Posted on 12/19/2001 4:18:27 AM PST by brityank
For instance, our federal, (and state coho,) listing has very little information supporting it. That has not, (nor will it,) prevent a listing under the endangered species acts. When one really gets into it, the "science" is rotten to its core assumptions.
Many may know that the Defenders of Wildlife petitioned for protection of wolves in northern California and Southern Oregon. They claim that this is not because they will reintroduce them, but because they will "naturally" drift from westward from Idaho. (There has already been drift into Oregon.) Then these wolves will repopulate these two states "naturally."
I would not be surprised if that drift was not accelerated by a few pickup trucks with carriers.
Here are some interesting articles related to agencies and the push for wolf reintroduction.
Agency gears up for wolf visits, by Michael Milstein, The Oregonian Here The howling: Opinion by Sharon Beck, The Oregonian, Feds' wolf plan is disingenuous Here
Kyoto and other international treaties have a lot more to do with enriching a particular class of global elites than they do with redistributing wealth to poverty-stricken third world inhabitants.
Atlas Shrugged was a great story. Unfortunately, every event and character followed Rand's Rules. Because her story came out according to plan, she was never forced to confront the justification for the bureaucracy she hated. IMHO Rand failed to make the kind of change that her criticisms of socialism justified because she never developed her free enterprise solutions beyond a very sketchy level.
If we publicize those fascist failings in the environment without something to replace it we will merely get bigger budgets (which will be spent on continued acquisitions), more bureaucracy, and the dirty aspects of the patronage system will go further underground. The last thing I want is to make the environment a victim of the welfare state.
That is why we need a complete philosophy that can be subjected to rigorous logical test, an implementing political and legal strategy, and THEN go about DOING something to show what can be done. That process has already quietly started, even though the book has been out for only a couple of months. It is selling into little pockets of activists who need a tool and are willing to do the work to learn to use it. It's not selling widely because it's too much work for most people to read and the publisher has no money left for PR. So people are waiting to see if it is worth the effort by watching what happens elsewhere... (sigh). Hopefully, that initial success, as well as the mere sign of hope on the faces and in the hearts of landowners will interest the existing band of "free market" grandstanders who understand the issues and have the financial wherewithal and reputation to make the story go. They can take credit for it.
Once people learn a few things, the popular story that teaches the solution will be obvious and the financing to make it happen will be there, at least I hope so. It may also give me the time and resources to find a co-author more familiar with developing characters or even to take the whole thing with some consultation. I have other fish to fry.
The point is that the catfish we are exporting is probably not for human food.
Feel lucky to have taken a spike from my own land, which was a good feeling.
He'd been wounded by a lousy shot, and wouldn't have made it through the winter, most likely.
Now, I KNOW he won't, and he is VERY tasty.
prambo
This from a letter sent to Rep. James Hansen, Chair of the Committee on Resources, from Robert Hast, Managing Director of the Office of Special Investigations.
GAO-01-1018R Canadian Lynx Study
United States General Accounting Office
Washington, DC 20548
August 14, 2001
The Honorable James Hansen
Chairman
Committee on Resources
House of Representatives
Subject: Accidental Contamination of Samples Used in Canadian Lynx Study Rendered the Study’s Preliminary Conclusion Invalid
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This letter responds to your request that we investigate the results of a 1998 study concerning the Canadian lynx.The Forest Service contracted with Dr. John Weaver of the Wildlife Conservation Society in New York City to help conduct surveys for the Canadian lynx in the Cascade Mountain range of Washington and Oregon. In a March 1999 interim report, Dr. Weaver concluded that the Canadian lynx resides in certain forested portions of the states of Washington and Oregon. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service cited the 1999 interim report’s preliminary data in the final rule it published in the Federal Register on the status of the Canadian lynx.1 In March 2000, the Fish and Wildlife Service placed the lynx on its list of threatened species, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973,2 in the forested portions of 13 states, including Washington and Oregon.
Dr. Weaver based his preliminary conclusion on the results of a deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) analysis of hair samples recovered in the Cascade Mountain range of Washington and Oregon. That analysis was conducted by the Science Resource Center of the Wildlife Conservation Society. Additional DNA analysis was performed on the same hair samples by the Wildlife Genetics International Laboratory in Canada, which questioned whether the samples had been contaminated. You asked us to (1) determine whether allegations that the study was deliberately falsified are accurate and (2) confirm that two laboratories reached different conclusions based on an analysis of the same samples.
We conducted our investigation between August 2000 and July 2001 in accordance with investigative standards established by the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency. We interviewed Dr. John Weaver; Dr. George Amato, the Director of the 1 65 Federal Register16052. 2 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et. seq. GAO-01-1018R Canadian Lynx Study 2 Science Resource Center for the Wildlife Conservation Society3; and Dr. David Paetkau, the Senior Geneticist at the Wildlife Genetics International Laboratory. We also interviewed Fish and Wildlife Service field and headquarters personnel and Forest Service field officials. Furthermore, we reviewed relevant Fish and Wildlife Service and Forest Service documentation. The scope and validity of the data relied on by the Fish and Wildlife Service in reaching its decision to list the lynx as threatened in the states of Washington and Oregon under the Endangered Species Act are beyond the scope of this investigation.
In summary, we found no evidence that the study conducted by Dr. Weaver was deliberately falsified. In fact, the preliminary conclusion reported in the March 1999 interim report was based on hair samples that had been accidentally contaminated. In September 2000, Dr. Weaver had the original hair samples submitted to the Wildlife Genetics International Laboratory for additional analysis. That analysis questioned whether the samples used in the study had been accidentally contaminated, which raised questions about the conclusion in the interim report. Dr. Weaver notified the Forest Service of the results of the second analysis, and in a letter to cognizant Forest Service supervisors and biologists characterized the Canadian lynx locations reported in the March 1999 interim report—the states of Washington and Oregon—as unverified. During our investigation, Dr. Weaver issued a final report in June 2001, which concluded that samples relied upon in the March 1999 interim report were contaminated. In a June 2001 letter to us, the Fish and Wildlife Service said that the interim report had no bearing on its final decision to list the Canadian lynx as a threatened species in Washington and Oregon.
A Second Laboratory’s Analysis Determined that Samples Used in the Canadian Lynx Study Were Accidentally Contaminated In 1998, the Forest Service contracted with Dr. Weaver to assist in the design, implementation, and analysis of a Canadian lynx survey in the Cascade Mountain range of Washington and Oregon. The surveys were an attempt to obtain information about the lynx populations in those states. Forest Service biologists and technicians collected hair samples from sites in Washington and Oregon and sent the samples to Dr. Weaver. Dr. Weaver then sent the samples to the Wildlife Conservation Society’s Science Resource Center for DNA analysis. The laboratory’s DNA analysis identified hair samples from nine collection sites in Washington and five sites in Oregon as being from the Canadian lynx. Dr. Weaver told both the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest Service of his preliminary findings, which were based on the laboratory analysis. He provided a written interim report, titled Lynx Surveys in the Cascade Range: Washington and Oregon, with those same results to the Forest Service in March 1999. The interim report named Dr. Weaver and Dr. Amato, the Director of the Science Resource Center, as co-authors.
On March 24, 2000, the Fish and Wildlife Service published its final rule—a determination that the existence of the Canadian lynx is threatened in 13 states, including Washington and Oregon—in the Federal Register. The final rule includes available data on the Canadian lynx, including its habitat and historical residence in 3 Dr. Amato, who was identified as a co-author of both the interim and final reports, said he was not aware that his name had been associated with the interim report. GAO-01-1018R Canadian Lynx Study 3 various states and regions of the United States over the last 100 years or more and refers to Dr. Weaver’s interim report as “preliminary” data presented for the states of Washington and Oregon. Dr. Weaver told us that after he provided his interim report to the Forest Service in March 1999, a Forest Service colleague told him that some doubt had arisen within the agency about the existence of the Canadian lynx in Oregon. As a result, Dr. Weaver asked the Science Resource Center to send its samples to the Wildlife Genetics International Laboratory in Edmonton, Alberta. The laboratory’s Senior Geneticist, Dr. Paetkau, said the laboratory received Dr. Weaver’s samples on September 2, 2000, and provided the results to him by telephone on September 19, 2000. The Canadian laboratory’s DNA analysis of the hair samples identified all of them as being hair from the Canadian lynx. However, the Canadian laboratory noted that the DNA “signal” was stronger than would normally be expected from hair samples and raised questions about whether the samples had been contaminated. In response, Dr. Weaver sent the portions of the original samples he had retained to the Canadian laboratory, without informing the laboratory of the samples’ origin. The laboratory’s DNA analysis identified the samples as cougar and bobcat, rather than lynx. Dr. Weaver concluded that the samples that were initially sent to the Science Resource Center must have become accidentally contaminated at that laboratory. The Center’s director, Dr. Amato, disagreed that contamination actually occurred at his laboratory, but he acknowledged that it could have happened.
Dr. Weaver told us that he notified the Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service of the different DNA results in approximately September 2000. Based on that notification, the Forest Service issued a letter to its Forest Supervisors and Wildlife Biologists in the Pacific Northwest. The letter said that the Forest Service considered the Canadian lynx locations reported in the March 1999 interim report—the states of Washington and Oregon—to be unverified. The letter also stated that a survey was currently being conducted for Canadian lynx in Washington and Oregon and that so far, lynx had only been detected in several locations in Washington. A Forest Service official told us that the agency would not use Dr. Weaver’s 1998 study data in any management documents. In a June 1, 2001, letter to us, the Fish and Wildlife Service said Dr. Weaver’s study had no bearing on its decision to list the Canadian lynx as threatened.
On June 26, 2001, Dr. Weaver told us that Dr. Paetkau of the Canadian laboratory performed additional DNA analyses of the hair samples it received from the Science Resource Center. Dr. Paetkau said the laboratory performed the analysis on May 16, 2001, and provided the results to Dr. Weaver the following day. He said the results showed that all but one of the samples came from the same lynx, which in Dr. Weaver’s opinion provided further evidence that the samples had become contaminated. Dr. Weaver said that the Canadian laboratory had also analyzed hair samples from a lynx he had kept captive until approximately 1997 and that its DNA was different from the DNA samples received from the Science Resource Center. The June 2001 final report to the Forest Service concluded that the hair samples on which the March 1999 interim findings were based were contaminated.
Concerning the DNA analysis, Dr. Amato said he had received numerous hair samples from Dr. Weaver for DNA analysis and that each sample was routinely identified when the laboratory received them. Dr. Amato said that had he known that Dr. Weaver intended to present the results of the analysis to the Forest Service as evidence of the presence of Canadian lynx, he would have used different protocols. Dr. Paetkau told us that in general, (1) laboratories that perform the same type of analysis in a very rigorous manner, such as Canada’s Wildlife Genetics International Laboratory, are concerned about following certain protocols and (2) academic laboratories, such as the Science Resource Center laboratory, focus on using information in a new way and are less concerned about certain protocols.
Agency Comments The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest Service provided comments on a draft of this letter, in which they concurred with the letter and its findings.
- - - - -
As arranged with your office, unless you announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this letter until 30 days after the date of the letter. At that time, we will send copies to interested congressional committees and the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior. We will also make copies available to others on request. The letter will also be available at www.gao.gov. If you have any questions about this investigation, please call me at (202) 512-7455 or Assistant Director Patrick Sullivan at (202) 512-6722. Senior Special Agent Woodrow Hunt, Senior Analyst Shelia James, and Senior Attorney Barry Shillito made significant contributions to this investigation and letter.
Sincerely yours,
Robert H. Hast
Managing Director
Office of Special Investigations
82 posted on 12/18/01 2:39 AM Pacific<
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 !!
Not "prosecuted", but just fired. Wimps. Seems to me that defrauding a publicly funded research program would be a start...
Federal Code, Title 16, Chapter 12A, Section 83lt
(b) False entry, report or statement
Any person who, with intent to defraud the Corporation, or to deceive any director, officer, or employee of the Corporation or any officer or employee of the United States
(2) makes any false report or statement for the Corporation, shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
Firing ain't good enough. Put 'em in jail. There's law to cover it.
"The Washington Times is also all over the growing scandal within the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service where biologists in that agency are believed to have planted false evidence of the presence of a rare wildcat in two national forests.The question on everyone's minds:
If they did it, how many other federal biologists have been planting fake evidence of endangered species here and there?" - Hugh Hewitt
"The practice of planting bogus evidence shows how politicized and unscientific the application of the endangered species program can be, said Rob Gordon, Director of the National Wilderness Institute."politicized and unscientific?""If these allegations are true, we need to know how many were in on it and remove them from government service.
These charges may call into question the scientific integrity of the whole body of work done by those associated with the bogus evidence," said Gordon.
Naw... Say it ain't so!
If you listen to Hugh Hewitt, or read his commentaries,
this PING list is for YOU!
Please post your comments, and BUMP! (If you want OFF - or ON - my "Hugh Hewitt PING list" - please let me know.)
Gifford Pinchot National Forest
Forest Headquarters
10600 N.E. 51st Circle
Vancouver, WA 98682
Telephone: 360-891-5000
Fax: 360-891-5045
Chief Dale Bosworth
Forest Service, USDA
201 14th Street
Washington, DC 20250
202-205-1661.
(Thanks to .38sw for the Washington address)
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.