Planted Lynx Fur In Habitat Survey Upsets Legislators bureacrats {Congress can be so easily led}

Associated Press ^ | Monday, December 31, 2001 | Associated Press

[expose]

What is so surprizing about this.

Government bureacrats has always slanted their rports to get their way.

From WACO to Ruby Ridge to clean air act, to U.N. reports.

Congress can be so easily led by these reports

[Psycho_Bunny]

It was attempted fraud and the persons involved should be arrested.

[yooper]

"Fish and Wildlife Service spokesman Chris Tollefson said the agency is confident the lynx count has not been tainted."

This moron should be the first to go......

[Irene Adler]

Why can't the U.S. let the Canadians worry about the Canadian lynx, anyway?

[Irene Adler]

""We don't believe that there was an intent to submit these results to skew the results of the survey..."

Why was it done then, praytell?

[DWSUWF]

If it comes from government it's either:

1) An absolute, monolithic, bald-faced, total lie.
2) A tissue of lesser lies glued together with snippets of truth.
3) A bizarre mixture of lunacy, accidental truth and lies.

[sistergoldenhair]

admitted they planted the samples and said they wanted to test whether the lab could identify lynx fur.

What? They were worried that the previous data might not be accurate?

They said if it is found that the intent was to skew the study
the agency is confident the lynx count has not been tainted

Too late. This study is now junk.
No amount of review of the data will ever prove it is accurate.
Can them! This type of falsification of data should not be tolerated by the scientific community.
May they never find a job in their selected field again.

[citizen]

Now there is a sensible question, why indeed not?

Let me get perhaps less sensible and suggest that these Canadian lynx be stopped at the US border, there's probably more snowshoe hares in Canada anyway, based on there certainly being more snowshoes in Canada.

[Lancey Howard]

They said if it is found that the intent was to skew the study, the biologists should be fired.

"Fired"?
This country is so far down the toilet that I am convinced more than ever that it's hopeless.

[norton]

You can rule out "accidental truth".
This is, afterall, merely another heroic defense of mother nature...
at least one of the eco-cult's truisms is that ends justify means.
These yo-yo's are BOTH Eco-fascists and Government employees; what kind of proof do you need?

[sauropod]

Well, well, well. About time the AP picked up on this. The Washington Times (only newspaper i read regularly) had a breaking story about this Dec 4th. There have been several followup letters to the editor about all this, and some follow up news stories as well.

Look for Audrey Hudson on the byline.

Deus Vult! 'Pod

[sauropod]

Correct Analysis. While the country fiddles chasing the bearded one, the totalitarians continue to grasp at our freedoms.

[L.N. Smithee]

They said if it is found that the intent was to skew the study the agency is confident the lynx count has not been tainted

And when Winona Ryder was caught shoplifting, she was only doing research for a future role.

[Ben Ficklin]

WA F&G biologist confesses

[expose]

thanks for the link

[DWSUWF]

"...what kind of proof do you need?..."

This far exceeds the amount of proof required...

We're at war with this bastards, whether we care to openly acknowledge it or not.

[Zon]

Why was it done then, praytell?

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.

Yeah right! And Bill Clinton didn't have sex with Monica Lewinski.

[Zon]

BTW, I've got a bridge for sale if Chris Tollefson is interested.

[Congressman Billybob]

Phil,

This is an important story. These "scientists" should be fired, not reassigned. Pass this along to RTSH?

Congressman Billybob

Click and bookmark for fun in the morning. FReepers especially invited to call in.

[farmfriend]

"I didn't trust the results of the lab, so I wasn't going to tell them I was sending in a blind sample. A 1998 study came out with the results of lynx up and down the Cascades, and that didn't seem logical. Most of us doubted it. How could there be so many lynx?"

I got this off of the linked article. Does anyone else have a problem with this statement? The earlier study was wrong because it came back with too many lynx? Wasn't the study supposed to determin how many there were? The lab came back with results we didn't like so we sent in false samples to test the lab????