Posted on 12/31/2001 5:03:05 PM PST by expose
IOW, green #1 talks to Agency Rep# 1 in a mtg in Switzerland. (IUCN?) and when they both get back to the states and green # 1 files lawsuit, Agency Rep # 1 says "We'll settle" and they both go home happy.
result is more collectivist control (which both green # 1 and Agency Rep # 1 want) over the land through the guise of protecting biological diversity, the Man and the Biosphere program, Convention on Biological Diversity, Agenda 21, etc. etc.
Every one of these bustards implicated in this should be gone. They are obviously incapable of doing their job in an honest manner.
In fact, if you are really good at sucking from the government teat, objective values are not needed, one need only submit subjective opinions disguised as objective values.
It would be interesting to backtrack and see just what other 'research' these scientists have been involved in, spotted owl maybe?
I remember about 2 yrs. ago there was a story on TV about a man in Wash. ( may have been Ore.) that bought an old farm. He was going to start it up again, build a house, barn, etc. The local gov. said fine. The environazis stepped in and told him he couldn't improve the property because of a list of endangered species on the property. Among the list was SASQUACH.!!!
They had some made up scientific name for it but it was obvious.
Talk about junk science.
From this... to Kyoto... to the many acts of terror, the Green Religion is uniformly against one group of living things.... people.
A matter of time? I could have sworn that's exactly what's going on now.
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.
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.
This should be a federal offense - a deliberate attempt to place endangered animals where they are not, and to damage the quality of the census of an endangered animal. This is a clear case of fraud. The perpetrators should lose their jobs.
The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed !!
An Armed Citizen, Is A Safe Citizen !!
No Guns, No Rights !!
Molon Labe !!
Stop the madness !!
Freedom Is Worth Fighting For !!
The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed !!
An Armed Citizen, Is A Safe Citizen !!
No Guns, No Rights !!
Molon Labe !!
To quote you..."INCREDIBLE." LOL!
LOL! Not even close!
You may have honorable intentions but lying isn't the way to accomplish anything.
Exactly! That's why I started up this thread. Zip, lying is not the way to accomplish anything. Yet we have 2 mutually contradictory sets of facts regarding what exactly happened. Not 2 different characterizations. Not 2 different "spins" on the same story. Two different sets of claims of hard fact. Don't you think it would be important for us to try to determine which of the 2 mutually contradictory stories is the true one & which is the false one? HINT: Just because one story confirms our beliefs about the subject in general does not automatically make it the true one.
Actually, on the other thread I mention one way out of the contradiction: Apparently the WA State biologists were the ones who put lynx hair into the sample vials & labeled them with non-existent numbers so they wouldn't get mixed in with the real data. This leaves the federal biologists, and maybe they were the ones who put lynx hair on the traps in the wild.
If this is the case, then that explains the discrepancy, and seals the case (in my mind at least) against the specific biologists who tried to defraud the system (the feds), and exhonerates the specific biologists who merely did something stupid (the WA State guys).
Now if attempting to solve mutually competing sets of factual claims to determine the real truth makes one a tree hugger, then give me a hammer & sickle & call me "Lillian Hellman".
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.