In The Seattle Times yesterday, there is an excellent article that talks a lot about shifting baselines in Puget Sound, including issues with population growth, the loss of a healthy marine ecosystem, and the formation of the Puget Sound Partnership. The article is an excellent complement to Randy Olson's recent flash video on Shifting Baselines in the Sound. William Dietrich, the author of the article, also calls for more science to understand baselines:
One of the most difficult things about Puget Sound is how little we still know. We should be able to answer three questions:1. What was the biological baseline of Puget Sound -- how many fish, birds and so on -- before humans arrived?
2. What is the census of species now?
3. What is a sensible goal for bringing them back?
I don't think we can answer any of those questions very exactly. One thing that would help is more science. The current two-year budget allocates just two percent of its total, or $7 million, for scientific research. I question whether that is adequate. In my experience, the same relative handful of underfunded biologists year after year try to keep track of where we are. We need the software wizards of Puget Sound to put together an accessible database.
So when do we start?
Environment
Comments
As a Puget Sound local, I applaud your interest. BUT, and this is a big BUT...it ain't more stinking science that we need. We need ACTION.
William Dietrich mentions needing science in the S. Times article you quote, but his conclusion is that it's mostly not a science problem. I agree.
We know enough to act, and we don't act. Until we do better with that problem, more science won't help us. Science without action is worse than useless, because it gives the appearance of doing something.
So OK, this is shifting baselines, and the Sound is a good subject for talking shifting baselines. I agree with that. But I simply must rant everytime I see a call for more science where we know enough to act already. I want to see smart people like you target the question of why do we fail to act when we know enough to starting saving Puget Sound. What do you think?
Posted by: Mark Powell | April 21, 2008 10:21 AM
I absolutely agree with you and William Dietrich (and his call for marine reserves in Puget Sound). I thought it was cool to call for scientific baselines, though, and given this is shifting baselines at Science Blogs, thought I would emphasize that point, since we believe the whole concept of shifting baselines in an opportunity to inject science into conservation and communication. We also know that, in the U.S., almost all conservation is science-based.
What I would love to see is a database with a baseline population, current population, restoration objective, conservation agenda, and budget/timeline that that agenda needs. I think the folks working on marine debris in the Puget Sound are one good example of this. What would you like to see happen in Puget Sound (i.e., what do you think are reasonable conservation objectives? What % set aside as reserves? And what science is this based on?)? Then I can try to get some students at Western Washington University to rally behind these objectives and maybe even suggest topics to the student newspaper. In some sense, it's not just about awareness but then the question of what should Puget Sounders DO to make a difference?
Posted by: Jennifer L. Jacquet | April 21, 2008 10:37 AM
Jennifer, You're great, but it is absolutely not true that almost all US conservation is science-based. In fact, I challenge you to name ONE conservation issue in the US that is science-based. I don't think any US conservation is science-based, and I'm a longtime US conservation professional.
Hope this doesn't sound too petulant. It's a good subject for a discussion, if we really hold opposite positions like this.
Posted by: Mark Powell | April 21, 2008 7:15 PM
Mark - I'm sure you recall that was how we started Shifting Baselines in 2002 -- you were there. The basic feeling was there's plenty of science and plenty of conservation groups with "solutions," what there isn't enough of is motivation among the general public. And that's where mass media comes in. It can motivate people. We know this from plenty of studies. Certainly Al Gore knows it. I think your point is absolutely right. Enough with the science, lets make things happen.
Posted by: Randy Olson | April 21, 2008 7:19 PM
Hi Randy, getting a little shelter from the storm over here in marine science again?
Posted by: Mark Powell | April 22, 2008 1:04 PM