“The tolerance of seals for disturbance and the biological significance of such disturbance should be evaluated. At present, indicators of disturbance are defined as ranging from head alerts to flushing into the water. The existing information is not sufficient to describe the biological consequences or reactions at either end of this continuum.”

 In 2005 and 2006, Dr. Sarah Allen, herself an NPS scientist and co-author of all of the Becker reports investigated by the National Academy of Sciences and the Department of the Interior as well as the more recent Becker Reports used by the MMC, published two extensive and key reports on just that subject matter. Furthermore, Dr. Allen testified in a court case in San Diego about that topic.

 Report #1, 7 year 4 month study

“Monitoring the Potential Impact of the Seismic Retrofit Construction Activities at the Richmond San Rafael Bridge on Harbor Seals (Phoca vitulina): May 1, 1998 – September 15, 2005”
http://bit.ly/rpKpRu
  Dr. Sarah Allen found the following:

1.      “Construction-related disturbances [as close as 20 yards from haul-out sites]… were attributed to two main factors; watercraft … and  construction activities such as jack-hammering, rivet work, hammering and the movement of cranes on barges near the haul-out site … the total number of seals hauling out … did not decrease.”

2.      Harbor seals habituated to much more serious disturbances at much closer distances.

2.1.  The tiny outboard motor boats operated by Drakes Bay Oyster Company come no closer than 600 yards to the one seal haul-out in the estero; that is 6 football fields away.

2.2.  According to the dEIS section on sound-scapes, at 500 FEET the decibel level is 51 – equivalent to a quiet urban area at daytime.

2.3.  At 600 yards (1800 feet), the minimum distance of the motor boats from the one seal haul-out site, and the decibel level is reduced substantially.

2.4.  If reduced only by 10 decibels to 40 decibels that would equate to a bird call
http://bit.ly/sC86dY

 Report #2

“Harbor Seal Monitoring at Point Reyes National Seashore and Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Annual Report 2005”,
http://bit.ly/sLTUHU
Dr. Allen found

1.      “Causes for [harbor seal] disturbance at Drakes Estero … birds most frequent cause, followed by non-motor boats [kayakers], humans [hikers], aircraft.” in conclusion she finds “

2.      The number of disturbances … remains similar to previous years and

3.      No trends are detected….

4.      Hikers and boaters remain the two most frequent sources of disturbance ….”

 2005 San Diego Court Decision:

“Dr. Allen testified that seals habituate (or anthropomorphizing) to disturbance sources that are determined not to be a threat.”
http://bit.ly/rpKpRu

(Author’s comments:

Turning Drakes Estero into “Wilderness” will not change the most frequent causes of disturbances. The birds, kayakers, hikers, and aircraft will continue to frequent the area - 2,500,000 people on avaerage visit the area every year according to the NPS website.

It will however, remove the filtering system that makes Drakes Estero one of the most pristine estuarine systems in the country. Eel grass has double in ten years. It is not only a home for one of the largest populations of harbor seals on the coast but also, provides a safe harbor in years of trouble. Much has been made of “disturbances” however the greatest on record was in 2003 and 2004 when an elephant seal killed 40 harbor seals.

Removal of the oyster farm would however cause a major reduction in filtering of the waters putting the estuary in jeopardy of becoming polluted by the accumulation of seal feces as noted by three of the original panel of experts in the first MMC report. The dEIS does note this as a MAJOR NEGATIVE IMPACT however, does not study the subject.)

 After the Gavin Frost of Department of the Interior (Frost Report) found “violations of scientific and scholarly conduct”, and the National Academy of Sciences found “the National Park Service selectively presented, over interpreted, or misrepresented available sicentific information on Drakes Bay Oyster Company”, the Sierra Club and National Parks Conservation Association wrote to the Marine Mammal Commission asking it to reject the NAS report and do its own investigation. Jon Jarvis promoted Dr. Sarah Allen to the Pacific West Regional Office with the title “Ocean Steward”.)

 Neither of Dr. Allen’s 2006 – 7 year study, nor her 2005 Annual Report, nor her court testimony is mentioned in the MMC report or listed in the bibliography on page 61.

Decide for yourself what is going on and make your comments known about the draft EIS on the the National Park Service Website  by following this link: 

DEADLINE FOR COMMENTS

DECEMBER 9, 2011, MIDNIGHT MOUNTAIN TIME

 CLICK THIS LINK TO MAKE COMMENTS

http://parkplanning.nps.gov/commentForm.cfm?documentID=43390

Africa – 28% wilderness

Check it out

http://anse.rs/stG5Bv

DEADLINE FOR COMMENTS

DECEMBER 9, 2011, MIDNIGHT MOUNTAIN TIME

 CLICK THIS LINK TO MAKE COMMENTS

http://parkplanning.nps.gov/commentForm.cfm?documentID=43390

Rather than admit he caved to corporate arm twisting, Jarvis issued this statement:

“My decision to hold off the ban was not influenced by Coke, but rather the service-wide implications to our concessions contracts, and frankly the concern for public safety in a desert park.”

Public safety?  Who does he think he’s kidding?  Let’s think for a minute how unbelievable his statement is –

•  Is he saying Grand Canyon was unsafe before the recent introduction of plastic bottles?  Is a bottle of Dasani ® a vital lifeline even after the park spent more than $300,000 installing “watering stations” and made reusable containers available?

•  Zion National Park banned plastic bottles more than two years ago.  Last time I checked Zion is a desert park.  No one has died of thirst and the NPS even gave the project an “Environmental Achievement Award.”

• Not even Coke contends its products are needed for public safety. Instead, the company argues the ban infringes on “consumer choice” as if a national park must serve as a shopping mall.

The NPS brain-trust apparently believes that the public just fell off a turnip truck and will buy any official explanation, no matter how incredible or idiotic.”

For the full article, click here: 11-15-11 PEER Who Does Jarvis Think He’s Kidding

DEADLINE FOR COMMENTS

DECEMBER 9, 2011, MIDNIGHT MOUNTAIN TIME

 CLICK THIS LINK TO MAKE COMMENTS

http://parkplanning.nps.gov/commentForm.cfm?documentID=43390

For the full article click here:
http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=1533

In 2002, David Uberuaga, thenMount RainierNational Park’s superintendent, sold his home in Ashford for far above its assessed value to the owner of the company that then held a monopoly as the park’s official climbing-guide service; that transaction raised questions and resulted in a reprimand, followed by a promotion toGrand CanyonNational Park, by Jon Jarvis.

Mt Rainier Scandal 10-01-11

“Stephen P. Martin, …said his superiors told him two weeks before its Jan. 1 start date that Coca-Cola, … has donated more than $13 million to the parks, had registered its concerns about the bottle ban through the foundation, and that the project was being tabled…. A spokesman for the National Park Service, David Barna, said it was Jon Jarvis, the top federal parks official, who made the ‘decision to put it on hold until we can get more information.’ “

 What the Seattle Times did not report was that –
•    Jarvis intervened in the selection process, after another candidate was told by the Regional Director the job was his.  Jarvis made sure Uberuaga got the job;
•    Jarvis’ older brother Destry is a consultant to a major Grand Canyon concessionaire, the motorized rafters – an area in which Director Jarvis has not recused himself; and
•    Director Jarvis is working to set up a billion dollar endowment, largely from corporate donors, to be distributed at his discretion.

For the full article click this link: 

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/823/t/0/blastContent.jsp?email_blast_KEY=1229321

“The laundry list of unethical acts and abuses of Malone by corrupt and incompetent agents, administrators and employees make one’s blood boil. The one person in this mess, aside from Berkowitz, who maintains a modicum of respect and trust in others is Malone, even as the very people charged with protecting his basic rights plot to destroy them. This inside look at how a great American institution actually undermines its own public image is as disturbing as it is necessary reading.”

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2011/11/national-park-service-gone-rogue-a-whistleblower-speaks/#ixzz1dK6dHiAT

What the Seattle Times did not report was that –
•    Jarvis intervened in the selection process, after another candidate was told by the Regional Director the job was his.  Jarvis made sure Uberuaga got the job;
•    Jarvis’ older brother Destry is a consultant to a major Grand Canyon concessionaire, the motorized rafters – an area in which Director Jarvis has not recused himself; and
•    Director Jarvis is working to set up a billion dollar endowment, largely from corporate donors, to be distributed at his discretion.

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/823/t/0/blastContent.jsp?email_blast_KEY=1229321

What does the story of a discredited Soviet biologist have to do with education? Plenty.

Today’s history lesson is on the dangers of adopting pseudo-science as policy. It begins in the Soviet Union of the 1930’s, at a time when the forced collectivization of farms by the Communist leadership had severely diminished the Soviet grain yield. Onto the scene appeared Trofim Lysenko, a horticulturalist from the Ukraine, who made a startling promise: by physically manipulating plants in their environment, he could change their genetic make-up, thereby producing greater yields from their offspring.

Although Lysenko’s claims were based on the out-dated evolutionary model of Lamarckism (which postulated that through intentional, physical acts animals could change their genetic make-up and pass their newly developed traits to their off-spring), and contradictory to the developing (and accurate) genetic model of Mendel, he caught Stalin’s eye, who was looking for a new way of getting more grain out of the inefficient Soviet collectives. Despite the fact that Lysenko’s fantastic claims of success could not be reproduced in any test field, and that most Soviet scientists saw him for the charlatan that he was, Stalin accepted his claims; from that moment on, the Soviet Communist Party machine did the rest.

Lysenko quickly became the Rasputin of Soviet biology and agriculture. Lysenko was admitted into the upper echelons of the Soviet Communist Party, and appointed the Director of the Genetics Institute of the Academy of Sciences, where he proceeded to ban all experiments in traditional genetics. Any scientists who admitted to adhering to Mendel’s genetic model were stripped of their positions and replaced by Lysenko’s cronies. His theories were actively promoted by the Soviet press, which exaggerated his successes and neglected to mention his failures. The media and Party machinery openly questioned the motives of his remaining critics, who were publicly denounced by Lysenko as “fly-lovers and people haters” that were intent on destroying the Soviet economy. With dissent actively stifled, Lysenko was free to ensure that only his theories, and his alone, were ever put into practice.

Not surprisingly, Lysenko’s methods did not live up to the hype, and Soviet grain yields fell. It was only through the unwavering support of Stalin and the Soviet party apparatus that Lysenko’s methods and theories remained unchallenged. Soviet agriculture continued to suffer throughout the 1950’s and into the 1960’s, when Stalin was replaced by Nikita Khrushchev. Finally, however, genetic reality caught up with ideology, and with the fall of Khrushchev from power, so did Lysenko, who ended his years working at a small agricultural research station, trying to convince farmers to use more animal fertilizer.

So what does Lysenkoism have to do with education? As I promised, plenty.

American education has always been particularly susceptible to the offer of the quick fix; new educational fads promising to teach every Johnny to read have come and gone like the leaves of autumn. As Diane Ravitch has painstakingly chronicled in Left Back: A Century of Failed School Reforms, the last century of American education has seen the Child-centered Education movement, the Project method movement, the Activity movement, the Life-adjustment movement, the Open-education movement, the Standards movement, the Self-esteem movement, and the Constructivist movement, as well as the ongoing pendulum swing between whole language reading proponents and phonics devotees. Each and every one of these “movements” was based on the “research” and educational philosophy of a well-meaning reformer and enthusiastically sold as the cure-all to the ills of American education; each and every one was enthusiastically adopted by whole school systems; each and every one was eventually replaced by the next “flavor of the month.” Ravitch’s conclusion is so apt that it needs to be quoted verbatim:

“If there is a lesson to be learned from the river of ink that was spilled in the education disputes of the twentieth century, it is that anything in education that is labeled a ‘movement’ should be avoided like the plague. What American education most needs is not more nostrums and enthusiasms but more attention to fundamental, time-tested truths. . . Massive changes in curricula and pedagogy should be based on solid research and careful field-tested demonstration before they are imposed on entire school districts and states. There has been no shortage of innovation in American education; what is needed before broad implementation of any innovation is clear evidence of its effectiveness.”

As pointed out by William Bagley, one of the early critics of the Child-centered Education movement (the pedagogical precursor to the Open education and Constructivist movements and their theoretical progeny), there are no shortcuts to educational improvement. Bagley decried the endless parade of educational reforms that he had already seen sweep through the American educational system by 1935, complaining that “it has been one nostrum after another. We have tried to improve the educational system by . . . adopting, one after another, different ‘methods’ of teaching; by trying this and then that and then another pattern of organizing curricular materials.” None of these “reforms” had made any difference, Bagley noted, because great teaching was not a science that depended on a particular methodology, but an art. Consequently, he pointed out, the fundamental factor in education — and what had always mattered most — was simply the quality of the teacher.

And so we come back full circle to Lysenko, fully mindful of Ravitch’s warnings and Bagley’s observations. Before we mandate that our teachers change how they teach and instead switch to the latest educational cure-all, we should first have real, empirical proof that it actually works. If school is a farm, and student learning the grain we wish to harvest, better to trust the experienced and successful farmer with his hands in the soil rather than the well-meaning reformer self-promoting his/her own program, no matter how good it sounds, or how fantastic the promises that it makes. Like the fields of the Ukraine, the history of American education is littered with the wreckage of reforms that promised the world and yet delivered far less.

In other words: do you want a quality educational system? Then find and hire good teachers, provide them with the support and materials they need to do their jobs, and let them teach as they teach best. Leave the flavor-of-the-month to Baskin-Robbins.

McCloskey to Salazar re DBOC 08-11-11 Exhibits

‘The Case of the Indian Trader’ illuminates the case of the oyster grower

By Dave Mitchell

        In trying to make a case for the federal government’s not renewing the lease of Drakes Bay Oyster Company in 2012, former Point Reyes National Seashore Supt. Don Neubacher and park science advisor Sarah Allen disseminated false data.

        Those were among the findings critical of the two when the Interior Department’s Inspector General’s Office issued a report in 2008. The report followed a year-long investigation, which began after company owner Kevin Lunny complained that he was being treated unfairly and slandered by the park.

        Neubacher’s boss was Jon Jarvis, then director of the Western Regional Office of the Park Service, and conveniently for Neubacher, his wife Patti worked closely with Jarvis as the assistant director. So how did the regional office respond?

        The report vindicated the Park Service, the regional office insisted, because there had been no finding that Neubacher and Allen had tried to close the oyster company before its lease expired. The Inspector General’s investigation, however, had focused on scientific misrepresentations by Allen and Supt. Neubacher — not on whether they were trying to close the oyster company before 2012 — so the regional office was merely indulging in an exotic spin job.

        The National Seashore’s exotic toadies immediately created a chorus of chirping. “By my count the ball game was won 14-1 by the Park Service,” Gordon Bennett, then spokesman for the Marin Chapter of the Sierra Club, told The Marin Independent Journal.

        And what did the Interior Department do to punish Neubacher for his misrepresentations? It made him superintendent of Yosemite National Park two years later and made Jarvis, his boss and defender, director of the National Park Service (NPS).

A nationwide problem

        Bizarre as those events seemed — given the clean-cut image the Park Service cultivates — this sort of thing is happening nationwide within the agency, as is documented by a new book, The Case of the Indian Trader: Billy Malone and the National Park Service Investigation at Hubbell Trading Post.

        In his book, author Paul Berkowitz, a retired criminal investigator for the National Park Service, describes the cronyism, nepotism, corruption, and political pressures that shape NPS and Department of the Interior management.

         The Case of the Indian Trader tells the true story (heavily documented with law enforcement reports) of a respected, honest, longtime trader who was falsely accused of fraud and other crimes.

         The trading post in federally administered Navajo country is owned by the Western National Parks Association (WNPA), which normally provides information in parks and makes financial contributions to them — much like the Point Reyes National Seashore Association, which sells books at the Visitor Center.

         In 2003, LeAnn Simpson became executive director of the WNPA and was immediately horrified by Malone’s traditional bookkeeping, which often consisted of verbal agreements with the rug weavers and jewelry makers on the reservation, some of whom could not read or write. With no evidence to back her up, she assumed Malone must have stolen millions of dollars from the trading post.

         At her request, the Park Service in 2004 launched an aggressive investigation of Malone, seizing his personal property while WNPA evicted him from the trading post.

         Two years went by before Malone was finally allowed to prove the property was his and recover it. He is now suing the Park Service, WNPA, and 10 past and present members of each.

         In 2005, special agent Berkowitz had been assigned to direct the trading post investigation. In doing so, he found repeated instances of investigators and their supervisors being dishonest, withholding exculpatory evidence, and circumventing the law to satisfy the WNPA and Park Service.

         There is a name for officials who put themselves above the law in this way, writes Berkowitz, who previously taught law enforcement classes. “Police administrators and psychologists have coined the term ‘noble cause corruption.’” Among his other observations:

         • “The NPS has evolved into a very insulated, provincial and sometimes cult-like organization…. The demand for loyalty insinuates itself into virtually every aspect of the NPS…. Over time these excesses come to affect many employees’ sense of what is and is not acceptable behavior, as they assimilate into the culture, often acting with near-blind obedience as they surrender their own better judgment to that prescribed by their employer.”

         • “An example of how extreme this indoctrination can be is that both new and transferring employees in many park areas have been required to swear a distinct oath of allegiance to the NPS at the very same time they swear to support and defend the US Constitution.”

         • “Information about NPS activities is regulated and restricted through carefully crafted press releases that often spin facts and fabricate accounts…. To allow a problem to surface into the public arena is an unforgivable act that could embarrass the agency.”

          • “NPS managers and employees themselves were found to have engaged in serious criminal activities while on duty, for which they were never officially investigated or prosecuted [by the Interior Department].…  In one notorious instance, a ranger even obtained a government step (pay) increase while sitting in jail on local charges related to voyeurism,” he writes.

         “The same employee had repeatedly been caught under similar circumstances in various parks to which he was assigned but was continually moved and promoted through the ranks (including chief park ranger) after each incident until reaching the position of assistant superintendent at a national recreation area where he continued to oversee law enforcement activities.”

         In yet another case, Berkowitz’s own supervisor would later admit to theft of public money but would receive no jail time and be allowed to retire with a full Park Service pension of nearly $100,000 per year.

Is the book fair?

         Skeptics may question whether the book is fair to the Interior Department and its Park Service, but Berkowitz repeatedly acknowledges there are “extraordinarily talented rangers and special agents who do work for the agency and individually strive for high standards.”

         Nonetheless, West Marin should beware the warning: “Short of crime, anything goes at the highest levels of the Department of the Interior.” That observation, which is quoted by Berkowitz, did not originate with him but with Inspector General Earl Devany testifying in Congress.

  — The Case of the Indian Trader, 354 pages, University of New Mexico Press

The audio and slides from this presentation are available on YouTube in six 12 minute parts. To begin viewing this presentation click on the link:
http://www.youtube.com/Coreysgoodman

Video feed:
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/assignment_7&id=8351748

• This link will lead you to the introduction and the talk:
  http://westmarin.tv/
  
• The link for the talk can be found at:
  http://vimeo.com/31918122
  
• The link to the Q&A will be available shortly.

7 Year Harbor Seal study by Dr Sarah Allen 2005

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/823/t/0/blastContent.jsp?email_blast_KEY=1229321

Dessin de Bagley paru dans The Salt Lake Tribune

A burguesia enoja
a burguesia mostra-se rica,
pura falsidade, deslealdade,
vive de fantasia.
A burguesia é rica
e mais rica quer ficar,
não interessa quem irá derrubar.
Tem rico que é mesquinho
nem mesmo carinho
tem para dar.
A burguesia acaba com a alegria
de qualquer cidadão
se dá o pão
toma algo com a outra mão.
Um dia não haverá burguesia
não haverá dinheiro desperdiçado
e o povo não viverá cansado
de lutas inglória
renascerá a poesia!

Goodman defended by peers

EDITOR:

The two of us have watched with dismay as the debate over wilderness protection, sustainable agriculture, the Drakes Bay Oyster Company, and the integrity of science has spiraled into the dirt. This long-term argument – never pretty – has taken a serious turn for the worse in the past two months with an escalation of personal, ad hominem attacks and an inexcusable defense of bad science by the National Park Service by a small number of loud players with vested interests. In particular, we decry the recent barrage of letter after letter published in the West Marin Citizen filled with personal attacks on the integrity of a highly respected scientist, Dr. Corey Goodman. Dr. Goodman, at huge personal cost to his time and reputation, has been in the front lines of efforts to ensure that the National Park Service’s blatant disregard for scientific integrity does not go unchallenged. His efforts, partly at the request ofCountySupervisor Steve Kinsey, have exposed serious and serial bad science.

The NPS has refused to respond to his scientific analyses, refused to convene any sort of independent review, and continues to both mischaracterize the environmental risks of the DBOC and to refuse to analyze and review their own evidence that contradicts their own findings, including over 200,000 photographs.

We were also compelled to write this letter because false claims are going unchallenged. In the most recent issue of the West Marin Citizen, a letter writer said: “I do find it significant that no other eminent scientists have concerned themselves to corroborate Dr. Goodman’s analysis.” This is false. Several eminent scientists have participated with Dr. Goodman in his analyses, and while readers can judge whether we fall into that category, the two of us have experience and expertise of some note and we fully support his work as well – as we have publicly stated. Indeed, it would be more accurate to say that no eminent scientists have successfully disputed Dr. Goodman’s analysis.

We are both elected members of the NationalAcademyof Sciences. One of us is a MacArthur Fellow and President of the Pacific Institute. The other is Chancellor’s Professor of Chemistry at U.C. Berkeley. Gleick also serves as chair of the American GeophysicalUnion’s Task Force on Scientific Integrity. Both of us have reviewed the NPS science, and are deeply disturbed by its bias, unsupported characterizations, and misrepresentations.

In fact, Dr. Goodman has been far more restrained in his public statements than we have. One of us (KR) recently wrote to Department of the Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and said: “I regard this as fraud and in other occupations it could be prosecuted.”

The other of us (PG) recently wrote to Salazar’s science advisor, Dr. Marcia McNutt, and said: “This is not the first instance of scientific misconduct and misrepresentation by NPS scientists at PRNS.”

Recent letters in The Citizen have also cherry-picked phrases from the Department of the Interior “Frost Report” of March 22, 2011 on the science at PRNS to try to cast a negative impression of Dr. Goodman. In fact, that Report described the NPS scientists as having “bias,” “advocacy,” a “troubling mind-set,” of having “mishandled” data, acted “improperly,” and showed a “willingness to allow subjective beliefs and values to guide scientific conclusions.” The Report stated:

“This misconduct arose from incomplete and biased evaluation and from blurring the line between exploration and advocacy through research.” The Report went on to conclude that the three NPS scientists had all violated the NPS Code of Scientific and Scholarly Conduct. Those are the key findings of the Frost Report, not the few words cherry picked by the letter writers trying to discredit those who have tried to hold the NPS accountable for the science it publishes.

Scientists are often reluctant to enter the public fray precisely because we prefer to argue facts and numbers and analysis in cases when personal attacks, vitriol, and emotion dominate. Indeed, other scientists have told us they do not want to see their good names dragged through the mud by the same kind of vicious attacks that Park supporters have launched against Dr. Goodman. We admire Dr. Goodman for his courage. We stand with him on the side of scientific integrity.

It is time for the NPS to respond directly and publicly to his criticisms or their flawed work should be retracted. Allowing the draft Environmental Impact Statement to cite this so-called science while the NPS scientists refuse to publicly debate it is a disservice to the community and to science. Independent of the debate over the oyster farm, if the decision is tainted with bad science, we all lose.

Dr. Peter Gleick, Berkeley;

Dr. Kenneth Raymond, Berkeley

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa’s letter to Secretary of the Interior Kenneth Salazar.

2011-10-20 DEI to Salazar-DOI – oysters due 11-4 11-7