Posted by Mary O'Brien on August 28, 2000 at 10:14:25:
Dear folks,Enclosed is a note I received via email on Friday, August 25, from a
science professor, questioning the validity of the Citizen Nature Project.
I thought you might be interested in the note and my response.Here is the note:
Mary -I'm not sure how I got on this mailing list, but I will use this reply to
argue how completely wrong I think this Citizen Nature Project is. My
understanding is that the City does not have the resource to hire experts
to isolate our sites of environmental importance. So, as a 2nd option,
they have called upon the average Joe to make up a list. My problem is,
what does the average Joe know about natural resources? Sure, I can make
up a list of my favorite places. But this list will have no background in
the enviromental sciences.This process you propose is ripe with chance that your list will be a
political document and not a science one. It reminds me of the way the
Soviets used to build rockets, where they formed a committee composed of
farmers and workers and gave them the plans to highly complex rockets and
said pick one. I know your intentions are honorable and honest, but this is
exactly the wrong way to do this, even if your goals are important.I'm sorry, but this project looks alot like the kind of politics that Oregon
is famous for, and I truly think it lacks a foundation in reality.Jim
Here is my response:Hello, Jim,
I appreciate your Friday, August 25 note to me regarding the Citizen
Nature Project. I would like to respond because the participation of
citizens in observing, recording, and protecting species, ecosystems, and
their communities is something I have admired, learned from, and encouraged
for the past 20 years. You and I seem to view such participation differently.In your note, you are concerned that the City, not having the resource
(i.e., money) to hire experts, has called upon "the average Joe to make a
list" of sites of environmental importance. In fact, Metro (i.e., Eugene
and Springfield) did NOT ask for assistance in identifying significant
natural resource sites. When they held their open house on the process
late last June, it was clear they were NOT going to significantly involve
citizens in the identification of such sites. Thus, the Citizen Nature
Project arose because a number of us knew that there are citizens in our
communities who watch birds, seek out special plant communities, notice
rare plants, observe particular wetlands near them, etc. and many of them
are even formally scientifically trained. We recognized that the budget
for Metro's natural resources survey is, as you note, small. We could
either argue (almost certainly unsuccessfully, at least initially) for a
larger budget, or we could alert them to sites of environmental
significance via the eyes, ears, energy, training and skills various
citizens have.In your note, you ask, "What does the average Joe know about natural
resources?", and you worry that a list of "favorite places" will have "no
background in the environmental sciences." Two thoughts spring to my mind:First, the "average Joe" can be surprisingly versed in environmental
sciences. For instance, I have a doctorate in Botany, and Bayard
McConnaughey, a fellow Nature Project participant, is a retired University
of Oregon biology professor. He and his wife Evelyn have spent their adult
lives observing and studying environmental processes, and defending them.
Nathan Tublitz of the biology department is contributing. This past
Saturday I teamed up to look at some Springfield sites with Herb Wisner, a
retired college and high school biology teacher who is well-known within
the local Audubon Society for his bird-watching skills.Secondly, citizens with no "formal" training in environmental sciences can
be surprisingly observant of environmental processes and sites. Peggy
Waite, a real estate dealer, is extraordinarily knowledgeable about the
location of sites (because she has driven around our community extensively
in the course of work), and she is helping the Citizen Nature Project
understand how to locate maps, and find out the tax lot status and
ownership of particular sites. On August 19, I teamed up with Linda
Swisher, whom I had not previously met, to visit a forest patch near a
cemetery. She was noting the species identity of both native and exotic
trees, shrubs, and herbs. While she's not a professional botanist, she
loves plants, and for years has been seeking out knowledge about the plants
in our community. She can walk circles around me regarding the
identification of plants here, even though I am professionally a botanist;
I have been focusing much of my identification energies in northeastern
Oregon native grasslands.Other Nature Project people are active in neighborhood associations; one
has been working to defend headwaters in south Eugene; another to protect
Moon Mountain from inappropriate construction. They have combed particular
areas on foot, and have noted conditions that the City was missing entirely.Other citizens, who may not have been particularly devoted to wandering
throughout the community in the past may know of a particular wetland
because they walk their dog there; or they have observed that a creek near
their home that is listed on the City's map as "intermittent" in fact has
water year round. As we have gone out to survey sites, neighbors near the
sites have been at least curious and sometimes suspicious of what we're
doing snooping around. To a person they have immediately warmed up when we
tell them what they're doing, and have often supplied their own
observations (e.g., of ducks) at the sites.Thus, the "average Joe" doesn't really exist, but instead includes
biology professors, wetlands consultants, lay naturalists, and observant
people.As you know, much of the knowledge in our nation regarding population
trends of migratory and other birds is collected through the highly
systematic, multi-year, citizen-staffed breeding bird surveys and Christmas
bird counts. The Cornell University Ornithology Department operates a
number of citizen science projects throughout the nation; currently these
are gathering important information via bird feeding stations and
pigeon-watching, to list two. Illinois Urban Watch is extremely
sophisticated, involving training manuals for citizens to closely observe
and record species and habitat conditions in wetlands, creeks, and other
habitats.Often, citizens have been the first to note environmental problems. A
housewife named Lois Gibbs brought the toxic conditions of Love Canal to
the attention of state, national, and international authorities. Almost
every workplace carcinogen was noted first not by epidemiologists, but by
workers themselves.Thus, I would contend, the "average Joe" often does know and gather
crucial information about his/her surrounding environment.You also write, "This process you propose is ripe with chance that your
list will be a political document and not a science one." In fact, the
entire land use planning process, of which the designation of Goal 5
(natural) resources is one piece, is political. The term "significant"
with regard to Goal 5 resources is a social and political, not solely
scientific, term. For instance, what natural resource (e.g., air, water,
insect species, seep) is NOT "significant" in our community? Should only
professional scientists hired by Metro decide what resources are
environmentally "significant" and "insignificant" in our community? Isn't
the process of hiring one scientist rather than another political? Are you
under the impression that the data that were provided by Esther Lev in 1989
and the air photo interpretations provided this summer to the City aren't
going to be run through a political screen for final determination as to
what is "significant"?Yes, the Citizen Nature Project process is political as well as
scientific; yes the Metro process is political as well as scientific; yes,
judgment calls by the scientists are political as well as scientific. And
yes, decisions to destroy or protect (or even to acknowledge or record) our
remaining wetlands, Oregon oak forests, riparian plant communities, salmon
habitat, meadowlark perches, pollinator-plant pairs, and heron rookeries
are highly political.The Citizen Nature Project exists to make sure that science is not lost in
that process and that political decisions are not falsely touted as
"scientific" because a Metro-hired biologist (who may be providing answers
calculated to not upset his or her employer) said a site was not
significant, while a retired biology professors says it is.It doesn't take a Ph.D. in biology to know that we have been building
houses and roads too close to our streams, dumping toxics into the life
blood of our watershed, planting ivy where it will invade our remaining
Douglas fir forest patches, piping the last of our creeks, selling our
headwaters and rare plant sites to real estate companies, and cutting down
snags as fast as they appear.At the end of your note, you write, "I'm sorry, but this project looks
alot like the kind of politics that Oregon is famous for, and I truly think
it lacks a foundation in reality." It may be that you and I will have to
disagree about what kind of politics Oregon is famous for, and what reality
is. But I do thank you for reading my response to you, and would be glad
to hear back from you.Mary
Mary O'Brien
P.O. Box 12056
Eugene, OR 97440
phone: 541/485-6886
fax: 541/485-7429
email: mob@darkwing.uoregon.edu