Hello Steve,

You said something very relevant to our discussion of ethics of the analysis
of the wetlands development issue:

> This isn't my field of specialty so I am guessing here.

No one needs to be embarrassed because they are not familiar with a
particular field.  And I wasn't really honest with you.  I picked a
particular problem with which I figured you had little or no experience
given what I understood of your education and experience.  I also am not an
ecologist but I have had to analyze environmental problems relating to
wetlands ecosystems alone and as part of a complex system of ecosystems.  So
I have had some field training by folks who knew what they were about.  I
think! :-).

In my view, the environmental ethics issue is in two major parts.  1)
integrity of the analyst in providing information that helps the several
segments of society understand, in their own value terms, the consequences
of alternative actions relating to environmental issues.  2) Once the
information is available, the ethical issue involves deciding how to
address, resolve, the conflicting value sets.

In my view, for an analyst there are at least two major areas that have to
be addressed.

First, one must learn something about the functions of the ecological
*system*.  Then one understands that the problem is not only *not*
one-dimensional, but has complexities that even the experts probably do not
really understand.

Second, one must understand that the public for which one is making the
analysis is not a homogeneous value set.  That means that the analyst must
make every effort to identify the diverse community and their diverse values
in order to determine just what information will address the interests of
*each* community.  No analyst can be "objective" alone; but that person
(people) can approach some kind of "objectivity" by trying to understand the
diversity and making every effort to provide information relevant to each
community.

The environmental ethics issue includes, but goes beyond the analysis into
the decision process.  The analyst's responsibility ends with providing the
consequences of the several alternative actions **in terms that are
relevant**, have meaning, for the several value communities.

In that analysis, imho, baysian, precautionary principle, and risk
management each play a role (among other methods) in developing the
information needed for decisions on environmental intervention proposals.

I can see baysian analysis contributing information about, for example,
stream loading under specified objectives, market analysis also with
specific objectives.  Imho, risk management is useful for specific
objectives e.g. stream pollution loading considering certain disease
potentials.  The precautionary principle having application in specific
conditions about which the knowledge is indeterminate.

Each of these procedures, and probably others, may have an important, but
subordinate, place in the *overall* analysis of how programs affect the
values the public holds about the system operations of the relevant
ecosystems.  The overall analysis report should provide information from
each and all systems that help folks with differing value sets decide how
they would wish programs/policies should progress.

-------
To illustrate the complexity of environmental analysis & choice decisions, I
offer the following summary of some important wetland aspects.

Wetland functions and the associated diverse values:

Wetland functions include:

Hydrologic functions: reduction of flow velocity, ground water recharge,
participate in atmospheric processes.

Water quality functions: the trapping of sediment, pollution control, and
the biochemical processes that take place as water enters, is stored in,or
leaves a wetland.

Habitat functions:  They provide food, water, and shelter for fish,
shellfish, birds, and mammals, and they serve as a breeding ground and
nursery for numerous species. Many endangered plant and animal species are
dependent on wetland habitats for their survival.

Values:
Wetlands can have ecological, social, or economic values. Wetland products
that have an economic value, such as commercial fish or timber, can be
assigned a monetary value. True wetland value, however, goes beyond money.
How much value does one place on the beauty of a wetland or its
archeological significance? Wetland values are not absolute. What is
valuable and important to one person may not be valuable to another person.
As an example, the value of a wetland as duck habitat may be important to
the hunter or birdwatcher but not to the farmer who owns the land.

And so on for wetlands and other ecosystems.  A complex system and set of
systems, valued differently by different folks.

Hope this helps.  Your reaction would be appreciated.

Ray