Premium
The Endangered Species Act and the National Research Council's Interim Judgment in Klamath Basin
Author(s) -
Cooperman Michael S.,
Markle Douglas F.
Publication year - 2003
Publication title -
fisheries
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.725
H-Index - 79
eISSN - 1548-8446
pISSN - 0363-2415
DOI - 10.1577/1548-8446(2003)28[10:tesaat]2.0.co;2
Subject(s) - interim , endangered species , wildlife , political science , environmental ethics , law , ecology , biology , habitat , philosophy
The controversial 2001 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service water allocation decision in the Klamath Basin has been portrayed as an example of scientific guesswork operating under a flawed Endangered Species Act. This conclusion has been based on an interim National Research Council report, quickly prepared in late fall 2001. We have reviewed several iterations of the NRC Interim Report as well as all Biological Opinions and management documents related to Klamath Basin suckers and provide an overview. The 2001 Biological Opinion and the Interim Report illustrate the lack of consensus typical of scientists in the early stages of exploring a complex system. Unfortunately, the Biological Opinion created hardship for a small group of people and the lack of scientific consensus has politicized the debate. Politicians have assumed that the Interim Report has primacy in the scientific debate when, in fact, its speedy construction contributed to multiple errors that detract from its scientific usefulness. The NRC Interim Report has, instead, primarily served to deflect debate away from the needs of listed fishes to one about shortcomings in the Endangered Species Act. Although the process of science has been served by both the 2001 Biological Opinion and the Interim Report, both have shortcomings, and we see no justification for either side labeling the other's decisions or conclusions as “not sound science.”