Salmon Recovery and Local Breeding Populations

Well yes, as a matter of scientific fact, they can tell the difference! Not surprisingly, Mr. Buchal is ignorant of this also. Riparian (riverside) habitat is crucial to salmon survival in a variety of ways. Riparian trees provide shade, which helps regulate streambed temperature (ordinary lawn grass does not). Though some increases in streambed temperature may be beneficial to salmon up to a certain point (Hawkins et. al., 1983), significantly increased streambed temperatures stress salmon, and can also lead to the worsening of disease (Fryer et. al., 1976; Groberg et. al., 1978). At a certain point, they cannot survive at all. Higher temperatures also favor predation of salmon by various warm water species (Brown & Moyle, 1990). The amount of necessary riparian vegetation for any given streambed is, among other things, a function of the height and type of vegetation present. For instance, Spence et. al. (1996) argued that no commercial timber harvest take place within one site potential tree height of a stream (i.e. greater than 200 feet on either side) when a stream is over its normal range of temperature variability. Riparian vegetation contributes significantly to streambed woody debris, which is critical to habitat complexity and stream flow moderation, and provides sanctuary for smolts (Reeves et. Al., 1993). It provides biomass that supports the streambed food chain, stream bank erosion stabilization, helps maintain channel form and in-stream habitat through restriction of sediment input or slowing sediment moving through the system, filters sediment, chemicals and nutrients from upslope sources, and moderates downstream flood peaks through temporary upstream storage of water (KRIS, Online). It makes an enormous difference to salmon populations whether there is old growth Douglas fir or fertilized and pesticide treated lawn next to their stream!

At this point, Mr. Buchal takes off on a roller coaster of diatribes about “crazy environmentalists” (whom he compares to terrorists in one of the silliest and most immature non-sequiters I’ve ever personally encountered), “flag haters”, Kitsap County supposedly turning high school students into “little eco-nazis”, CBS (whom he refers to as the “Commie Broadcast System”), the CIA and Congress “spending money like drunken sailors”, and “powermongers” who have supposedly taken over science. What any of this has to do with the science of salmon ecology or proper salmon management remains to be seen, and Mr. Buchal, of course, never gets around to showing us. Along the way we are treated to a story about one “Mr. X” who did research which supposedly “proved” that habitat was only a small factor in salmon survival and, we are told, was unfairly castigated and rejected for publication by the so called “powermongers”. Naturally, we never find out who this “Mr. X” actually is, nor is the content of his work presented where it can be examined. Yet Mr. Buchal expects us to take his word for it anyway without further thought. Until he bothers to provide any evidence demonstrating the credibility of Mr. X’s research, it’s at least as likely as not that his work was rejected for publication because it was poorly done and didn’t pass muster.

We are also treated to diatribes about how Al Gore supposedly “had the CIA using intelligence satellites to do environmental assessments of sea turtles and dolphin schools” and people who supposedly “think that it's more important to prevent a helicopter from scaring endangered fish than to save the lives of those who fight forest fires”. Like nearly everything else in this article, these statements are both flatly incorrect. In reality, Al Gore pushed for declassification of existing pre cold war satellite images in 1995 - several years after they were actually taken. These were then used for a wide variety of things, including environmental research (New York Times, Feb 25, 1995). At no time whatsoever was there any appropriation of currently operating satellite assets away from intelligence tasks for any reason.

The remark about helicopters scaring endangered fish refers to the incident involving a helicopter delivering water to last summer’s 30 Mile Fire near Winthrop in which 4 firefighters died. In actual fact, the original concerns were over whether water should be taken from a stream with critically low flow, not "scaring fish". Furthermore, later investigations by the U.S. Forest Service proved that the loss of life was the result of safety rule violations and poor planning by firefighting teams at the time, and not related to any policies or actions regarding water deliveries by helicopters (Seattle Times, Sept. 27, 2001 – The full contents of USFS report can be read online at www.fs.fed.us). Incidentally, when I decided to check Mr. Buchal on these particular points, I was able to find accurate information for each story in less than 10 minutes. Obviously, he didn’t bother with even that much effort.

As can be seen from the few examples discussed above, this article is full of scientific and journalistic errors, and a general carelessness with facts. The errors made are serious ones – errors which any responsible attempt at scholarship should have exposed and corrected. Yet Mr. Buchal not only presents them, he does so in an extremely venomous and confrontational tone using hysteria (e.g. calls to form an “angry mob”), cheap shots (e.g. “Commie Broadcast System”, “eco-nazis”), and downright adolescent immaturity. As if this weren’t bad enough, he also maintains a blatant conflict of interest in the issue by providing legal representation to industry, agribusiness, and property rights groups whose interests frequently conflict with those of salmon recovery, and he is being paid handsomely for it. Given the value of these fish to all of us, and the critical need for objectivity and professionalism in our efforts to save them, this conflict of interest, and his poor scholarship and rudeness, are unconscionable.

This is the second time a hysterical diatribe with little or no basis in fact has appeared in this forum in the last 3 months (the last was a commentary from the Wall Street Journal printed in the July 25 Newsletter). In the past, this forum has been, in my opinion, very informative and a great force for the good of fish and game. It will be a crying shame if this sort of juvenile behavior and unprofessionalism becomes a regular feature here. So if I might, I’d like to suggest some guidelines for evaluating future contributions about the fish and wildlife we all care about to this, or any other forum.

• Hysteria is not a substitute for reason.     Contrary to the belief of many, truth is not fragile, and will stand up to an honest inquiry. It follows that, in the long run, proper presentation of evidence and critical reasoning are all that’s necessary to make a point. We know today that the Earth is not flat. That’s because those who believed it was were not able to defend their case with evidence as well as those who said it wasn’t – and rants about Round Earth preaching “commies”, “flag-haters”, “eco-nazis” or “buffoons that the clueless majority sends to Washington, D.C.” would not have helped their case. Those who need to resort to such cheap shots to defend their beliefs do so because there is no good evidence for those beliefs, and they have neither the knowledge base nor the maturity to defend them in a more credible manner.
• Conflicts of interest do not serve the search for truth.     Proper research requires objectivity. As long as a researcher has a vested interest in a particular outcome (particularly a financial interest), their research is likely to be skewed. Salmon research is best conducted by scientists whose primary interest is salmon research, not those who’s interest in it is secondary to a passion for property rights, agriculture, industry, Communist Party or Earth Liberation Front attacks on these interests, or any other agenda not related to the science. This is especially true if, like Mr. Buchal, they’re on the payroll of such interests. This is not because property owners or farmers don’t have rights. Nor is it because they don’t bring something valuable to the discussion and recovery efforts. Obviously, they do. But their interests are often different from those of salmon, and sometimes very different. When a conflict arises, they, like anyone else, will be hard pressed not to slant evidence in their favor. This is painfully clear in the content of Mr. Buchal’s article and in “The Great Salmon Hoax”, both of which are rife with partial and out of context evidence, non-sequiters, and other forms of bad reasoning (Footnote 1). When this happens, salmon and steelhead suffer, and so do we. Responsibility for fisheries science should be left with fisheries scientists, not special interests. Mr. Buchal’s baseless rants to the contrary aside, they are by far the most qualified to evaluate conflicting claims and evidence, and they are paid by universities or tax payer funded government agencies, not communists, radical advocacy groups, big agribusiness and timber, or any other special interest group with an axe to grind and/or cash to pocket.
• Quality research is inductive, not deductive, and is broad based.     Knowledge grows by the presentation and testing of ideas. In science, this is referred to as Peer Review. Ideas are published and tested against the larger body of knowledge. Ideas which have already been widely demonstrated to be false are rejected. Those which survive further tests and refinements are accepted. Pros and cons are voiced, ideas are tabled, and the knowledge base grows, incorporating pros and cons. What makes this process work, is the context of the larger body of existing knowledge and the exposure of all research to a large and diverse community of scientists from a broad range of backgrounds and belief systems who seldom, if ever, share the same interests or prejudices as any given one of them. Proper research is never based on just one or two papers by one or two scientists, or on an absence of dissent. The mere fact that someone can dig up a single paper somewhere that appears to support an idea or express dissent against one, means little without the larger context of the existing knowledge base. Anytime someone defends an idea with extreme and even sarcastic certainty, claiming to be the “lone voice of reason” amidst a sea of researchers, and yet offers a small amount of incomplete evidence in their defense, we should be immediately suspicious.

Imagine, if you would, the following scenario. An individual (John Doe, let’s say) decides he’s concerned about issue “A” – an issue that has been extensively studied by a large community of researchers who have been publishing for decades, and for which there is a large and well tested body of literature. After doing some research, he decides to write a book about it and do some public speaking. We are told by many loud and faithful proponents that his book is a “seminal work” that reveals new and never before known information about “A”. However, upon further investigation, we discover the following,