It’s far easier being a reporter than a policy-maker.
As reporters, we are trained to gather information from all sides, get to the heart of the issue and represent the arguments in their best possible light.
Decision-makers ought to go through the same process of due consideration, then come to a conclusion. Reporters have the luxury — if that’s what it’s called — of avoiding that last step. If we have an opinion, it’s best to keep it to ourselves, even though one side’s arguments may sometimes be much stronger than another.
This balancing of arguments becomes more difficult when we’re talking about “wants” versus “needs,” or what is perceived as such.
For example, I personally would like see a road going up to Dosewallips Campground. I remember camping trips there and hikes into the upper watershed. It was easier to drive to the campground than starting five miles down the road, as we do now. An unbroken road would be a nice thing to have.
But when I examine the environmental impact statement and listen to biologists and road engineers, I can’t help but wonder if this road is something we need to have. It’s like considering whether to buy an expensive car or house — or a bike or stereo as a kid. You wonder if you can really afford it. Maybe you can; maybe you can’t. In the case of the Dosewallips road, the cost would be environmental degradation to an ecosystem already overtaxed. Maybe it’s worth it; maybe it’s not.
See my story in today’s Kitsap Sun about opposition from the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe.
Is this item important enough to pay the cost? It’s a question that must be answered. How quickly you can answer it probably says something about your values. Those of us with mixed values tend to vacillate, and I guess that’s OK for me to do as a reporter, as long as I recognize the arguments on both sides.
This same kind of discussion relates to the extension of the Bremerton boardwalk. It would be a beautiful walkway out over the water from downtown Bremerton to Evergreen Park. Is it worth the cost environmentally? For some people, this is an open-and-shut case on one side or the other. Others might need more information, which you can expect the Kitsap Sun to provide.
See recent stories on the boardwalk issue by Kitsap Sun reporter Steve Gardner — today and July 16. On July 18, Suquamish Tribal Chairman Leonard Forsman clarified the tribe’s position on the boardwalk.
Something should be said here about Native American tribes and their involvement in environmental issues. Tribes are not opposed to everything, as some people seem to believe. But they do have a moderating influence on decisions affecting the environment. In a way, they’re like the banker who says you can’t afford the house you really want or the parent who suggests a less-fancy bike.
Tribes are not perfect stewards of the environment. Their positions are sometimes contradictory. But they are focused on the environment, and we should consider their comments — either because of their treaty rights or because they often make sense.
I see.
The tribes are like the parent who suggests a less-fancy bike.
And the rest of us are like children who, without their “moderating influence” will make irresponsible decisions.
I’ll put you down with the Tribes, Chris.
And I’ll buy whatever bike I want.
Reporter: “Tribes are not opposed to everything, as some people seem to believe.”
The statement is not the same as “The tribes support something.” It’s easy to “not oppose EVERYTHING, but please tell me a non-tribal real estate project that they SUPPORT.”
The bigger issue here for the community is why tribal leaders oppose other projects such as the boardwalk, but then construct their own dock.
Better question, Mike: Why is there “support” or “non-support” even considered for non-tribal projects?
Chris,
Is it your opinion that the Tribes should be the ones to define our “wants” and our “needs” and have the authority to allow us only the latter?
I thought I was being clever with the bicycle analogy, but even the best analogies only go so far.
I’m not a legal expert, but I understand that Native American treaties, as interpreted by the courts, place the tribes in a special legal position when it comes to environmental issues.
To avoid lawsuits, many state and federal agencies have created procedures that involve consultation with the tribes. Apparently, some agencies have given the tribes quasi-veto power over their permitting decisions. From what I know, this is neither a legal requirement nor a responsible way for agencies to approach difficult issues. But I haven’t investigated this particular angle.
What I was trying to say before was that the tribes employ some very knowledgeable biologists, hydrologists, ecologists and so on. They can be extremely focused on protecting the environment. Keeping that in mind, policy makers should at least listen to them before approving what people “want” but may or may not “need.”
“…road going up to Dosewallips Campground….easier to drive to the campground than starting five miles down the road, as we do now. An unbroken road would be a nice thing to have….”
And the lazy thieves who break into vehicles and/or vandalize anything at the trailheads…would agree with you.
It is far easier for them to drive on a nice road to the trailheads to do their damage. They are too lazy to hike in to rob campsites.
If camping and hiking are the goal why not leave the x-road alone and hike around and from something lower? Go with Nature. Why fix the road again and again and…?
I agree with the tribes on this issue….and yes, I’ve climbed and hiked the area too.
Sharon O’Hara
“Apparently, some agencies have given the tribes quasi-veto power over their permitting decisions. From what I know, this is neither a legal requirement nor a responsible way for agencies to approach difficult issues. But I haven’t investigated this particular angle.”
Perhaps you should. If our sovereignty is being compromised by members of our government, it strikes me as treason.
As for the “very knowledgable biologists, hydrologists, ecologists, and so on”… Maybe. But when “scientists” are as agenda driven as tribal “scientists” are, their “science” is little more than propaganda.
What are those “scientists” rationale for decrying the Bremerton boardwalk, the Seabeck marina, and the Port Gamble dock as overwater structures that will harm fisheries, while allowing the Suquamish dock without a similar condemnation.
Science? No. Politics? Yes.
And I wish it were reported more as that.
And, yes, the “parent who suggests a less fancy bike” analogy stuck in my craw. Especially because it isn’t my parents that are suggesting a less fancy bike. It is the neighbor’s parents that are suggesting a less fancy bike. For me. For their kid, though…
Nice try, Chris. You just can’t talk to some people, though. Everything has to be “us or them,” you’re either with us or against us. Us being, of course, the vast silent majority with common sense on their side.
In the last 18 years I have actually had some contact with Tribal “scientists” and have found their work to be allways an accurate representation of natural processes as they discover them. Like all real “scientists” they are always learning something new and they will be the first to tell you that they don’t know when that is the case.
I havn’t found them to be political at all. In fact, just the opposite is true. They relish the annonimity of their work and don’t say much in public.
I tried, in fact, to get two seperate Central Kitsap Commissioners to review work of Tribal “scientists” only to have them avoid doing so so as to be able to file a motion before the Groth Managment Hearings Board to the effect that the Board of Commissioners had never “seen” that work.
Tribal “scientists” don’t have an “agenda.” They merely report what they discover on the ground at their work and report it back to their employers, who then do with it what they will.
Do I wish there was more communication and co-operation on these issues? Yes. This cannot be a zero-sum game anymore as too much is at stake. Year by Year the county shrinks as we get less elbow room.
“…They can be extremely focused on protecting the environment. Keeping that in mind, policy makers should at least listen to them before approving what people “want” but may or may not “need.”…”
Overall… people are different. What one person considers a ‘need’ another person may not agree…. and individuals should be the judge what their ‘needs’ are. The kicker is that the individual ‘right’ (need) cannot – should not – be harmful to anyone else.
Why isn’t good communication standard practice with the County Commissioners? That is part of their job isn’t it…to gather all the information possible THEN decide on a course of action?
in my opinion… Sharon O’Hara