This is to respond to Mike's & Jim's emails. First, a gentle dig at Mike: A common falsely of those who are only physical scientists is that they forget or do not understand the social sciences. The social scientists follow the same rigorous standards in scientific research as physical scientists. I realize no insult was intended, so no worries.
Second, those who raise a question and have the adequate qualifications really do need to stand up and volunteer (especially, since I've already been placed in the position by Jim; tee hee). Third: What are my qualifications? I have both strong physical and social science backgrounds; mostly a generalist; I am a specialist in cave wilderness. I have a BS in both recreation management and natural resources management. Both of which required a solid foundation in geology & biology. And, both required a solid background in the people side of stewardship - recreational and extractive uses. I have a MS in biology, focused on behavior aspects, requiring a solid foundation in biological and behavioral sciences. (Yes, behavioral aspects have come in good stead when working with cavers). My PhD is in Forest Resources Science - focused on cave wilderness. That degree added a solid foundation in karst hydrology/morphology/geology as well as various other geographic sciences. The recreational coursework was focused on wilderness, social interactions with nature, and management of resources and the people who recreate on/in the resources.. Fourth: Based on my educational and experiential background, I'm well qualified to review material requested in the FOIA. In addition, for items that I may question, I have a vast network of resources to contact to get specific questions answered or obtain clarification on issues. Since I do not work for the federal government I have no potential work related biases. Since I was not part of the FOIA action group, I can't be accused of bias on that account. I do think a third person should be involved, not sure who, but I'm sure there are a variety of people who have good qualifications that might also be shanghaied to be a part of the committee. Fifth: Time constraints. Once convention is over with I will have time to work on reviewing and evaluating. I now have a traditional 8-5 weekday job so it has become significantly easier to make time commitments. Damn, I think I said yes. Aaaarggggg. I just want to add to the fray, not help deal with it. :) Seriously, I will be happy to lend my expertise to reviewing the FOIA information. Thanks for asking... Wicked Good Caving Pat Seiser (aka Cave Wench). -----Original Message----- From: SWR [mailto:swr-boun...@caver.net] On Behalf Of swr-requ...@caver.net Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2014 6:00 AM To: s...@caver.net Subject: SWR Digest, Vol 24, Issue 15 Send SWR mailing list submissions to s...@caver.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.caver.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swr or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to swr-requ...@caver.net You can reach the person managing the list at swr-ow...@caver.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of SWR digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Continuing FOIA commentary (michael queen) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 18:03:33 -0600 From: michael queen <jmofgu...@gmail.com> To: "jen ." <bigredfo...@hotmail.com> Cc: nmcaver list <s...@caver.net>, Evatt <nmca...@centurylink.net> Subject: Re: [SWR] Continuing FOIA commentary Message-ID: <cafrxur7h0fljwx8hjr6anpkirwjvs5q08hvumf4tp96iwmt...@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Jim, I appreciate the frustration involved in sending repeated inquiries and comments to a land management agency and receiving no reply. It has happened to me on several occasions. Most of the time I just figure it's typical bureaucratic snafu and am not quick to rock the boat, except where the safety of caves or endangered critters When that happened with the BLM regional office in Roswell I felt action was demanded and wrote a number of rather pointed letters to the head of the BLM, several senators, the Presidents science adviser, and the President. Most were answered in a polite manner assuring me that nothing was amiss. However, they contributed to several senatorial inquiries being launched, and eventually the Roswell district manager was reassigned, the Dark Canyon drilling proposal was significantly modified and the cave protection zone was designated, and they abandoned plans to have the CRF help look for potential grizzly dens in the Capitans. A "vote" approving a letter by the Chair inquiring after the status and justifications of cave closures is not, in any way I can tell, the same as approving that someone else write an FOIA request in the name of the SWR. And to call the person who was chosen *a priori* with the intent of writing the FOIA request a *liaison* is at best a distortion of the English language. Finally, while Pat raised the issue of whom might review all the documents, I don't interpret that as volunteering to do it herself (in her spare time?). Nor does it suggest that she has the right background in science to evaluate those documents that involve science (not all Ph.D.s have a strong science background). If there are a bunch of scientists in SWR it is they who should review these, page by page and line by line. I include myself in that group and would be glad to comment as appropriate. I appreciate the significant amount of of work you all do in the interest of caves and the SWR. Please be assured that I do not question the concern and frustration shared by SWR board members and others, just the way in which they chose to pursue these concerns. Michael On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 11:41 AM, jen . <bigredfo...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Whoa! I was there and my memory does not match yours. > > I remember that there were several abstentions on the motion. > > I also don't remember the motion stating that an illegal action was > taken by the BLM. > > > Jennifer > > ------------------------------ > From: nmca...@centurylink.net > To: jmofgu...@gmail.com > Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 10:29:05 -0600 > CC: s...@caver.net > Subject: [SWR] Continuing FOIA commentary > > > > *Michael,* > *Thank you for your comments.* > > *From:* michael queen <jmofgu...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Thursday, June 05, 2014 8:05 PM > *Subject:* Re: [SWR] SWR BLM FOIA a mistake Stan raises some valid > points, which have been criticized but not really addressed. > *I’m sorry that you feel that way. They were addressed, by Steve > Peerman, myself and others, in several emails.* > > It is not at all clear he was outvoted (since a vote of the SWR > membership seems not to have been taken), nor that a consensus was sought or > desired. > > *I’m sorry that you feel that way. A unanimous vote did occur at the > last regional that the Chair write the BLM asking for status and > justifications for the continuing closure of 25 NM caves, an action > taken that was illegal, in violation of BLM policy, and a breach of contract > with the SWR. > Mr. Allison was not there to vote.* > > His comments on bringing issues to the general membership via email > are well made and should be discussed openly via internet as well as > at the SWR meeting. > > > *And they have been. I have, so far, 274 messages pertaining to the > subject, all since May 9th. A great many of them, probably a majority, > were on the SWR list server. I do not know how many persons are on > that list server, but only about 30 of the ~147 regional members have > taken the time to comment. That leaves nearly 80% of the region that > have yet to be heard from, and need to be heard from.* Liaisons are > usually chosen such that they can maintain a dialogue between groups > and present the views of the group they represent. Synonyms for liaise > include cooperate, collaborate, and work together. Steve Fleming was > apparently chosen because of his familiarity with writing FOIA > requests, which meant that course of action had been chosen before his > appointment. > Regardless of protestations to the contrary, an FOIA request is not > designed to facilitate cooperation. > > *I’m sorry that you feel that way. The history of the SWR regarding > federal land agencies proves otherwise, as I and others have > previously attested. Anyone is welcome to dissent, but a working > knowledge of the processes involved and undertaken, and their > historical results, should first be obtained. Assertions that are > based on opinion and not fact gain little if anything.* > > This is particularly true when, as Pat Seiser aptly brings up, it is > not clear who in SWR can evaluate the technical aspects of the BLM response. > > *I recommend Pat to be that person, since she has brought it up. It > will be quite easy, since the reply will contain virtually no technical > content. > A PhD in Biology, Microbiology, Geology or other related professional > field is not required since to my knowledge, only one person BLM-NM > has one. The SWR has about a dozen.* > > Let me be absolutely clear: I have been a vocal critic of the CBD > since it became apparent that they were patently uninterested in > facts, logic, or science. When first I read their draft of the WNS > suit I responded positively, as a scientist (with as strong a > background in biology as geology), and tried to point out, point by > point, weaknesses in their analysis, all of which were ignored and > remained uncorrected in their final document. An examination of the > degrees held by their staff revealed the likely reason - lots of > lawyers and few staff with a good science background (BS's hardly > qualify, unless accompanied by decades of experience). From what I can > gather, they are more concerned with keeping up their income than with > science, and without a sound footing in science, concerns about > biological diversity come across as window dressing. And I have been > acutely disappointed in the readiness with which BLM, USFS and NPS > have seemed to sign on to the CBD platform rather than countering with > good science and better data and logic. But it is certainly not clear > to me (and it seems some several others) that the FOIA request is the > best way to accomplish this. Is there no way that the conniving and > misrepresentation of the CBD can't be brought to the attention of the > broader community of ecologically concerned individuals, on whose > continued support the group depends for credibility? How can these > arguments be presented on the Internet, so that when one searches CBD one > finds as many criticisms as self-serving claims of helping save the planet? > > *If you have a better way to obtain a BLM response to justify their > actions, both with WNS/cave closure and with CBD, please make your > knowledge available. Until a better idea is presented (we’ve gone 3+ > years without one), please do not criticize the action taken. Letters > to BLM have been ignored, verbal requests at BLM meetings have been > ignored, BLM/SWR meeting schedules have been ignored, and emails to > BLM have been ignored. * > > *We have no magic wand to wave to make things happen.* > > *It may be that the FOIA is not the best method of eliciting a > response from BLM, but until someone can come up with a better plan > instead of simply castigating the one taken, it is superior choice. * > > *You are always welcome to disagree. And anyone who wishes change > within the SWR is encouraged any time to run for office, and/or be > there to vote for or against issues or officers.* > > *Jim Evatt* > > Michael Queen > > > _______________________________________________ SWR mailing list > s...@caver.net http://lists.caver.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swr > _______________________________________________ This list is provided > free as a courtesy of CAVERNET > > _______________________________________________ > SWR mailing list > s...@caver.net > http://lists.caver.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swr > _______________________________________________ > This list is provided free as a courtesy of CAVERNET > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.caver.net/pipermail/swr/attachments/20140606/1e4f10c4/attachment-0001.html> ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ SWR mailing list s...@caver.net http://lists.caver.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swr _______________________________________________ This list is provided free as a courtesy of CAVERNET ------------------------------ End of SWR Digest, Vol 24, Issue 15 *********************************** _______________________________________________ SWR mailing list s...@caver.net http://lists.caver.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swr _______________________________________________ This list is provided free as a courtesy of CAVERNET
