CCFA Editorial

Jodi Frediani, the Environmental Movement, and Critical Thinking

Jodi Frediani?

What is an environmentalist; environmentalism?

How much regulation is too much regulation?

How do you know if what you are reading is true?

Conclusion

Footnotes

References

Jodi Frediani?

"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
Mark Twain [1]

"Practical politics consists in ignoring facts."
Henry Adams [1]

As freedom-loving Americans and members of CCFA we value our first amendment rights as much as anyone. That is why we appreciate and understand the need for differing points of view. We realize that even irrational beliefs have a place in our American zeitgeist. However, the members of CCFA predominantly value the truth. Opinions based upon emotional, spiritual, or religious paradigms are meaningful, but should not be confused with scientific fact. The following is meant to provide our members with some basic tools to make the distinction between legitimate attempts to add to our body of knowledge and fabricated misinformation.

A perfect example of the type of spin on truth that many self-titled environmentalists preach is provided by Jodi Frediani, Executive Director of Citizens for Responsible Forest Management (CRFM) and the Chair of the Forestry Task Force of the Sierra Club's Ventana Chapter (see December 2003 Forestry Update #7 & #8: http://www.crfm.org/update.archive.html). Normally, deceptive reproaches do not merit our attention; however, in the arena of public discourse, a lie told often enough can take on the aura of truth. Thus, for the benefit of those who have not the time to review the issues critically, or others who have been misled by the appearance of good intentions, we respectfully offer a response to the most recent misrepresentation by Frediani and CRFM.

Frediani makes the following statements regarding CCFA's diligent efforts to bring forward a rational, independent synthesis of our local coho salmon issue:

“In November, 2003 CCFA filed a second "delist coho" petition with the National Marine Fisheries Service.  This one is 29 pages long, relies on numerous newspaper clippings from earlier in the century, and is entitled ‘Petition to redefine the southern extent of the Central California Coho ESU'” (Frediani, 2004).

First of all, the November 2003 petition was not filed by CCFA. It was filed by Homer T. McCrary. Second, this petition to NMFS (NOAA Fisheries) does not “rely” on any one type or source of information. It is a multidisciplinary investigation that incorporates archaeological, historical, biological, and geomorphological data to arrive at a rational synoptic conclusion regarding our local coho salmon. Our work reveals many relevant facts that have not been previously considered. Since this petition to NMFS, our work has been submitted to the California Fish and Game Commission and an independent review:

• A Petition to the California Fish and Game Commission to Redefine the Southern Boundary of the Central California Coast Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) Evolutionary Significant Unit submitted by Big Creek Lumber Co. and the Central Coast Forest Association. 17 June 2004.
  
  
• Were Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) South of San Francisco Ever Native, Indigenous? by V. W. Kaczynski, Ph.D., Certified Fisheries Scientist Emeritus. 24 April 2004.

The petition states:

“Restrictive regulations consequent to their current improper listing are unnecessary. They create seriously disruptive, negative impacts on my family and all forestland owners, forest professionals, anglers, and others who use and enjoy these forests and streams. Small business owners, homeowners, farmers, foresters, forest landowners, and citizens seeking recreation are experiencing an unnecessary devaluation of property, loss of freedom and employment, and general deterioration of their quality of life. We live under the threat of federal action for removing a tree, maintaining our roads and driveways, clearing our power line easements and many other normal activities attendant to rural property ownership and use, all unnecessarily resulting from the invalid coho listing" (McCrary, 2003).

Frediani includes a portion of this paragraph in her critique on the CRFM website, perhaps to give the impression that it is the essence of the petition. Any endangered species listing is going to, by the very nature of its regulatory process, create disruptive impacts on local residents. That much is obvious. However, it is not in the slightest way the basis for the petition. If the listing of coho salmon were legitimate and based upon the best available scientific and commercial data (as it is mandated to be), we would agreeably assume the burden that comes with an endangered species listing. CCFA members comprise avid fishermen, naturalists, and, yes, environmentalists. There is no plot to eradicate coho salmon. Yet, when people realize that...

• the native origin of our coho is questionable,
• even if our coho are native, their populations prior to stocking were likely to have been insignificantly small in order to have eluded the archaeological record and to have consistently gone unnoticed by world-renowned ichthyologists during several surveys of our local streams,
• frequent, naturally-occurring stochastic events are the greatest threat to local coho salmon populations,
• no valid estimates of local coho salmon populations predating 100 years have been determined,
• coho salmon from northern waters have been imported into Santa Cruz County streams at least as early as 1906,
• since 1906 to the present, coho salmon have been recurrently supported by artificial propagation,
• the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) is responsible for recent obstacles to local coho hatchery operations (Streig, 2003),
• Waddell Creek and Scott Creek are healthy ecosystems,
• high coho salmon abundance suppresses steelhead trout, an undisputedly native fish which is also listed,
• no indication has been given by CDFG or NOAA Fisheries of how large a coho population our local streams are capable of supporting,
• restoration efforts are overwhelmingly focused on inland habitat (where the fish spend about one third of their lives) and do not adequately address the primary limiting factors,
• the CDFG restoration strategy for the Big Basin hydrologic unit alone carries a price tag of a quarter of a billion dollars,
• the specific conditions under which local coho can be considered “restored” are nonexistent,

...suddenly enduring the burden of an endangered species listing seems unreasonable (see www.ccfassociation.org/coho.htm).

Still, Frediani continues:

“While the Petition includes numerous out-of-context quotes by turn-of-the-last century scientist, David Starr Jordan, it does not reference the recent historical work by current fisheries experts, Drs. Moyle and Yoshiyama of UC Davis.  The Jordan excerpted quotes appear contradictory: ‘only the quinnat [Oncorhynchus tschawytscha] and the dog salmon have been noticed south of San Francisco' and ‘only the king salmon has been noticed south of San Francisco'” (Frediani, 2004).

Frediani's attempt to create a smokescreen actually exposes the fact that she is willing to criticize things she has not bothered to read. First, rather than tell you that our David Starr Jordan quotes are not “out-of-context” we invite you to decide for yourself. Click on the quotes below to see a scanned image of the page where they appear:

• “Oncorhynchus kisutch … Sacramento river to Puget Sound and northward…” (Jordan and Gilbert, 1876-1919, pg. 39).
• “O. kisutch … Abundant from San Francisco northward” (Jordan et al., 1882, pg. 308).
• “All the species [Oncorhynchus spp.] have been seen by us in the Columbia and Fraser River… Only the king salmon [Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tschawytscha] has been noticed south of San Francisco” (Jordan, 1892a; Jordan, 1892b, pg. 10; Jordan, 1894, pg. 131).
• “This species [coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch] is not common south of the Columbia, but it is sometimes taken in California” (Jordan, 1894, pg. 131). [2]
• “Abundant from San Francisco northward, especially in Puget Sound and the Alaskan Fjords” (Jordan and Evermann, 1896).
• “[Oncorhynchus kisutch] is abundant from San Francisco northward” (Jordan, 1904a, pg. 154; Jordan and Evermann, 1905).
• “Only the quinnat [Chinook or king salmon, Oncorhynchus tschawytscha] and the dog salmon [chum salmon, Oncorhynchus keta] have been noticed south of San Francisco” (Jordan, 1904b; Jordan, 1907).

Second, you can see that David Starr Jordan wrote that only king salmon (Oncorhynchus tschawytscha) had been noticed south of San Francisco until the 1890s, after which Stanford ichthyologists discovered that dog (chum) salmon occasionally stray into the coastal streams of the Monterey Bay. Clearly, David Starr Jordan's work reflected the most up-to-date information. It is transparent that Frediani reversed the order in which these quotes occur and then failed to give their associated publication dates.

Lastly, the Brown, Moyle, and Yoshiyama study (Brown et al., 1994) to which Frediani refers is fully dealt with on page 20 of the petition to NMFS , and on pages 5-7 of the addendum to the petition.

Frediani also comments on a related study as follows:

“Over the past couple of years a salmon DNA study for the Sonoma County Water Agency was conducted and finally completed.  Entitled "Documenting Biodiversity of Coastal Salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) in Northern California" . It was done by Dennis Hedgecock and others of the Bodega Marine Laboratory and UC Davis for the Sonoma county [sic] Water Agency and the final report is dated December 2002.  It seems to be pretty definitive and says that the coho south of San Francisco are significantly different from those north of SF.  The scientists studied fish as far south as Scott Creek.  Hopefully, this will put to rest the allegations of Big Creek Lumber, Bob Briggs and the Central Coast Forest Association that coho south of San Francisco are not a native population” (Frediani, 2004).

The truth is, the study by Hedgecock et al. (2002) is far from definitive. Many criticisms of the report's conclusions continue to surface, not the least of which is the study's very limited sample size. Also, Hedgecock et al. do not adequately take into consideration the potential contribution of straying. Furthermore, the study lacks a historical perspective that could be particularly significant given the history of different brood stock sources introduced to Santa Cruz County coastal streams over the last 125 years. Indeed, by 1885 the California Fish Commission had distributed more than 70 million salmon throughout the state (Shebley, 1922, pg. 96). Hedgecock et al. (2002, pg. 66) claim that they “welcome the information regarding the history of the Waddell Creek and Scott Creek coho salmon populations”, and they admit that this information “may provide insight into their genetic affinities”. However, they dismiss their lack of historical facts by stating, “it is unfortunate that this information has not been published in peer-reviewed journals.” Ironically, this study by Hedgecock et al. (2002) has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal either. Even if the conclusion reached by Hedgecock et al. regarding the congruence of geographic and genetic distance were legitimate, their hypothesis that anthropogenic mixing has been ineffective is unlikely, unverified, and probably untestable. Most importantly, their conclusion does not concern any morphological differences. The study refers only to genetic distance determined by latent DNA. So Frediani's claim that this study shows that our coho are unique makes it clear that she did not read it. But don't take our word for it. If you are not satisfied with Frediani's assurances that this report “seems to be pretty definitive” we invite you to read it yourself (a courtesy you almost never get from Frediani):

• Hedgecock et al., 2002

Additionally we are fortunate that the Sonoma County Water Agency solicited three outside reviews of Hedgecock et al. (2002). Click on the links below to see what three experts in the field thought:

• Ruth Sundermeyer, Entrix, Inc.
• Bernie May, UC Davis
• Chris Beasley, FishPro

In the future Frediani may want to read more carefully that which she has decided to criticize. Sadly, this is not the first time Frediani has been exposed (example 1, example 2, example 3). Nor is it the last time political activists will seek to deceive. Therefore, we present a brief discussion of some of the things one should consider when debating these issues:

What is an environmentalist; environmentalism?

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters" -Daniel Webster [1].

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary" -H. L. Mencken [1].

"Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule" -Friedrich Nietzsche [1].

According to CRFM:

“The members of CRFM have a fundamental interest in living in a high quality environment; we enjoy living in a world where natural values are respected and preserved. CRFM is committed to preserving and enhancing the ecological stability of the Santa Cruz Mountains environment, especially wildlife habitat and watershed stability, water quality and all beneficial uses of water including fisheries” (Frediani, 2004).

Well, you do not need to be a CRFM member to appreciate a high quality environment, natural values, wildlife habitat, water quality, etc. In fact, in all probability most people in Santa Cruz County care about the environment. So, what defines an environmentalist?

Certainly calling yourself an environmentalist does not make you one. Likewise, not carrying the environmentalist label does not mean you are an enemy of the environment. The term is slippery to say the least. For instance, if "environmentalist" describes a person that cares about the environment, then this category includes both Frediani and the professional foresters she frequently disagrees with. If, on the other hand, "environmentalist" describes a person with legitimate credentials that uses the scientific method to understand forest ecology and determine rational solutions to our environmental problems, then Frediani is actually not an environmentalist.

At CCFA we believe an environmentalist is someone who is a part of the natural world. Such people include responsible rural residents who work hard to own, live on, understand, love, and properly care for their land. People who have dedicated their lives to the legitimate study of forestry, biology, and other natural sciences are environmentalists. Environmentalists are people who work for companies like Big Creek Lumber that has strived to ameliorate our impact on the environment for the last 58 years, has received national and international recognition for its sustainable forestry practices, is certified by the Forest Stewardship Council, and protects thousands of acres of forestland from subdivision and development. Environmentalists are people who focus on the actual sources of our environmental problems, where they occur (rather than bullying the nearest lumber mill with lies and onerous regulation), and develop realistic solutions that do not disregard human life.

While the media is fond of referring to certain political activists as environmentalists, we should not jump to the conclusion that these same people represent what is best for the earth. Our environmental problems are far more complex than just finding the "bad guys." Indeed, as a point of departure, the distinction must be made between conservation and preservation. As William Libby, professor emeritus of forestry at UC Berkeley so aptly put it, "Conservation means you use resources well and responsibly. Preservation means you are rich enough to set aside things you want and buy them from someone else" (Knudson, 2003).

An "ecological footprint" is a measure of the area required to produce the resources consumed and absorb the wastes generated by each person. The largest ecological footprint ever calculated (27 acres per person a year) belongs to Marin County, California. Source: Knudson (2003).

Over 62 lumber mills have closed in California since 1990 while timber production from National Forests has dropped 80 percent. Not surprisingly, 2001 saw 26.8 billion pounds of paper and a record 18.5 billion board feet of Canadian softwood lumber imported to the United States. Strikingly, 90 percent of timber harvested in Canada is clear-cut and two-thirds comes from old-growth stands (ibid.).

The ultimate result of misguided environmental policies is the exportation of our industry and jobs (except for the environmental industry). In the process we are also exporting our self-sufficiency, our environmental problems, our responsibility, and our gross domestic product. Usually it is into the hands of other countries that are far less willing and/or able to confront the real issues. The irony is that by harassing sustainable forestry operations, lawsuit-driven organizations such as the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund (Earthjustice) may inadvertently be worsening our global environmental crisis while alienating those making real strides toward sustainability (Knudson, 2001).

In reality, perspectives on the environment range from the radically antagonistic and hypocritical to the blithe, hedonistic, and/or overly technologically optimistic. However, most Americans do share a concern for the environment. In a study comparing members of the general public with highly active members of the Audubon Society, the Sierra Club, the Earth Island Institute, and Earth First!, Ellis and Thompson (1997) found that the two study groups differed most, not in their stated goals, but in their prescriptions.

"Our point is not that activists want environmental amenities that the general public does not value - quite the contrary. Both want cleaner air and water, wilderness and species preservation, habitat protection, and a healthier, safer earth. Both are concerned about environmental degradation and are uneasy about the prospect of environmental catastrophe. But the divergence in their cultural biases shape the means activists choose to realize shared environmental goals. More specifically, since many or perhaps most activists do not trust markets, believing it unjust that resource allocations should reflect willingness and ability to pay, they may spurn policies that rely on markets to solve problems. Our evidence suggests that the public may be more willing to accept such market-based solutions to environmental problems" (Ellis and Thompson, 1997).

Even within the environmental movement exists a vast spectrum of differing points of view (Hinchman and Hinchman, 1989). Many small grassroots organizations have empowered their communities to effect positive changes that reflect a mutual respect for each other and their environment. Other organizations advocating broad goals and overarching social change espouse unconscionably simplified and often xenophobic approaches that include the gentrification of nature, lies, and necessary scapegoats (Crichton, 2003; Eilperin, 2004; Elsbach and Sutton, 1992; Manes, 1990; Moore, 2002). Indeed, there are organizations with a surprising amount of economic and political power that believe humans are inherently the problem and should all be forced to live in an Orwellian world where people are denied access to nature (Manes, 1990). Certainly George Orwell could not have foreseen a diffuse network of "environmentalists" ushering in this grim future. Nevertheless, Orwell was cautioning us against any political force that strives to shelter us from ourselves and justifies its means with its ends. None of us want to believe that the environmental movement might help bring about a brave new world of totalitarianism. It is as if anyone wearing the environmental veil (even just by association) can do no wrong (Elsbach and Sutton, 1992). This veneer of benevolence combined with environmentalist elements of self-righteousness is actually the movement's most dangerous distinction. As the environmental movement gains political power, it becomes prey to would-be tyrants bent on grasping some of that power for their own purposes (Eilperin, 2004; Rothman and Lichter, 1987). Make no mistake, many of these "environmentalists" want nothing less than to disenfranchise private property ownership and control the very resources that are most critical for human subsistence. The thirst for that degree of power has inebriated the Fredianis of the world since the birth of civilization. By playing on our good intentions, insecurities, apathy, and ignorance (Jordan and Maloney, 1998; Ross, 1991), these people and their respective associations stand to wield an obscene amount of power, especially given the fact that we did not elect them and they are not accountable to us. Tragically, the first casualty will be our hard-earned environmental ethic. As more and more dogmatic political activists are willing to compromise facts in the name of environmentalism, our real problem solvers will find it harder to be heard.

If nothing else, keep in mind that there is no true definition of “environmentalism.” It comprises science, politics, religion, image, and culture, and yet is not constrained by any of these categories. Pay attention to the way some self-appointed environmentalists will shift among these separate realms of rhetoric. The danger is that what is perfectly valid for religion or culture may not be valid for science or policymaking, and vice versa. In the end what you think you see may not be what you get. As tempting as it may be for us to distill so many complex issues down to one word, reality is never that black and white. The world did not get to its current state overnight and we will not solve all our problems overnight, with or without coercion, misrepresentation, and litigious intimidation.

While a thorough discussion of the environmental movement is beyond the scope of this document we leave you with some insights by co-founder of Greenpeace, Dr. Patrick Moore, and Dr. Reid A. Bryson. Reid A. Bryson is Senior Scientist at the Center for Climatic Research and Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies at the University of Wisconsin.

"It's easy to see that the mainstream of the environmental movement has fallen prey to misguided priorities, misinformation, dogmatism, and self-interest. Soon after I left Greenpeace in 1986, I found out that they had initiated a pension plan. I knew I had got out just in time. In the early days many of us realized that our job was to work ourselves out of the job, not to give ourselves jobs for life. I feel the same way about my efforts to promote sustainability, sustainable forestry, and the application of science and logic to environmental issues. I am sometimes amazed by the fact that this seems more difficult than my original work to promote awareness of ecology and the environment. Perhaps this time I do have a job for life. Still no pension plan, however!" (Moore, 2002).

"It is undeniable that "thinking globally and acting locally" is necessary, but it appears that many environmental organizations lose sight of the global or even interconnecting dimensions of the problems. Perhaps part of the problem is that Environmentalism has become big business. Every week, sometimes every day, I receive requests to donate to one or another environmental 'cause.' Perhaps I should say I receive requests to donate to some environmental organization ... There are many people who call themselves environmentalists who are very knowledgeable and who have a balanced view of the world. I listen carefully to their arguments. There are many others who use the same name whose knowledge is narrow, whose logic is faulty, and some at least have a real agenda quite different from protection of the environmental systems. These people are dangerous to the environmental movement, for they may destroy the credibility of the entire group and endanger the future of our society while putatively working to protect it" (Bryson, 1993).

There is no definite answer to this question. Instead we provide cautious suggestions and some food for thought from the author of our Constitution and others.

Beware of anyone who is quick to propagate fear and crisis, cast blame on others, and then ignore their own role as urban first world consumers. It is these same people who are ready to trade in your liberties for more government bureaucracy and regulation. Remember that anything (land, liberty, privacy, money, decisions, etc.) that is transferred into the hands of the few for the betterment of the whole is a farce that wears many masks and feeds on your insecurities. Each and every one of these sacrifices represents a consolidation of power.

"It is not by the consolidation, or concentration of powers, but by their distribution, that good government is effected" -Thomas Jefferson (Autobiography, 1821) [1].

"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus, Roman historian [1].

"The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedom" -Supreme Court Justice William Orville Douglas [1].

"A noiseless course, not meddling with the affairs of others, unattractive of notice, is a mark that society is going on in happiness. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy" -Thomas Jefferson (to Thomas Cooper, 1802) [1].

"A just mean [would be] a government of laws addressed to the reason of the people and not to their weaknesses" -Thomas Jefferson (to Thomas Mann Randolph, 1793) [1].

"Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread" -Thomas Jefferson (Autobiography, 1821) [1].

How do you know if what you are reading is true?

"As long as people will accept crap, it will be financially profitable to dispense it" -Dick Cavett [1].

"He that will not reason is a bigot, He that cannot reason is a fool, He that dares not reason is a slave" -William Drummond [1].

"If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them" -Isaac Asimov [1].

In today's information age it can be very difficult to distinguish fact from fiction. Clearly, the first step in making this distinction is to assess the evidence. Academics facilitate this type of analysis by providing a list of their sources of information. The quality of such a list should also be determined. References should preferably be peer-reviewed, published documents that are relatively easy to locate. Other sources, such as personal communications, can be difficult or impossible to verify and should never comprise the bulk of the evidence. Generally, it is a good idea to postpone judgment until some or all of the references can be verified. Sometimes even seemingly good reference lists can be used as a "smokescreen." Occasionally authors will cite sources that do not actually contain the cited information, either out of insufficient care or perhaps even hoping that you will not bother to check their references (critical discourse analysis, pg. 5). It may also be that the claim is actually a misinterpretation of the source cited (ibid.). Always question the source of the claim and, if need be, evaluate the references of the secondary or tertiary sources. If the author does not provide a list of references and is not an expert with legitimate credentials, the claim is unsupported and should be treated with a high degree of skepticism. Likewise, hasty generalizations and anecdotal evidence are usually clear signals of both bad reasoning and/or a specific preclusion. Vague or ambiguous statements may also be a good indication that you are not getting the truth.

Weak arguments may rely on pseudoreasoning to convince you. The following are some examples of common psuedoreasoning fallacies:

Smokescreen / Red Herring : Any inducement that erroneously leads one to accept or reject a claim but is in fact irrelevant to the truth of the claim. This fallacy occurs by offering too many details in order either to obscure the point or to cover-up counter-evidence.

Ad Hominem : Sometimes it is easy to confuse the validity of a claim, theory or policy, with that of its source. We may be inclined to reject a valid claim if it comes from someone we disapprove of; however, this does not make the claim invalid.

Circumstantial Ad Hominem : This fallacy occurs when it is inferred that a claim a person makes is false simply because somebody in that position could be expected to make such claims (see bias below).

Straw Man : This pseudoreasoning occurs when someone ignores an opponent's actual position and presents a distorted, oversimplified, or misrepresented version of that position (see www.crfm.org ).

Irrelevant Authority : A person can sometimes bestow an essentially meaningless title upon him/herself in order to appear as an authority on a subject.

Appeal to Belief : The fact that many people believe a claim does not serve as evidence that the claim is true.

Proof Surrogates : These are expressions used to suggest that there is evidence or authority for a claim without actually citing such evidence or authority.

Appeal to Emotion : This fallacy is committed when someone substitutes the elicitation of strong emotions, such as fear, guilt, pity, etc. for evidence. This one is very common among eco-activists.

False Dilemma : This pattern of pseudoreasoning results from limiting consideration to only two alternatives when in fact there are others that deserve consideration. A type of false dilemma can also be the perfectionist fallacy where we reject an option solely on the basis that it is not perfect. Another false dilemma is the "line-drawing fallacy" which insists that a line must be drawn at some precise point when, in fact, it is not necessary that such a line be drawn.

Slippery Slope : “If we let X happen, the next thing you know Y will be happening.” Sometimes X and Y can be the same kind of thing, but that does not mean that one will inevitably lead to another. It is up to the person who offers the slippery slope claim to show why the first action will lead to the second. The other version of slippery slope occurs when someone claims we must continue a certain course of action simply because w have already begun that course.

Precision vs. Accuracy : Precision is the quality of being sharply defined, whereas accuracy is the conformity to fact. Some documents contain high levels of precision to conceal dubious accuracy.

Begging the Question : This is any form of argument in which the conclusion occurs as one of the premises, or a chain of arguments in which the final conclusion is a premise of one of the earlier arguments in the chain.

Inappropriate Burden of Proof : This type of pseudoreasoning occurs when the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. A good rule of thumb is that the burden of proof should automatically fall on those supporting the affirmative side of an issue rather than those supporting the negative side. For example, on the issue of ghosts, the burden of proof remains on the side of those stating that ghosts do exist. When somebody claims that we should believe in something because nobody has proven that it is not so, it is also called an appeal to ignorance. Frediani's use of “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” (Frediani, 2003) offers a clear example of distortion of a principal of logic to try to support a false conclusion. As such, it is a good example of both a smokescreen and an inappropriate burden of proof fallacy. To begin with, our hypothesis regarding the historical origins of coho salmon south of San Francisco is supported by multiple sources of evidence. To prove a negative in this case is both inappropriate and impossible. Suffice it to say that somehow this mythical population of coho salmon escaped the archaeological record, several scientific surveys, generations of anglers, two newspapers, a popular angling journal, and a fish culturist operating a fish trap on Scotts Creek (McCrary, 2003). Most importantly, the belief that native coho salmon historically teemed in coastal streams south of San Francisco prior to artificial planting has not been proven or even supported with valid evidence.

Bias vs. Objectivity : Bias is a concept that is frequently misunderstood and misused. Bias is defined as a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation. Bias does not mean having personal interests. Although personal interests may have the potential to prevent objectivity, the presence of personal interests alone does not preclude an objective point of view. In reality we all have personal interests that usually determine our attention to certain issues in the first place. Therefore, we all have the potential for bias. We understand the world around us through the acquisition and use of knowledge. Yet, the process of forming concepts and making conceptual integrations is not perfect. We may have been lied to or we might be unable to obtain certain relevant data. Unfortunately we cannot directly prevent these errors because they originate outside of us. Within ourselves we can also make logical errors, ignore relevant evidence, or allow our emotions to influence our evaluation of the facts. Theoretically, we can prevent these errors by reasoning only on the basis of the facts and adhering to the laws of logic. Thus, objectivity is a goal that few if any of us ever attain. A good indication that someone is biased is if he/she consistently takes a position that does not reflect consideration of all the relevant facts and may, indeed, ignore or discount some evidence.

Ego Bias : This is an attitude in which individuals believe their own understanding and good intentions are so superior to their opponents that they excuse themselves from the normal requirements of proper investigation and, further, sometimes of civil discourse in confrontations with people they designate as inferior or enemies.

Appeal to Consequences of a Belief : This line of pseudoreasoning is fallacious because the consequences of a belief have no bearing on whether the belief is true or false. For example, if someone were to say "If flying space monkeys don't exist, then I will be miserable, so they must exist" it would be clear that this would not be a good line of reasoning.

Appeal to Novelty : This fallacy occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is new or recent.

Appeal to Ridicule : This sort of pseudoreasoning is fallacious because mocking a claim does not show that it is false.

Bandwagon Fallacy : This is a fallacy in which a threat of rejection by one's peers is substituted for evidence.

Stereotypes : When a writer or speaker lumps a group of individuals together under one name or description, such labeling generally results in stereotyping. A stereotype is a thought or image about a group of people based on little or no evidence or on distortion.

Conclusion

Once you begin to delve critically into some of our local issues, you may be shocked to discover the amount and caliber of fraud in circulation. So overwhelming is the quantity of disinformation, that it has been suggested that some political activists claiming to represent animals and trees may be involved in a single-minded strategy to simply overload the opposition with sound bytes. Certainly, it is much harder to refute a lie than it is to invent one, especially in a short attention span society. With gargantuan budgets and legions of volunteer fanatics, many environmental organizations can afford the luxury of manufacturing a constant stream of pseudoscience and overwhelming their victims with infinite litigation. On the contrary, grassroots organizations like CCFA have small budgets and are made up of hardworking people busy getting by, who are more interested in being left alone than waging war. We can only hope that this brief discussion of truth will encourage us all to maintain a reasonable level of critical thinking when debating the issues that affect our lives.

Footnotes

[1] Historical quotes were acquired at http://free.freespeech.org/unlimitedfreedom/quotes.html and http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/ .

[2] When Jordan describes coho as “abundant from San Francisco northward” he is referring to their entire range in North America. In this quote he is specifically comparing populations south of the Columbia River to those north of the Columbia River. There is no question that coho salmon are far more plentiful in Washington than they are in Oregon and California.

References

Brown, L. R., P. B. Moyle and R. M. Yoshiyama (1994). "Historical decline and current status of coho salmon in California." North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 14(2): 237-261.

Crichton, M. (2003). "Remarks to the Commonwealth Club." San Francisco. <http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote05.html>.

Eilperin, J. (2004). "Immigration Issue Sparks Battle at Sierra Club." Washington Post. Washington. 22 March 2004: A02. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13539-2004Mar21.html>.

Elsbach, K. D. and R. I. Sutton (1992). "Acquiring Organizational Legitimacy through Illegitimate Actions: A Marriage of Institutional and Impression Management Theories." The Academy of Management Journal. October 1992. 35(4): 699-738.

Ellis, R. J. and F. Thompson (1997). "Culture and Environment in the Pacific Northwest." The American Political Science Review. December 1997. 91(4): 885-897.

Frediani, J. (2003). "Coho Salmon South of San Francisco Bay: Indigenous or Not?" Citizens for Responsible Forest Management. 1 June 2003. <http://www.crfm.org/CohoSCWCarticle.pdf>.

Frediani, J. (2004). "The Homepage of the CRFM Website." Citizens for Responsible Forest Management. 25 February 2004. <http://www.crfm.org>.

Garza, C. (2003). On-Going Research of Coastal Salmonids: NOAA Long Marine Laboratory, Blue Circle Colloquium: Genetics and Ecology, Santa Cruz, Ca: Unpublished.

Hedgecock, D., M. Banks, K. Bucklin, C. A. Dean, W. Eichert, C. Greig, P. Siri, B. Nyden and J. Watters (2002). Documenting Biodiversity of Coastal Salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) in Northern California. Bodega Bay, Ca: Bodega Marine Laboratory, University of California at Davis. 82pp. December 2002.

Hinchman, L. P. and S. K. Hinchman (1989). "'Deep Ecology' and the Revival of Natural Right." The Western Political Quarterly. September 1989. 42(3): 201-228.

Jordan, D. S. (1892). "Salmon and Trout of the Pacific Coast." Biennial Report of the State Board of Fish Commissioners of the State of California. 1891-1892(12): 44-58.

Jordan, D. S. (1892). Salmon and Trout of the Pacific Coast, California Fish and Game Commission Bulletin no. 4. 4. Sacramento: State Office A.J. Johnston Superintendent State Printing.

Jordan, D. S. (1894). "Salmon and Trout of the Pacific Coast." Biennial Report of the State Board of Fish Commissioners of the State of California. 1893-1894(13): 125-141.

Jordan, D. S. (1904). American food and game fishes : a popular account of all the species found in America north of the equator, with keys for ready identification, life histories and methods of capture. New York: Doubleday Page & Co.

Jordan, D. S. (1904). "Pacific Species of Salmon and Trout." Biennial Report of the State Board of Fish Commissioners of the State of California. 1903-1904(18): 75-97.

Jordan, D. S. (1907). Fishes. New York: H. Holt and Company.

Jordan, D. S. and B. W. Evermann (1896). The fishes of North and middle America : a descriptive catalogue of the species of fish-like vertebrates found in the waters of North America, north of the Isthmus of Panama. Washington: United States National Museum.

Jordan, D. S. and B. W. Evermann (1905). American food and game fishes : a popular account of all the species found in America north of the equator, with keys for ready identification, life histories and methods of capture. New York: Doubleday Page & Co.

Jordan, D. S. and C. H. Gilbert (1876-1919). Notes on the Fishes of the Pacific Coast of the United States, Papers on fishes. Washington: United States National Museum.

Jordan, D. S., C. H. Gilbert and C. L. Hubbs (1882). Synopsis of the fishes of North America. Washington: Smithsonian.

Jordan, G. and W. A. Maloney (1998). "Manipulating Membership: Supply-Side Influences on Group Size." British Journal of Political Science. April 1998. 28(2): 389-409.

Knudson, T. (2001). "Environment, Inc." Sacramento Bee. Sacramento. 22 April 2001. Special Project. <http://www.sacbee.com/static/archive/news/projects/environment/>.

Knudson, T. (2003). "State of Denial." Sacramento Bee. Sacramento. 27 April 2003. Special Project. <http://www.sacbee.com/static/live/news/projects/denial/>.

Manes, C. (1990). Green rage : radical environmentalism and the unmaking of civilization. Boston: Little, Brown.

McCrary, H. T. (2003). Memorandum Concerning "Recovery Strategy for California Coho Salmon" With Regard to Coastal Streams South of San Francisco . Big Creek Lumber Co.: Submitted to the California Fish and Game Commission. 18 December 2003. <http://www.ccfassociation.org/december18memo.pdf>.

Moore, P. (2002). "Environmentalism for the 21st Century." Greenspirit. 3 March 2004. <http://www.greenspirit.com>.

Ross, A. (1991). "Is Global Culture Warming up?" Social Text. 1991(28): 3-30.

Rothman, S. and S. R. Lichter (1987). "Elite Ideology and Risk Perception in Nuclear Energy Policy." The American Political Science Review. June 1987. 81(2): 383-404.

Shebley, W. H. (1922). "A History of Fishcultural Operations in California." California Fish and Game Quarterly. 1922. 8(2).

Streig, D. (2003). Personal communication to Fabian Alvarado. Dave Streig is a fisheries biologist with the Monterey Bay Salmon and Trout Project (MBSTP) and operations manager at the Big Creek Hatchery.