Subject: Concerned Scientists
From: [email-masked]
Date: 13 May 1994 20:05:54 -0400
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture

Dear Concerned Scientists:

We read the recent letter (to Clinton, Babbitt and Espy) deploring
conditions of our public rangelands and urging support for
comprehensive range reform.  The letter, from Noss, Kessel and Bock
was presented as an "open letter from the scientific community",
and urged us (and other concerned scientists) to co-sign it.  

In response to their request, we will not co-sign, nor will we
encourage our colleagues to sign their letter.  In addition, we are
concerned that employees of our higher education system are
promoting the political agenda of the National Wildlife Federation. 
Therefore, on May 18 we will be forwarding the following letter to
President Clinton, Mr. Babbitt, and Mr. Espy.  You have the
opportunity to co-sign it.  If we hear from you before May 17, your
name will be added as a co-signer.

Sincerely,

John Lacey, PhD                         John Paterson, PhD
Extension Range Management Specialist   Animal Scientist
Montana State University                Montana State University

President Clinton, Secretary Babbitt, and Secretary Espy:

As concerned scientists, we were recently asked to co-sign a letter
to you.  The letter appeared on Internet, was signed by Professors
Noss, Kessel and Bock, and was presented as an "open letter from
the scientific community".  Their letter deplored conditions on our
Public lands and urged us and others to support comprehensive range
reform.  As scientists and residents of rural America, we will not
co-sign, nor will we encourage our colleagues to sign their letter. 
Justification for our response is discussed below.

The "Rangeland Reform" document reports that much of our rangeland
is in unsatisfactory condition, and that there is a high risk for
soil erosion, desertification, loss of wildlife and fish habitat,
degradation of water quality, etc..  In contrast, most research,
our education (PhD in Range Science and Animal Science,
respectively) and over 50 years of combined experience and
observations indicate that the opposite is true.  Most of our
rangelands are in satisfactory (or higher) condition, with a stable
or upward trend. 

Two reports, one of which was published by the BLM, have been
forwarded under separate cover to the addressees.  The BLM report,
"State of the Public Rangelands 1990" summarizes the "dramatic
increase in big game populations since 1960" and concludes "that
public rangelands are in better condition than ever before in this
century".  We ask you, as leaders who support sound science as the
foundation for management of federal lands, why are these kinds of
reports ignored in "Rangeland Reform"?  Was "Rangeland Reform"
written to accommodate the wishes of a vocal minority of poorly-
informed citizens and/or special interest groups?  

We realize that "Rangeland Reform" focuses on riparian concerns, an
issue which has not been specifically addressed in most research
and monitoring studies.  Just as research verifying improvement in
riparian condition may be lacking in your opinion, scientific
research documenting deteriorating riparian conditions is similarly
lacking.  Although more research-based information would be
desirable, common sense indicates that riparian areas have improved
during the past century.  For example, riparian areas are generally
more resilient than upland communities.  Since research has
documented an improvement in condition of upland communities during
the past century, a corresponding improvement in the condition of
riparian areas is most probable.  As scientists, we ask why
"Rangeland Reform" was developed without direct consideration of
input from Range Scientists and other University-based ecologists?

Many small, rural communities will be negatively affected by
"Rangeland Reform".  While we agree the Public must have a
meaningful voice in all land management decisions, the proposed
membership of the Resource Advisory Boards simply facilitates and
expedites the transfer of influence from local people to special
interest groups. In most situations, public involvement is
adequately ensured and provided through current legislation
(National Environmental Policy Act, National Forest Management Act,
Federal Land Policy and Management Act, Public Rangeland
Improvement Act, etc.).  To alleviate our concerns, please send us
specific examples where existing legislation has inadequately
protected resource conditions on public lands.

As outside special interest groups assume control, tax bases for
local communities are reduced and support for local business will
be eroded.  Subsequently, social factors encourage the migration of
families from rural communities to urban areas.  Obviously we do
not believe this is a desired alternative, and we ask you, our
Nation's leaders, to explain how the proposed range reform will
benefit America.

In summary, as concerned and educated scientists, we do not endorse
the political agenda of a special interest group.  Furthermore,
until our questions are answered, we do not believe that "Rangeland
Reform" is justified.

Sincerely,

John R. Lacey, PhD                      John A. Paterson, PhD
Extension Range Management Specialist   Animal Scientist
Montana State University                Montana State UniversityFor

For those of you who have not read the letter we are objecting to,
it follows: 

April 26, 1994

Dear Colleague:

As someone who is greatly concerned about the degradation caused by
domestic livestock grazing on our western public lands, I urge you
to co-sponsor the attached open letter from the scientific
community to President Clinton, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt,
and Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy.

The current public debate about rangeland reform presents members
of the scientific community with a unique opportunity to express
our views about the need for comprehensive and meaningful reform of
federal grazing policies.  I trust you share my belief that
science- not politics- should play the primary role when
establishing the parameters under which livestock grazing will be
permitted.  This letter should help deliver the message to the
public and to policy makers, that any rangeland reform proposal
must be scientifically credible.

Please take a moment to review the attached open letter.  If you
would like to co-sponsor the letter please contact Melane Stanley
of the National Wildlife Federation at 202-797-6689.

Sincerely,

Reed F. Noss

P.S. Please feel free to encourage your colleagues to co-sign the
open letter.

Society for Conservation Biology Editorial
Office: Department of Fish and Wildlife,
Oregon State University, Corvallis OR
97331Tel. and FAX: (503) 737-1940, Internet:
[email-masked]

An Open Letter From the Scientific Community to President Clinton,
Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, and Agriculture Secretary Mike
Espy

Dear Sirs:

As scientists deeply concerned about the preservation of native
biological diversity on our western public lands, we are writing to
express our support for comprehensive changes in federal grazing
policy.  As you well know, reform of livestock grazing management
is long overdue and is needed to restore habitats damaged by
decades of overgrazing.

In the arid and semi-arid West livestock grazing has taken a heavy
toll on native biological diversity  A large majority of
ecologically critical riparian areas are not functioning properly,
due in large part to heavy grazing pressure.  Today, 219 species
listed under the Endangered Species act occur on lands managed by
the Bureau of Land Management; many of the species are harmed by
livestock grazing.

We urge you to include, in your forthcoming proposal, reforms that
will result in improved ecological health of public lands.  In
particular, stringent new and comprehensive national standards for
livestock grazing that protect rare species, and riparian and
upland ecosystem health are essential.  In addition, provisions are
needed that allow permit holders to rest allotment for extended
periods, and provide land management agencies with expanded
authority to restore habitats, monitor diversity, and enforce the
critically needed reforms.

We urge you, as someone who supports management of our public lands
for ecosystem health, to support sound science as the foundation
for management of public land.  Consistent with that belief, we
strongly support the abolition of the rancher-dominated grazing
advisory boards and any other advisory body which serves only to
further the single-interest agenda of the livestock industry.  Your
reform package must ensure that the make-up of any new advisory
councils includes members of the scientific community and other
interested members of the public, so that all stakeholders in our
public lands are granted the opportunity to provide input into how
these diverse ecosystems should be managed.

Part and parcel of this emphasis on ecosystem health must be a
process to determine systematically and scientifically if livestock
grazing is compatible with ecological health and other values of
public lands.  A credible reform initiative must recognize that
domestic livestock grazing is not an ecologically appropriate use
of certain lands, such as portions of the Mojave, Sonoran,
Chihuahuan, and Great Basin deserts and other arid and semi-arid
lands.

We believe that federal grazing policy reform, just as with the
debate over the ancient forests of the Pacific Northwest, merits a
scientifically credible solution.  Proposed reforms must address
the need to protect endangered native flora and fauna and the
ecosystems on which they depend.  These reforms must also ensure
that the public has a meaningful voice in all land management
decisions.

We will be analyzing your proposed regulations in light of what we
regard as the essential components of reform.  We urge you to adopt
a comprehensive reform package that will protect the unique
biological diversity of our public lands from abusive grazing
practices.

Sincerely,

Dr. Reed F. Noss Oregon State University and University of Idaho

Dr. Brina Kessel American Ornithologists' Union

Dr. Carl Bock University of Colorado