"Good Science" Basis For Altering Conclusions On Grazing Study By ChimpCo

[hatrack]

"The Bush administration altered critical portions of a scientific analysis of the environmental impact of cattle grazing on public lands before announcing relaxed grazing limits on those lands, according to scientists involved in the study. A government biologist and a hydrologist, who both retired this year from the Bureau of Land Management, said their conclusions that the proposed rules might adversely affect water quality and wildlife, including endangered species, were excised and replaced with language justifying less-stringent regulations favored by cattle ranchers.

A BLM official acknowledged changes were made in the analysis but said they were part of a standard editing and review process and were based on "good science."

Critics often complain that the Bush administration has made a practice of distorting scientific studies to weaken regulations to serve its political objectives. Philip Cooney, a White House official who previously worked as an oil-industry lobbyist, resigned last week amid accusation that he repeatedly edited government climate reports in a way that downplayed links between greenhouse-gas emissions and global warming. Grazing regulations, which affect 160 million acres of public land in 11 Western states, set the conditions under which ranchers may use that land, and guide government managers in determining how many cattle may graze, where, and for how long without harming resources.

The original draft of the environmental analysis warned that the new rules would have a "significant adverse impact" on wildlife, but that phrase was removed. The BLM now concludes that the grazing regulations are "beneficial to animals." Eliminated from the final draft was another conclusion that read: "The Proposed Action will have a slow, long-term adverse impact on wildlife and biological diversity in general."

EDIT

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002340217_graze18.html

[Buzz Clik]

1. infuriating

I guess they figure that if they do it often enough that it will become commonplace.

Changing scientific statements without the consent of the original author is unethical. Changing the meaning of the original statements goes beyond that.

I grow weary of the this administration's cynical attitude about science in general.

[XemaSab]

2. Like WTF is the point of even doing studies

if they just change the conclusions?

Man, lemme tell ya, "significant adverse impact" is a phrase that MEANS something to to rest of us. If you want to build a house and they tell you it's going to have a significant adverse impact, it ain't happening.

Heinous.

Also, the thing that really gets me is the fact that overgrazing screws everyone including the cattle ranchers. If ever there was a good argument for selling off public lands, this is it. If the ranchers OWNED the land, they would take better care of it, but since it's the public's land, they can crap on it all they want.

[phantom power]

3. For BushCo, the point is to maintain the illusion of good government.

They get to stand in front of the camera and say "Oh, our policies are backed up by studies." This will continue to work very well, until reporters start consistently pointing out that the studies were doctored.

Or, until people vote these cretins out of office. But most people aren't aware there is a problem, since most news outlets play along with the game.

[XemaSab]

4. There was a pretty good article yesterday

in the New York Times about drilling in the West, and how rank-and-file republicans in western states are starting to get irritated about drilling on every square inch of open space.