This is a forwarded message from the consbio list. I thought it
might be of interest to many ECOFEM participants. Stefanie
------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Date sent: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 15:14:44 -0800
From: Melissa Fleming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Letter re: NBS
Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Originally to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I apologize for cross or repeat postings, but I wanted to make sure that
this got widespread distribution.
Melissa
***********************************************************************
>From the ABS Public Affairs Committee:
Scientific programs in the Department of Interior have been targeted
for elimination by certain Members of the U.S. Congress. The following
letter which defends these critical programs will be delivered to the
Members of Congress by March 1. IF YOU WISH TO CO-SIGN THIS LETTER,
PLEASE CONTACT SUSAN MURRAY (phone 202-547-9009, fax 202-547-9022,
internet [EMAIL PROTECTED]) WITH YOUR NAME, ORGANIZATIONAL AFFILIATION
AND ADDRESS BY COB FEBRUARY 24 . Thank you.
* * * *
To All Members of Congress
Dear ______________:
As biologists, ecologists, and other members of the scientific
community, we are writing to express concern for the future of science at
the Department of the Interior. We understand that the research, survey,
and monitoring functions performed by the National Biological Service
("NBS") are in jeopardy on both budgetary and substantive grounds.
Elimination of these critical functions would be a short-sighted mistake
with long-term consequences, such as an inevitable increase in
"train-wreck" situations where the desire to rescue endangered species
will conflict with needs to extract and use other natural resources.
The mission of the NBS is to work with others to provide the
scientific understanding and technologies needed to manage the Nation's
biological resources. Although the NBS is often equated with surveys of
endangered species on public and private land, such surveys are only a
minor function. Its primary functions are to: inventory the nation's
biological resources, determine how those resources can be managed more
effectively, monitor populations of birds and other wildlife, and, through
cooperative research units at universities across the country, transfer
information to land managers, graduate students, and others. Many of
these functions fulfill the federal government's responsibilities under
the public trust doctrine and congressional mandates. In the case of
migratory birds, for example, this responsibility dates back to 1916, when
the United States signed a treaty with Canada.
The NBS was created in 1993 to consolidate Department of the Interior
science programs into a single bureau. This had the effect of improving
the quality of science by separating research from regulatory and
management actions. It also saves money, because the NBS has one of the
lowest ratios of administrative-to-program-costs of any Interior bureau.
Some Members of Congress have charged that the NBS uses untrained,
biased volunteers who trespass on private property, but Secretary Babbitt
recently issued an administrative order to clarify that NBS activities on
private land must have the permission of the land owners. Other Members
are concerned that gathering biological data can impact property values.
The NBS is not a regulatory agency, and, rather than diminish property
values, data gathered by the NBS will contribute to sound, preventative
resource management.
Maintaining and enhancing science at the Interior Department is a
matter of national interest. It is only through unbiased,
professional-quality research, surveys, and monitoring that
everyone--including industry, private land owners, and the public--can
avoid the crises that arise from incomplete information and make
enlightened decisions about management of natural resources. Any savings
to be achieved through elimination of the NBS would be short-term and
quickly dwarfed by the true long-term costs, both financial and
ecological.
We encourage Congress not only to maintain but increase support for
the research, survey, and monitoring functions carried out by the NBS. A
"know- nothing" approach to the Nation's biological resources will do far
more harm than good. Thank you.
Jan Beyea, Ph.D.
Vice President, Science Policy
Chief Scientist
National Audubon Society
New York, New York
David Blockstein, Ph.D
Chair, Ornithological Council
Washington, D.C.
James H. Cook, Ph.D.
Staff Scientist
National Audubon Society
New York, NY
Susan R. Drennan, Ph.D.
Vice President for Ornithology
National Audubon Society
New York, NY
Thomas Eisner, Ph.D.
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York
George H. Fenwick, Ph.D.
President
American Bird Conservancy
Washington, D.C.
Wayne A. Hoffman
Research Scientist
National Audubon Society
New York, NY
Stephen W. Kress, Ph.D.
Director, Maine Coast Sanctuaries
National Audubon Society
Medomak, ME
Michael L. Morrison
Adjunct Associate Professor of Wildlife Biology
School of Renewable Natural Resources
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ
J.P. Myers, Ph.D.
Director, W. Alton Jones Foundation
Charlottesville, VA
Peter H. Raven, Ph.D.
Director
Missouri Botanical Gardens
St. Louis, MO
Stephen M. Russell, Ph.D.
Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ
Carl Safina, Ph.D.
Senior Ecologist
National Audubon Society
New York, NY
Edward O. Wilson
Tellegrino University Professor
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA
* * * *
OTHERS TO BE ADDED
