The tools at our disposal for the most part have not been part of our university education and have not evolved at a pace comparable to the issues before us:

• The regulatory framework is rigid although we are working on increasing its flexibility.

• Often we feel we are forced to rely heavily on authority.

• Given that budgets for natural resources have been trending downward, there are fewer resources and yet greater responsibilities.

• Universities have focused on "managing a resource" instead of building a complete resource manager. Great for managing a critter, but poor at managing people's expectations.

It is also important to remember that many of our natural resource problems are the result of "progress" i.e., policy choices made at the time in the best interest of the general public.

• Reliance on natural resources to build communities, infrastructure, and, yes, the state economy.

• This reliance has involved cumulative effects of lawful activities over decades of time.

Consider:

• Timber harvest---sometimes right down to the waterline.

• Water rights/appropriations---more water is appropriated for use than what is flowing in the streams.

• Increased sport and commercial harvests---harvest rates that did approach 90%. i.e., 9 out of every 10 fish were harvested.

• Agricultural practices----irrigation and diking have resulted in estuary drainage and lost riparian habitats for crops.

• Hydroelectric dams---massive, permanent loss of habitat for both fish and wildlife.

I believe the public's expectation of government and how natural resources are to be managed in the public's trust has changed:

• The public more and more expects government to partner with them----not just as stakeholders, but as a true partner.
  • This requires developing new tools for natural resource professionals - training is a big part of this.
  • A commitment to change not "what" we do, but "how" we do it.
  • Must see the public as partners-they must be embraced not shunned or ignored.
  • Greater emphasis on moving beyond communication and cooperation towards collaboration

• The public expects more emphasis on solving problems and less emphasis on the use of authority.

• The public expects increased transparency in governmental decision making which goes beyond an agency's rule making authority.

• The public expects that natural resource decisions be frame worked by "best available science."

So what is "best available science"---is it a noun, a verb and who does it? Most important how is it to be used?

On February 15, 2004, the American Association for the Advancement of Science or AAAS which bills itself as the world's largest general science society released the results from its recent national poll of 2,400 adults. The survey among other things found that---and I quote-- "65% of American adults don't trust scientists to put society's interests above their own personal goals". To put it bluntly, two out of every three people believe that scientific results are biased because of personal beliefs.

In other words, people believe that a scientist's personal beliefs can color the results of the scientific process. If so, how credible is such science and why should the public, legislators, judges etc. believe in "sound science" or "best available science" as the basis for management decisions? Bottom line--the products of the scientific process must be credible if they are to be successfully used to framework informed policy decisions.

I recently read an article published in 2004 in the journal "Conservation Biology" concerning-appropriately enough--- the principles of conservation biology. The authors specifically acknowledge that a significant number of the principles of conservation biology as presented in the paper "are not simply empirical facts or theoretical predictions, but are desired outcomes based on value-laden beliefs".

So how much of the science we do is colored by "value-laden beliefs" in order to achieve "desired outcomes"? Who's beliefs and who's outcomes? Believe me, that question is asked by of the many people we regulate. The "soundness" of the science DFW presents is a valid question because we are a public regulatory agency whose decisions affect people's lives. As such, we are accountable for our science standards---that's where we get our scientific credibility. Thus, I have maintained that DFW's science standards need to be higher than special interest groups who do not have the same regulatory role nor accountability standard.

So what is "sound science" or "best available science"? Good question!

In the January/February 2005 issue of 'The Environmental Forum' that question was asked of four "environmental" scientists involved in regulatory decisions. The underlying theme of the responses dealt with a high quality analysis, based on credible data and science-based inferences, that is "decision or policy relevant". That is, science is to inform, but not dictate, regulatory decision making by hopefully reducing uncertainty or risk----all the while recognizing that uncertainty can't be used to avoid making a decision. Yet, how the uncertainty left after the application of "sound science" was dealt with when making a policy decision differed.

The Natural Resources Defense Council scientist suggested that "good science" is enough if you take the "precautionary approach" when dealing with uncertainty. The Exxon Mobil scientist said that the "precautionary approach" introduces value-laden beliefs into science, and no that is not the "sound science" necessary to objectively inform decision makers.

So it appeared that the four scientists generally agreed on what "sound science" is as a process, but the rub came from how that science is used in decision making.

Who are these decision makers? Policy types in general, but I believe that it was clear that each of the scientists believed it wasn't them. And they said in different ways that scientists must avoid embedding policy preferences (a bias?) in scientific assessments. When that occurs, scientists hijack decision-making authority from those duly elected or appointed to fulfill these responsibilities. In doing so, their scientific credibility suffers.

I offer at least one example in a scientific assessment of where the differences between science and policy were recognized in this agency, and appropriately dealt with.

DFW was and is working with our partner TNC on eco-regional planning/assessments. When called eco-regional planning, the science document contained an embedded policy decision namely that the goal was to have at least 30% of the habitat types either protected or restored. That number (30%) is a huge policy call---the scientists within DFW recognized this, removed the 30% as the goal, and renamed the effort the eco-regional assessment. They realized that the embedded policy call was not theirs to make. That mixture of science and embedded policy calls can appropriately be made by an NGO, but not by scientists in a governmental regulatory agency.

We are an applied science organization---"science is us" is a phrase I use in the legislative process. To me sound science is the accumulation of policy relevant and objectively derived research that informs, but does not replace, decision makers. At the same time, I realize that "the accumulation of policy relevant and objectively derived research" or sound science is not a negotiation among affected parties in which all scientific information regardless of quality is accorded equal merit to assure "fairness".

I expect the science done by this agency (and identified as such) to be the accumulation of policy relevant and objectively derived research that is free of personal, value-laden beliefs that are embedded in scientific assessments to influence or achieve desired outcomes.

My belief is that the agency is well down the road to meeting this science standard through the help of the program's chief scientists. But if science is to be our guide or compass (and it is), it must be secured by a solid commitment to objectivity and professionalism.

I want to close with a example of where science and collaborative efforts were brought to bearing a contentious issue. - Hanford Elk -

The department provided the science that established a target herd size at 350 animals - much lower than the 1,000 animals expected at Hanford in a couple of years.

The federal government has not allowed hunting access to the herd so we have been trying to work with local landowners surrounding the federal refuge to harvest the excess animals on private property.

Two groups of landowners emerged: "the highlanders" who felt that the department ignored their rights as landowners and thus rejected hunters as trespassers. This included having $1,000 fines and 90 days in jail trespass laws passed by the county to discourage hunting. A second group of landowners, "the lowlanders" encouraged hunters on their lands, to the point of guiding those hunters to maximize harvest. Other differences existed between the two groups of landowners - one group applied for wildlife damage claims, the other didn't.

The firmly held differences between landowner groups often created less than harmonious discussions between them as well as with the department on the use of hunters to reduce the size of the elk herd. We first approached the problem with a uniform set of rules which further polarized our relationship.

We decided to take another track - work with the landowner groups as partners to solving a problem. The first step was to ask them to tell us how hunters can be used to aggressively harvest elk on private lands i.e., invest in their point of view. The landowners had different requirements but each agreed to work as partners toward a joint approach with the department that was tailored to meet their and our needs. Joint agreements arrived through a collaborative process promoted aggressive hunting with a target of 75 - 100 animals for each group of landowners compared to 20-30 animals in the past. To accomplish this, we had to change. We worked through the Commission process to modify four WAC's to get there, but we now had active partners promoting an aggressive program to use hunters to harvest elk on private lands.

Again, it is not "what" we do that people object to - it's "how" we often times do it. Changing the "how" as in the Hanford elk example enables this agency to better fulfill our mission of managing and protecting the fish and wildlife resources we are responsible for.