Ballard's recent comments suggest the need for a change of title

Frontiersman editorial board

Looking through the text of comments made by Ernesta Ballard at two recent meetings, one might get the impression her title should change from Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation to Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Exploitation.

Ballard's logic throughout much of the text seems circular at its high points and absent at other times. During the presentation Ballard sought to debunk what she called "public land myths." Most of the language seems designed to identify environmental protection advocates as fear-mongering fanatics who tend to overexaggerate the truth and who try to apply unmeasurable criteria to the decision-making process. Often, though, Ballard's arguments are nearly impossible to follow. Here are four sentences from a short paragraph.

"The second myth is that scientifically based assessments can provide the direction needed for public land decisions … Science is good but not infallible … Science can handle uncertainty, politics can't. The risk management choices have grown more and more narrow as interest groups have lobbied for political intervention and ignored science." Ballard begins the thought stating that the notion that scientifically-based assessments can provide the proper direction is false, but then finishes the thought by bemoaning the fact that "interest groups" are wrong to ignore science. It seems her suggestion is to repair the decision-making process by replacing science with science. She seems to suggest that the problem emerges not necessarily from the science, but rather when environmentalists attempt to interpret it. Science is great, it would seem, so long as it supports resource development. It's faulty, however, when it suggests development could cause long-term damage to the environment. How convenient.

Later in the speech, Ballard bemoans the fact that the European Union's Scientific Steering Committee recommends formally incorporating factors such as quality of life and animal welfare into the risk assessment process. That's too complicated, she suggests later. Apparently, we should not consider such wishy-washy things as quality of life and wildlife protection.

Ballard has consistently made it clear that she believes the end always justifies the means when it comes to resource development. We don't agree. Sometimes the path to development leaves scars that aren't worth the trip.