other wildlife or habitat protection
programs across the country. Nearly a third (32%) of all agency
scientists in Florida returned completed surveys, producing the
following results:

� Nearly two-thirds (63%) of Florida respondents cite cases where
"commercial interests have inappropriately induced the reversal or
withdrawal of scientific conclusions or decisions through political
intervention." Also, more than two-thirds (69%) know of cases
"where state, tribal or local . . . officials have injected
themselves" into agency scientific decisions.

� Nearly two-thirds (64%) of respondents whose work is related to
endangered species scientific findings admit to instances where they
have been "directed, for non-scientific reasons, to refrain from
making . . . findings that are protective of species," compared to
46% of respondents in the Southeast Region; and

� More than one-fourth (28%) reported having been "directed to
inappropriately exclude or alter technical information from a USFWS
scientific document."

Andrew Eller, Jr., an 18-year USFWS biologist, had spent the past ten
years working in the Florida panther recovery program. Last spring, he
filed formal charges that studies relied upon by the USFWS to make
decisions about proposed development in Southwest Florida inflate
panther population and inaccurately minimize habitat needs. One week
after that filing, the agency proposed his termination. On November 5,
2004, the Service finalized its termination of Eller.

"This survey provided an opportunity for Andy Eller's colleagues at
the agency to speak out without fear of becoming another casualty of
politics, like Eller" stated PEER Program Director Rebecca Roose.
"These results show that what Andy Eller experienced is not the
exception, but is the rule - in other words, there are a lot of Andy
Ellers in Florida." ... (cont)

http://www.tidepool.org/original_content.cfm?articleid=146676

Rotten Legacy in the Making
Former U.S. Forest Service Chief Mike Dombeck fears the environmental
record George Bush may leave in his wake
by MIKE DOMBECK | posted 02.10.05




Though consumed by the day-to-day duties of office, deep in the mind of
every American president must be questions about how his decisions will
be dissected by historians in the decades and even centuries after he
leaves office.

Presidents, especially those in their second term, usually turn a
watchful eye to their so-called legacies. The inaugural address, Rose
Garden ceremonies and tours aboard Air Force One all become staging
grounds to mold images read by the future.

The issues that form presidential legacies are as diverse as the
presidents themselves, yet they usually share a common vein -- the
betterment of humankind, peace and world stability, nurturing and
expanding the U.S. and world economy and justice, here and abroad.

Though conservation was an idea that arrived on the scene roughly 100
years ago, it has also become one of the underpinnings of presidential
legacies. Chief executives from both parties and of various political
philosophies have dedicated at least some effort to improving the
environment.

Theodore Roosevelt left one of the most enduring environmental
legacies. He established 51 wildlife refuges, ushered through the
Antiquities Act, which led to the designation of 18 national monuments,
and set the stage for the establishment of the National Park Service.
But in the world of modern presidents, Roosevelt is not alone.

Lyndon Johnson helped push through the landmark Clean Water and
Wilderness acts and, with the assistance of Lady Bird Johnson, the
Beautification of America programs.

Richard Nixon worked cooperatively with Democrats and Republicans in
Congress to pass landmark environmental laws, including the creation of
the Environmental Protection Agency, the Clean Air Act amendments and
several laws that protect and preserve the species we share the planet
with.

He doesn't always get credit for it, but Ronald Reagan oversaw the
designation of more wilderness in the Lower 48 states than any other
president, Democrat or Republican.

Bill Clinton established several national monuments and initiated the
Roadless Area Conservation Rule to protect more than 50 million acres
of America's intact forests. Although he served only one term in
office, the current president's father, George H. W. Bush, worked with
Congress to pass the far-reaching Clean Air Act amendments of 1990,
which he signed despite the objections of utilities and industries.

The reason for the role of the environment in presidential legacies is
easy to understand. Presidents, especially the wiser among them,
recognize that safe water, clean air, and the protection of wilderness
and other species besides our own are important to all people. That is
why environmental accomplishments are listed in the biographical
sketches of nearly every modern president and why they feature
prominently in presidential libraries.

In the context of legacy and history, one has to wonder what is going
through President George W. Bush's mind today. His first administration
implemented the most regressive environmental policies in American
history. Whether it's the decision to pull out of the Kyoto accords on
global climate change, the thwarting of the Clinton administration's
roadless forest policy, the giving to antiquated power plants a pass on
having to reduce their dangerous emissions of mercury -- a reversal of
one of his father's policies -- or efforts to gut the Endangered
Species Act, nearly every aspect of the environment has felt the heavy
hand of the Bush administration.

His policies have been so negative and so broadly damaging that one has
to question if he can do anything now to avoid being characterized as
the worst environmental president in American history. His early
announcements that he plans to dedicate his second term to opening up a
wildlife refuge in Alaska to oil exploration, easing Clean Air Act
restrictions and ending habitat protections for salmon make one wonder
if he even cares.

Bush's environmental policies are troubling enough. Equally troubling
is his active involvement in undermining the environmental legacies of
his predecessors, including those of his father. Unfortunately for
Americans and for the world, the impact of Bush's environmental