[jennyp]

"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????

I don't get it. A previous study says there are "lynx up & down the Cascades", the scientists are skeptical of this claim - in exactly the same way that many people here are - so this time they send in control samples to test whether the lab really knows what they're doing! Friends, that's good scientific procedure! The only thing they did "wrong" was not getting permission from their superiors. Then word gets out to the press - garbled, it turns out - and the story mutates into "SCIENTISTS FAKE LYNX DATA TO TRY AND SHUT DOWN THE FORESTS!" Incredible.

[Sigarmed]

I know your statement is a joke right? Your trying to be sarcastic aren't you? If your not this has got to be the dumbest reasoning ever. As if you can't test lynx hairs without having to plant them. There are other easier means of testing the methods used and it sure doesn't entail fooling anyone.

[goodnesswins]

What I understood they DID WRONG.....was PLANT lynx furs in the forest pretending it was there all on its very own. That's what has caused all the furor.....NOT that the lab was being tested, which is what they are now trying to say to cover up what they did.

[Navy Patriot]

Please see post #35.

[editor-surveyor]

"I don't get it.

I think that you get it, they got caught and made up a cute little story. - There's no such thing as an honest environmentalist.

We all know how honest you are though jenny; like you would never come down on the side of a fellow psuedo-sci-groupie, would you?

[sauropod]

Not accurate, jennyp. Go to the Washington Times and look at the Audrey Hudson stories.

If you think that DoI or USFS is above this sort of thing, think again.

Deus Vult! 'Pod

[sauropod]

Oh, Jenny dearest, did you happen to click on the link on post number 14?

Or have you applied the "creationist" label to that too, my Objectivst stud muffinette?

Deus Vult! 'Pod

[farmfriend]

Testing the labs is one thing but planting the hair on the rubbing posts is a whole 'nother matter and every article I've read says that is what they did.

[zip]

I take it from post 31 that you are a "tree hugger". You may have honorable intentions but lying isn't the way to accomplish anything.

[mtman]

Oh..I know!...I felt the same way when everybody missunderstood (little "p")president (little."c") clinton..in the Lewinski debacle....As Hillary told us early on....Bill has always made it a point to "minister" to the younger generation....Its so sad some people always seem to question the intentions of our humble servents...Too bad more people didn't think like us...What a wonderful world it would be!!!!! Happy New Year...and heres hoping this is the year we'll get a life!...Nobody deserves it more than us...Cheers!!

[Diva Betsy Ross]

I understand your attempt at rationally de-fusing this situation, 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.

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.

[headsonpikes]

Re: your post #31

To quote you..."INCREDIBLE." LOL!

[Leisler]

Why do you have to go up a mountian, to the scratch posts, pull the hair out of a envelope, put the false lynx hair on it, take it off the post, put in in another envelope, go back down the mountian, and submit the "sample"? Wouldn't it make more sense to just hand in various envelopes, false and positive, and compare the lab results with what you know? The behaviour of these guys is like someone caught in a prostitution sting who says they were doing "research". Yeah, right.