|
>>
>>
>>
Salmon Recovery and Local Breeding Populations
A Response to Jim Buchal
His research is highly selective, ignores large amounts of easily accessible data, and goes directly to a particular conclusion with little or no attempt to incorporate the wider knowledge base. He shows virtually no tentativeness in his conclusions, and solicits no independent tests of his work.
He has little or no formal training in the subject matter.
His writing is full of hysteria, tantrums, paranoid accusations of persecution, and calls for “angry mobs” to go into battle. Even the title of his book has grandiose superlatives – “The GREAT “A” HOAX!” He is openly contemptuous of the scientific peer review process, and often refers to those who disagree with him as “commies”, “eco-nazis”, “buffoons”, “morons”, and other adolescent cheap shots.
His views are overwhelmingly more likely to be discussed in confrontational special interest forums that have a vested interest in particular conclusions than they are in the “A” research community. He seldom, if ever, submits to having his work reviewed by peers.
He is being paid handsomely to work for, provide legal representation to, or lobby for one or more of these special interests.
Folks, there are very few pseudoscientists or even religious extremists in the world who don’t display one or more of these characteristics. A list like this should set off every BS detector we have. Particularly when something as precious and irreplaceable as fish and game are involved. As a sportsman and a citizen, I feel compelled to emphasize, once again, that when it comes to salmon and steelhead recovery, there is no room for hysteria, cheap shots or propaganda. Solutions to fish declines must be solved with science, reason and mature dialog! We’re all adults - shouldn’t this be obvious? I think we all agree that fish and wildlife are precious. We all want to see them recover and remain healthy for our children’s children. But if Mr. Buchal’s careless research habits, paranoia, and “angry mobs” are allowed to rule the day - if reason and maturity are cast aside, we will eventually lose this resource and we will all be poorer for it. As a sportsman and a concerned citizen, I beg everyone to please not encourage this kind of behavior! The fish can’t afford it and neither can we. Let’s all work together, be reasonable, like adults, and for heaven’s sake, let the scientific process do the talking! Thank you.
Sincerely,
Scott Church
Footnotes
- Though a detailed examination of the poor reasoning in “The Great Salmon Hoax” is beyond the scope of this letter, a couple examples ought to suffice. First, Mr. Buchal argues in the book that those who criticize the Grand Coulee dam for cutting off salmon runs to the Upper Columbia neglect to mention that those runs were already in decline when the dam was built. This is like arguing that it’s perfectly alright to shoot a critically ill hospital patient between the eyes because, “hey, he’s probably going to die anyway, right?”, therefore shooting him isn't murder. This does not follow. Furthermore, he neglects to mention that a large factor in those declines was the very sort of habitat destroying activity practiced by the industry and agribusiness interests he provides pricey legal services to. Elsewhere, he argues that fisheries scientists studying squawfish predation behind Columbia Dams ignored evidence that squawfish also prey heavily on salmon fry away from the dams when they’re planted there. This begs the question. The issue on the table was whether or not dams increase existing squawfish predation of salmon fry by altering habitat in ways that favor squawfish. Whether or not squawfish prey on salmon elsewhere does not bear on this point. As can be seen, neither of these conclusions follows from the evidence Mr. Buchal presents. This sort of fallacious reasoning occurs throughout the book.
Top
|