tags: MacDonald, USFWS, endangered species, politics
Some of you might not yet know this, but in the highly charged atmosphere that that existed at the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Julie A. MacDonald, deputy assistant secretary who oversaw the USFWS endangered species program, finally has resigned. After an egregious and ongoing abuse of power, MacDonald was finally rebuked for altering scientific documents to reduce protections for endangered species and for providing internal documents to lobbyists.
MacDonald is a civil engineer with no formal training in natural sciences and who clearly is lacking in scientific integrity because she advocated altering scientific papers in ways that favored development and agricultural interests at the expense of endangered species -- all of which causes scientists and interested others to ask how on earth did she get her position in the first place?? Among her more reprehensible acts, MacDonald;
- Overruled field biologists on the habitat requirements of the greater sage grouse, disputing their conclusion that oil and gas operations could interfere with the birds' breeding and nesting.
- Overrode field experts on designating habitat for the endangered southwestern willow flycatcher.
- Sent information about a contentious endangered species issue to a friend she had met in an online role-playing game.
- Pressured staff members to combine three different populations of the California tiger salamander into one, which in effect excluded it from the endangered species list.
- Ordered department scientists to reverse their conclusions on the habitat for bull trout in the Klamath River Basin. She insisted on a 90% reduction in habitat. The final ruling reduced the habitat from 296 miles to 42 miles, an 86% reduction.
So radical were MacDonald's changes that within the last six years, 75% of the endangered species reports from the Fish and Wildlife Service's Western offices did not have standard signoffs by scientific staff members.
"It's pretty incredible how deeply and directionally she reached, ordering changes with no scientific grounding," said Jamie Rappaport Clark, executive vice president of Defenders of Wildlife and former director of the Fish and Wildlife Service. "It was as if compliance with the law was secondary at best, and irrelevant at worst."
Cited story.
- Log in to post comments
Joan Baez banned at Walter Reed hospital
She resigned because a report came out suggesting that she violated the ESA, and that she should be investigated for it, and I guess some House oversight committee was actually going to look into it(?). I wonder if the investigations will now stop, or can they, if they find her guilty of violating the ESA or other laws, put her in jail? Accountability is the Republican watchword, after all! ;-)
Another Bush hack goes down. Two seem to emerge for every one that is forced out.
An engineer, huh? How much would you bet she's a Creationist? ;-)
well, those who protest Devorah's 'political bent' ohm this BLOG, this gives reason for constant observations of these crooks and liars!
They will ruin EPA, ESA and on and on without looking back. Playing Science as above the fray is insane!
Why the sneer at engineers?
Oh I know, engineers are just the people who fix your car engine and are covered in grease. You're so superior to them.
If she is a creationist sneer at her for that (but check first), not for being an engineer.
I would conjecture, given that Rove appears to be an atheist, that many within the political sphere just follow their leaders and pocket the cash. The piper plays what s/he is paid to play.
Yes, I do know that some engineers are creationists; so are some mathematicians and, heaven forfend, even some scientists (I am using your apparent rational that having a degree in a subject makes one part of the group, so please don't respond about "real" scientists or I'll respond with "real" engineers).
Apologise to Grrlscientist, but this insulting of entire professions is beyond the pale.
Good riddance to bad rubbish; hopefully the investigation will continue and she will be called to account for her actions.
Can her actions be reversed?
Re Chris Wills
"Yes, I do know that some engineers are creationists; so are some mathematicians and, heaven forfend, even some scientists"
I can testify to that. My PhD thesis adviser was an old earth creationist (pretty hard for an elementary particle physicist to be a young earth creationist and still believe in quantum mechanics).
Sent information about a contentious endangered species issue to a friend she had met in an online role-playing game.
What
Could we have some more information on that maybe?
As an engineer I'll also take exception to the creationist sneer/smear. But I also want to take a swipe at the credentialism (and the implied criticism) in the blog content itself. You cannot say that because someone has an engineering he/she does not have formal training in the natural sciences - unless, of course, you are equating the natural sciences with a PhD in biology. Most engineers take courses in physics and chemistry - natural sciences last time I checked. I get real tired of the-holier-than-thou attitude "scientists" take toward engineers, as if we are in intellectually inferior species; as if we cannot make sense of scientific evidence. Ms MacDonald's shortcomings were due to her politics and personal management style, not her engineering education.
coin: look in the cited article and you will find a little more detail about this. MacDonald apparently played online role playing games to reduce job stress.
fwalchak: i think you are being offended without reason. physics and chemistry have nothing to do with making decisions about endangered species. i personally have nothing against engineers, but i would never dream of encroaching into their field of expertise, and i would expect they would show similar respect for other fields of expertise. i mean, seriously, you can never convince me that MacDonald was the best qualified candidate for her position, even leaving aside her obvious lack of scientific integrity.
Very glad to hear it :o)
Encroach away, it is amazing how many people without the relevant engineering knowledge (accountants especially) think they know better than the engineer in his/her engineering discipline.
I do take your point about listening and following the advise of those with the relevant expertise.
No, she wasn't the correct person for the job.
But I suspect that her lack of relevant scientific knowledge wasn't the reason she made the decisions she did.
Off topic comment:
As an engineer (environmental, according to the slip of paper) I am happy to listen to comments, questions and advise from outside my supposed area of expertise.
The reason is that the we can become rather hidebound (especially as we age and turn into managers/consultants) and as nature has already solved many of the problems we face listening to those with expertise in the biological sciences is very useful.