Asst. Interior secretary defends sage grouse decision

SPARKS - The decision to keep the sage grouse off the endangered species list signals a new era of wildlife conservation through cooperation instead of regulation, Assistant Interior Secretary Craig Manson said Friday.

He also denounced the "shoddy methodology" of some critics like the Union of Concerned Scientists and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility who claim political and commercial interests are undermining scientific decisions at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Manson oversees the Fish and Wildlife Service, which decided last month that threats to the sage grouse - ranging from urban sprawl and wildfires to livestock grazing and oil drilling - have not reached a level to warrant federal protection under the Endangered Species Act.

The agency pointed to local efforts already under way to protect the bird in Nevada, Idaho and other Western states as part of the reason to reject environmentalists' petition for listing.

"This is a herald of the way things will be in the future of conservation in America," Manson said Friday in a speech to about 200 people at a sage grouse conference sponsored by the Western Governors' Association.

"It harkens back to the time of Teddy Roosevelt when his vision of conservation was driven by inspired citizens. And that's what is happening here again," Manson said.

"Somewhere in between there ... some felt it was necessary to go to a different model of conservation, one driven by the command of the government."

Conference participants include representatives of many of the 60 local working groups across the West that have adopted or are developing comprehensive strategies to help protect sage grouse.

Kathleen Clark, director of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, is scheduled to address the group today.

"Never before has there been such a widespread, broad-based citizen-driven effort," Manson said Friday.

"We've got to get out and tell your story... that it can be done without the regulatory hand of government pushing it along and forcing solutions," he said.

"This is a joyous time. It's a time to look forward to a time where all conservation is done this way," he said.

Manson fielded questions from members of the Idaho-based Western Watersheds Project and the Nevada Wildlife Federation, who noted public concern that the scientific evidence of the bird's declining numbers has been compromised by political and commercial interests.

He responded by criticizing a survey issued this week by the Union for Concerned Scientists and PEER that concluded "political intervention to alter scientific results has become pervasive" within the Fish and Wildlife Service.

"The scientific integrity of the decisions the Fish and Wildlife Service has made over the last four years is unassailable," Manson said.

Of the more than 400 agency biologists and other scientists who responded to the survey, 44 percent reported they had been "directed for nonscientific reasons, to refrain from making jeopardy or other findings that are protective of species, the groups said.

More than half reported cases where "commercial interests have inappropriately induced the reversal or withdrawal of scientific conclusion or decisions through political intervention" and 42 percent said they could not openly "express concerns about the biological needs of species and habitats without fear of retaliation," the report said.

Manson, a former California judge, said "those reports and surveys are of questionable methodology themselves."

"The Union of Concerned Scientists' report, for example, would barely rate a D-plus in basic statistics classes. It is kind of shocking that a scientific organization would use such shoddy methodology to criticize science," he said.

Rebecca Roose, PEER's program manager, said the survey was not intended to be a scientific sampling.

"But it is worth taking notice of especially when they are speaking in chorus about commercial interests and political appointees interfering. And it's not just injecting politics into it, it is changing the findings to get a different result," Roose said Friday from Washington D.C.

She said 128 individuals in the survey answered that at least once, they had been directed to "alter their scientific findings to reach a conclusion that is less protective of the species."

Several of the scientists specifically mentioned sage grouse research, she said.

"We see the sage grouse as an example that has come to light to the public about what can happen when you have political interference with science," she said.

---

On the Net

U.S. Interior Department: http://www.doi.gov/

Western Governors Association Sage Grouse Site: http://www.westgov.org/wga-sagegrouse.htm

Public Employees For Environmental Ethics: www.peer.org