Diking district dichotomy

To The Eagle,

I enjoy the always-articulate reporting of Nick Nikkila. However, I take issue with his article "West Wahkiakum residents oppose dike breaking" (March 27). Factual and well-written, the piece conveys the history and ins-and-outs of this issue. But its conclusion and headline were based on a fatally flawed survey with unreliable results.

When Nick brought the questionnaire to Grays River Grange, I explained why it was not a valid poll. I later shared my further thoughts, along with my marked, but modified, ballot. He chose not to change the form, and has now come forward with a conclusion that would fail any test for objective public polling. Here's why:

Nick wrote: "The objective of the poll was to create a form that contained unbiased instructions, outlined the main arguments both for and against the breaching of dikes and allowed individuals to indicate whether they approved or opposed dike breaching." Fair enough—IF this were a black-and-white, either/or world, or issue. Nick fell into the logical fallacy known as a false dichotomy—setting up artificial conditions for a thumbs-up, thumbs-down decision, when the reality is much more complex. It's like asking people whether or not they like dessert, or people, or the weather: who would not honestly answer "it depends?" Because most such answers in real life depend upon many factors, not just "yes" or "no." Mr. Nikkila neglected to give respondents an opportunity to check "it depends." Four people wrote it in anyway (myself included), but most no doubt felt they had to go one way or the other, as instructed.

Now, many folks do, simply, oppose dike removal: for philosophical, ideological, religious, or other reasons. In rural country there is a strong feeling that the labors of the pioneers should not be obliterated. But as we know, when dikes no longer serve their original purpose, their removal can aid salmon and other wildlife and provide a market for fallow, otherwise unsellable lands. This one-dimensional effort no doubt means well, but it undersells the subtlety, complexity, and intelligence of both the land and its human occupants, and it should be regarded as such.

Robert M. Pyle,

Grays River