Posted on 12/31/2001 5:03:05 PM PST by expose
Planted Lynx Fur In Habitat Survey Upsets Legislators Associated Press
Monday, December 31, 2001 Lawmakers want an investigation into whether government wildlife biologists planted lynx fur in two national forests to make it appear that the animals were present so that people would be kept out.
The Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service are tracking the rare Canadian lynx to determine how many there are and where they live. Data from the four-year survey will be used to determine how best to protect the lynx, which is classified as "threatened."
During the 2000 sampling session, biologists planted three samples of lynx fur on rubbing posts in parts of the Wenatchee and Gifford Pinchot national forests in Washington state, areas not usually home to the lynx. Fur taken from such posts is used to indicate if lynx are in the area.
The seven biologists -- three from the Forest Service, two from the Fish and Wildlife Service and two from the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife -- admitted they planted the samples and said they wanted to test whether the lab could identify lynx fur.
The cats, 3 1/2 feet long and 40 pounds at their largest, prey on snowshoe hares. Efforts to protect lynx habitat are underway in 57 forests in 16 states.
None of the seven biologists remains in the lynx survey program. Six were reassigned, and one retired.
House Resources Committee Chairman James V. Hansen (R-Utah) and Rep. Scott McInnis (R-Colo.), chairman of the House forests subcommittee, called that "grossly inadequate punishment given the magnitude of this offense."
They said if it is found that the intent was to skew the study, the biologists should be fired.
"These offenses minimally amount to professional malfeasance of the highest order," the congressman wrote Dec. 18 in a letter to Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman and Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton, whose agencies administer the lynx program.
Some proposed changes to protect the lynx include limiting the thinning of forests to improve habitat for the snowshoe hare and to restrict snowmobiling and some other winter activities. But Hansen and McInnis want a review of all data collected through the program before any land management decisions are made.
Without additional scrutiny of the data, no assurances can be made that the "lynx recovery effort is grounded in science, rather than in the fraudulent behavior of unscrupulous field officers," Hansen and McInnis wrote.
Forest Service Chief Dale N. Bosworth said the fur fiasco is embarrassing but did not threaten the closure of any habitat to the public.
Fish and Wildlife Service spokesman Chris Tollefson said the agency is confident the lynx count has not been tainted.
"We don't believe that there was an intent to submit these results to skew the results of the survey, but it could have compromised the entire survey and forced us to do it all over again," he said.
Hansen and McInnis have asked the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, to look into the matter and will convene hearings early next year.
I understand your attempt at rationally de-fusing this situation,
THANK YOU!
however, you are wrong and illogical on a number of points.1.) It is never OK to falsify data. The data was not identified as "control" during the testing. This is never OK - except for typical liberal junk science.
Agreed.
2.) If they were worried that the previous test found too many of this type animal, which was their premise, then the reason would have to be that the lab was mis-identifying a different type of fur as belonging to this species. Thus, you would send in bobcat fur, or whatever, that is similar, to see if the lab mis-identified this fur as the subject fur. In other words, their excuse is illogical, based on their premise that too many of the subject were initially found.
aHA! Good point. Hmmm... That does lower my opinion of the biologists even more. If they really were concerned about false positives, then they were really really stupid to test them with lynx hair. But since there were 7 of them from 3 different bureaucracies, having all of them do the same test, flawed in the same way, does not make sense, even if we assume the incompetent gravitate to gov't work. So that really does hurt the credibility of that version of the story, doesn't it? Hmmmmm...
Oh yeah. they taste just like spotted owl if cooked right. LOL
Which makes it glaringly apparent that environmental scientists and organizations will never be known for following credible science. With messes & scandals like this one, it is obvious that you can never trust anything they say.
42 posted on 12/31/01 9:03 PM Pacific by RobertFrost [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: RobertFrost "just an attempt to save-face for the scientists..." Sorry, but they're not scientists, they're liars. 43 posted on 12/31/01 9:06 PM Pacific by editor-surveyor
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: expose Why are they not fired right now? 44 posted on 12/31/01 9:06 PM Pacific by MissAmericanPie
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: RobertFrost Environmental scientists will do anythings for there Agenda 45 posted on 12/31/01 9:07 PM Pacific by expose
These posts are worth repeating. They are exactly on target.
Thanks Robert Frost, expose, editor-surveyor, and MissAmericanPie
So, we investigate, ok, maybe we will get the truth eventually.
In the meantime we can analyze the reports as a whole to see what we get in the field of logic. The report of planting Lynx hair specified an uncomplicated process that would result in large rewards in power and prestiege for those involved (assuming it went undetected). The report of a bungled control sample check of the lab is one of a very complicated and intricate series of coincidences that just happen to make innocent, earnest, scientists look like criminals.
Occam's Razor is a principle that holds that the most simple explanation is probably correct for any event. It seems that with every new version of this story from the "scientists", it gets more complicated. I can't PROVE it at this time, I CAN logic it.
Point is that corruption is rampant in Congress and they want to fire a fish and game person who may be telling the truth about a friggin wild cat. Anybody needs firin' it's that guy from NJ - Tourtuchelli.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.