collecting, vouchers, pay and the blame game (too long)

[Doug Yanega]

Richard Hill wrote:

>I agree with the concerns in your recent post and frustrations, but I do not
>accept the broad statements and what I think are conclusions.

I'd hoped it was clear that I was not condemning consultants as unethical -
re-read what I wrote, and you'll note I really only made *any* such
implications about developers. If you want to change how environmental
policies and decisions are decided and enforced, the resistance is going to
come from that quarter, for certain. The number of unethical consultants is
small enough that their ability to influence events is almost negligible,
but the same cannot be said for the pro-development forces. Other than your
apparent assumption that I view consultants as unethical, I do in fact
pretty much agree with everything you had to say, and I apologize if I gave
you or anyone else reason to believe I was making "polarizing statements".
My comments about insisting on vouchering was a suggestion to establish
higher standards, and I still do think it would be a good thing if it could
be put into place - maybe the standards of botanical consultants are high
to begin with, but I'm still not optimistic that others will rise to those
sorts of standards without incentive or pressure, when there is no
perceived NEED for higher standards (witness Buz Wilson's comments about
family-level vouchering).

>I know that often taxonomists are asked to make IDs without compensation.  I
>know that regulators often accept IDs without considering the validity of the
>ID.  Taxonomists may look down at their noses at consultants, but if you want
>to be paid by them for your efforts, treat them like a customer or at least
>like a colleague.  Taxonomists need the broad support of many developing
>taxonomists to support their work.  Most of us are too independent.

You might be surprised to know that in my free time, I occasionally act as
a sub-consultant for a local EC firm, doing identifications of insects
collected during survey work by several of the firm's consultants. They are
all ethical, professional individuals, most of them highly competent, and I
do treat them as colleagues...and I am reimbursed for my IDs. It's a good
relationship for everyone involved, and I think it exemplifies what
cooperation and mutual respect can accomplish. I will note, however, that
as far as I am aware, I am the only museum taxonomist on the payroll
(albeit marginally) of any of the consulting firms in the region, though a
few practicing consultants do have a fair bit of entomological background
and training. I'm not so sure that this minimal link between the museums
and the consultants is because we're too snooty, or because (1) most
consulting firms aren't interested in our services, and/or (2) there aren't
many of us to begin with, and even fewer who have free time to do this sort
of work. My impression is that mine is a special case, brought about by the
fact that this firm has a few entomologically-oriented consultants, who
convinced their boss that my services would be worthwhile. Things would
obviously be different if vouchering was made mandatory, and there were an
actual industry-wide demand for taxonomists.

>Treat consultants and agency staff poorly and they will stop coming or find a
>way to avoid needing your services.

Consultants from a different firm came by here recently and essentially
asked if I could do gratis IDs for a major faunistic study they're being
paid big money for. Who is treating who poorly in this scenario?

>Entomologists and others who profess to own the moral and ethical high ground
>should spend more time seeking out and associating with quality consultants and
>agency personnel.  Together, all should form working associations so more focus
>is on the needs of the resources and less on vague proclamations on the ethics,
>morals, expertise and values of the other.  In particular, taxonomists need to
>stop crying about their under utilization and develop amateur and professional
>associations that will increase their value and improve knowledge of the
>resources.

If this is directed at me, you're pretty much preaching to the choir, and
again I apologize if you or anyone else thought I was badmouthing
consultants. They are only one component of the EC machine, while it is the
business as a whole that has problems with politics and ethics. It doesn't
take many resistant elements to cause trouble for the whole enterprise. Of
course, this may all be rendered meaningless in about a year, anyway, if
the next presidential administration does away with endangered species
legislation - we may have bigger worries facing us then. It's certainly not
impossible, and we'll all be worse off by far, taxonomists and consultants
alike.

Peace,


Doug Yanega       Dept. of Entomology         Entomology Research Museum
Univ. of California - Riverside, Riverside, CA 92521
phone: (909) 787-4315 (standard disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
                http://insects.ucr.edu/staff/yanega.html
  "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
        is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82