9367 ‎(2)‎

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 9367
• Author: Colorado Water Workshop.
• Title: Proceedings
• USFW Year: 1992.
• USFW - Doc Type: Colorado Water Workshop July 22-24, 1992.
• Copyright Material: NO

Good Science
Everybody loves this one. It is mom and apple pie. What is good
science? We pretend to know an awful lot about this natural world of
ours, including biodiversity, species requirements and species needs.
We don't know squat. We need to learn much more about the life
history of the Squawfish before we can be confident of giving a
prescription like a doctor would write for a cold. Doctors cannot fix
a cold. It is not as simple as taking a prescription and feeling fine
in the morning. We cannot fix a species dilemma, either, so we have
much more to learn about species, and what constitutes a species and
a subspecies.
You think you have problems with the Colorado fishes, try this.
The American Fisheries Society says there are over 200 distinct
subspecies of salmon that are all in trouble and about one-half of
those should probably be listed. Three already have been. There are
already three law suits on the books. Get ready folks, we are going
to have fun on the Columbia River.
You think you have problems trying to figure out how to allocate
your water? Think about this. Consider dismantling the world's
largest hydroelectric power complex. How are we going to do that?
Some people suggest that it is necessary to restore these fishes.
That is just the hydropower complex, never mind the agriculture,
navigation, port development and related industries. Be thankful for
the problems that you have. The wonderful problems that you have.
Good science, what does it mean? Options for recovery:
transplantation, introduction, captive breeding, restoration, how
about those for' a start? Instead of fighting over the building of a
project, which might have some impact on a species, we need to address
the underlying problem that we have torn up, ripped up and unraveled
much of the ecosystem. Could we go back and restore some of that
damage? Could we spend some money to do that? Would that be such an
awful and "communist" thing to do? Spending the public money for
restoring some habitat might cause the species to begin recovering.
For instance, a new storage project might actually benefit species,
water fowl, recreation, and a whole variety of other things.

Risk Assessment
The uncertainty that exists in the field of risk assessment
always drives the biologists, particularly because their commission
is to save the species, towards the most conservative assumptions and
conservative approaches. This translates into opposition. The
biologist says, "Do not do this because we are not certain what is
going to result." However, there are techniques foreseeing risks,
or quantifying risks and making judgements that are based on relative
risks rather than on absolutes. I submit to you the Jack Ward Thomas
committee's efforts on the spotted owl as one of the finest examples.
of a concentrated, rigorous scientific approach to the problem of risk
assessment. People did not like it because it produced a fairly large
number in terms of the acres needed to save the owl throughout its
range. However, if you examine their process, and the honesty, the
integrity, and the rigor that was applied to the process, it is a
model for what we are shooting for. The fact that no one was happy
with the results was the best indication that it was an honest
process.

70