Biologists' roles in lynx-hair fraud under review

Washington Times ^ | Tuesday, April 23, 2002 | By Audrey Hudson

[JohnHuang2]

A professional society of wildlife biologists is investigating its members who submitted false samples of lynx hair during a national study to determine whether the actions violated ethical standards.

The Wildlife Society will examine the actions of three federal and state employees who submitted samples from captive and stuffed cats for laboratory DNA analysis. The lynx is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

[farmfriend]

Pinging the Klamath list. Sorry to those who have aready been pinged to this thread.

Speak up if you want to be added or removed.

[madfly]

- WASHINGTON - Shortly after the House Resources Committee held a spirited hearing March 6 into whether some biologists planted fake lynx fur in a Western forest, Rep. Scott McInnis, R-Grand Junction, walked on the House floor to disclose what investigators had been reluctant to announce in the hearing room.

A former police officer, McInnis named four of the seven workers involved in the case, expressing outrage over their actions. "They planted evidence, just like a bad cop goes into a house and plants drugs," he told the House.

It was no secret that McInnis was furious over what he calls the "Lynx Survey Seven," two state and five federal workers who he says should have been more severely punished; none was prosecuted.

McInnis named only the four - Ray Scharpf, Mitch Wainright, Sara LaMarr and Tim McCracken - because their actions were the most serious, McInnis' spokesman said.

At the hearing, McInnis had expressed bewilderment that a worker in the group had received a bonus and another had been awarded a pay raise.

Later on the floor, McInnis said it was a clear case of government workers who "knew what they were doing was wrong and outside their protocol, but they still carried out their actions," McInnis said. Congress, he said, will "install some firewalls that will prevent this type of scheme from happening again."

Not everyone who heard what McInnis did on the House floor, however, was applauding his statement last week. (McInnis is shielded from any question of having libeled the workers by making his statement on the floor.)

A spokeswoman for Democrats on the Resources Committee declined to comment, but Tom Franklin, wildlife policy director for the Wildlife Society and a witnesses at the hearing, said he was offended by McInnis' action.

"Yes, sir, I'm concerned that the names were released after everyone at the hearing was very careful to respect the privacy of the individuals," Franklin said. "I am concerned that such publicity at this point could unduly embarrass and/or affect the careers of innocent people."

Blain Rethmeier, a spokesman for McInnis, said the five-term Colorado lawmaker has no apology for naming the four.

"As a general proposition, Mr. McInnis believes the public has the right to know in the event that the implicated individuals are involved in similarly critical ESA (Endangered Species Act) assessments in the future. Given their unarguable predisposition to flout the rules of the game, Mr. McInnis is of the mind that their future work deserves some additional scrutiny by the public. This step ensures that."

McInnis' action illustrated how strongly he feels about an issue that has been a rallying point for Western conservatives and their angst over the Endangered Species Act. It is, McInnis said, not a question of whether the scientists should be used in determining whether a specific species is endangered, but whether those scientists have used good science.

In this case, the scientists sent fake Canada lynx hair to a lab as part of a survey to protect the animals' habitat. Whether their motives were, as some say, to test the laboratory they were using, or, as others suggest, to expand the lynx's range, a senior Agriculture Department official asked for more time to investigate before any conclusions are drawn.

A few minutes later, McInnis effectively said he didn't need any more time to draw conclusions about what went wrong.

Meanwhile, In another example of blunt talk, McInnis announced last week that he will offer legislation later this spring to create a "national fire czar or National Fire Council" if federal officials fail "to bring uniformity and consistency to federal wildland fire policy."

"The Feds have been put on notice - either establish an interagency national fire czar or council, or I will," McInnis said in a news release.

---

[ Report Abuse | Bookmark Discussion ]

---

The fight against the the green machine (can you say U.N.'s useful idiots) and other terrorists to this nation is going to ba a long and arduous battle, dig in and fight back!

This post made possible by Barb Hall, and The klamath relief people and associates

1 posted on 3/18/02 9:02 AM Pacific by Issaquahking

[backhoe]

I included a link to this story in a mass email I just sent:

Today's Mass E-Mail... 04-23-02

[madfly]

Forgot the link to previous post.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/648604/posts

[blackie]

You can't have too many pings for good stuff !!

[farmfriend]

"Yes, sir, I'm concerned that the names were released after everyone at the hearing was very careful to respect the privacy of the individuals," Franklin said. "I am concerned that such publicity at this point could unduly embarrass and/or affect the careers of innocent people."

What innocent people is he talking about. The only names released were guilty.

Great supplement.

[Ben Ficklin]

Those that have defended these biologists have unwittingly underminded the lynx research even further. One of the methods of this "defending the biologists" has been to support their position that there is something inadequate about the National Lynx Detection Protocol that requires these low level employees to test the system.

The Detection Protocol was designed by lynx expert McKelvey to, among other things, be sure that the lynx would not be over or under detected. When these biologists and their supporters bad mouth the Protocol for underdetecting, they are also implying that that overdetection is likely. Or that the Protocol is flawed.

McKelvey did a newspaper interview(which I can't find now) in which he blasted these biolgists and their supporters because of the damage they are doing. McKelvey's testimony at the Congressional Hearings, in which he tries to defend the Protocol, is here

[Ben Ficklin]

Thanks for the ping.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

A professional society of wildlife biologists is investigating its members who submitted false samples of lynx hair during a national study to determine whether the actions violated ethical standards. "Hmm... Gee... I dunno.... This is more compilcated than it sounds, because their motives were good."

Yep. That's how morality works in liberal lala-land.

The penalty for such crimes should be to be beaten senseless with a hardbound copy of Machiavelli's "The Prince".

[Madame Dufarge]

"The solution to the problem posed in this article is to examine the notebooks kept by the scientists in question."

Bump.

[VOA]

Absolutely correct! - This is the only way to settle it. - No entry, no honor.

In a rational world, that's what would happen.

Even if they are reprimanded and/or dimissed, these folks are probably
on the fast track for awards from The Sierra Club, etc.

[kitchen]

The real question here is: will these people be sanctioned by their peers? Or will wrists be slapped, harsh words huffily spoken, and counciling given to the perpetrators?

In the case of the feds, they got counseling, were removed from the project, and then received raises and/or bonuses.

From my experience, bonuses are rewarded for exceeding management expectations. Conspiracy to commit fraud and RICO charges need to be forthcoming.

[mafree]

Bump

[WhiteyAppleseed]

The House Committee on Resources held hearings on the lynx fraud on Wednesday, March 6, 2002.

Thomas M. Franklin, Wildlife Policy Director was one who testified. Among other things, which you can read by going to the link, he said: We do not know the identity of the individuals who were involved in the Canadalynx survey that is the subject of today's hearing. Nor do we know whether their behavior was appropriate.

You have to wonder how often unethical bureaucratic scientists have taken these kinds of actions to further their agenda.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[Travis McGee]

They should be handcuffed around a tree in the middle of a forest, so they can hug it for a few days or weeks, (depending on whether dehydration, hypothermia, or carnivores get them first).

[serinde]

The Wildlife Society has a code of ethics and standards for professional conduct, and it appears the employees may have breached "several of those canons," Mr. Thomas said.

For all the talk from the govt about "codes of ethics and standards," there doesn't seem to be much interest in actually following these standards. Why bother with a code if no one is going to follow it in the first place, or there are no sanctions against those that don't?

[B4Ranch]

Course, I'm sure the feds protocols are either nonexistent or just ignored.

So, what are you going to do about it? We're talking about gov't employees here. They know that they won't be fired. Just reprimanded and promoted.

[B4Ranch]

Interesting, but remember that our heroic AG, Mr. Ashcroft, has turned his back on any justice being done in this matter.

The mission was accomplished though. The Agenda 21 Program is in place and working strong. Bush is giving the UN all the money it needs to keep coming up with collars to contain America.

[B4Ranch]

Does anyone remember this guy Jack Ward Thomas as the guy who started the big lie about the owl? The truth about that debacle is just starting to surface.

Look at #59 that reply fits your post.