Builders’ Case Against Gnatcatcher Was Science Fiction

Whenever the environmentalists take on the developers, they always win the battle of the signs. Usually, the developers don’t even put up a fight, other than for some unimaginative language that never qualifies as good picket sign literature, much less “Live at 5” TV news fare.

So it was again Thursday, when the two ancient foes squared off, this time over whether the California gnatcatcher should advance toward designation as an endangered species.

The greenies were out in force with their usual cadre of sign-bearers, dependable as ever with their practiced outdoor theater that serves as a nice prelim for the big show inside.

They parade with their signs, they sell T-shirts, they hand out literature, they wear shorts and Reeboks, they sit on the grass. And the brilliance of the environmentalists is that they always appeal to your warm and fuzzy side:

“Two Little Gnatcatchers Sitting in a Nest--Vote Yes,” one sign read.

“Will Children Hear the Song of the Gnatcatcher in 2010?” read another.

“Ethics for All Things Great and Small.”

Perhaps mindful that they can’t outdo the enemy in media relations, the developers came up with a catchy countersign for the gnatcatcher campaign: “Science, Not Slogans.”

In other words, sort of an implied put-down that the tree huggers don’t have much more going for them than emotion and public relations.

So, I sallied into the meeting of the state Fish and Game Commission, fully expecting the environmentalists to offer up their Save-the-Earth incantation, while the cool, clinical builders statistick-ed us to death.

“This is not a popularity contest,” commission President Everett McCracken said, aware of the tendency of both sides to ring up the applause meter. The matter would be decided on science, he said.

And during the next 90 minutes, the environmentalists trotted out one scientist after another, each saying that the gnatcatcher was being endangered by the continued development of the California coast. An ornithologist, a wildlife biologist, a high school biology teacher, a UC Irvine instructor with lots of experience with the gnatcatcher. They were augmented by environmentalists, but it was the scientists who carried the day.

The lead speaker, Massachusetts ornithologist Jonathan Atwood, said he has studied the California gnatcatcher for the past 10 years and is the only published scientist in the country on the bird. He said he got involved in the matter only after local biologists urged him to be their “designated hitter.”

During its 90-minute rebuttal period, the other side sent up a squad of farmers, builders, businessmen and lawyers . . . and a lone biologist, H. Lee Jones of Irvine. His findings indicate the gnatcatcher is not in danger of extinction, but he acknowledged that not all of the biologists who helped him in his study agreed with his conclusion.

Many of the other speakers went out of their way to say, “I’m not a biologist,” and it made one wonder why, if this were a hearing to be decided on science, the building industry couldn’t round some up.

At this stage, the environmentalists only have to persuade the commission that the bird might be endangered in order to advance to the next stage of the bureaucratic process. In that sense, it’s much like a preliminary hearing in a criminal case, where the judge only has to think there’s probable cause that someone committed a crime in order to bind him over for trial.

On my score card, the environmentalists’ witnesses blew away the other side. I suspect the commissioners scored it that way, too, but couldn’t bring themselves to say so.

Instead, the commissioners looked at each other like nobody wanted to say anything. “What’s your pleasure, gentlemen?” McCracken said.

“We’ll follow your lead,” Commissioner Albert Taucher said.

“We act like a kid who’s afraid to get in a tub of cold water,” McCracken said.

The commission recessed for 30 days, pledging to decide then. After a daylong hearing in which they asked virtually no substantive questions of the scientists, one wonders what additional insights they will gain in 30 days.

But at least the delay gives the builders and developers time to rethink their strategy for the next go-round.

For starters, this is a must: Reword those signs to say: “Slogans, not Science.”

Dana Parsons’ column appears Wednesday, Friday and Sunday. Readers may reach Parsons by writing to him at The Times Orange County Edition, 1375 Sunflower Ave., Costa Mesa, Calif. 92626, or calling (714) 966-7821.