Bird murder?
I conclude from that that you are a carrot, taking nutrients from mineral soil and energy from the sun. Otherwise, you are a killer just like everyone else.
I'm sure some of your friends are at work here.
Anchorage Daily News 03/09/02
Fur flies over falsified tests for threatened species
By Robert Schlesigner
The Boston Globe
WASHINGTON, D.C. -The hair samples collected in two national forests in
Washington state were supposed to be the linchpin: If any Canadian lynx,
officially listed as a threatened species, were found in such an area, that
locale could come under tough federal rules regulating the habitat of
endangered and threatened species.
But there were no lynx in the forests. A group of federal scientists
had planted the lynx hairs, endangering a nationwide study designed to
discern where the animals live and kicking off a furor among lawmakers from
Western states, conservationists and those who favor more robust
development of natural resources. .
The revelation of scientific monkey-wrenching has triggered a pair of
inspector General audits, all investigation by the General Accounting
Office, and, on Wednesday, a congressional hearing.
Government officials insist that because the scientists' actions were
caught early, they did not taint the study's findings. But for many
Westerners the controversy confirmed their worst fears about how federal
regulators make decisions under such laws as the Endangered Species Act.
"If you look at this as a whole, it calls into question the science and the
motivation that has been used by federal agencies over the years," said
Rep. Richard Porobo, R Calif., who is chairman of the Western Caucus, a
group of Western lawmakers. "What it shows is what people who live out West
have had to deal with. When an endangered species is declared, when habitat
is declared, it has a major impact on communities and people throughout the
West."
Although no one disputes the (acts of the case, a mystery remains about
the biologists' motives and their departments' reaction.
The facts, according to a report by the GAO and an earlier one by the
Interior Department's Inspector General, are clear: In September and
October 2000, three biologists from the U .S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Forest Service and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife tried to
pass off hair from captive or stuffed lynx as samples supposedly collected
from the Wenatchee and Gifford Pinchot national forests. During the
previous year's survey, another scientist had submitted samples from a
stuffed bobcat pelt.
In at least one case, one of the scientists told his supervisor what
was going on, but the supervisor apparently assumed that it was part of the
survey's parameters, since some surveys include the use of control samples.
The deception came to light when the Forest Service employee, literally
on the eve of retiring, left a voice-mail for his supervisor saying that
some of the hairs sent to the Carnivore Conservation Genetics Laboratory
were not from the forests in question.
The biologists, confronted with the allegations, told investigators
that they didn't trust the laboratory and were submitting fake samples to
test how well it performed, according to testimony by U.S. officials before
the House Resources Committee.
A subsequent investigation, in which the Forest Service retained a
private investigator as part of its attempt to get the facts, resulted in
Forest Service biologists receiving "verbal counseling" and being
transferred from the study.
Western conservatives disguised neither their disbelief nor their
disgust with the whole situation. Many were convinced that the scientists
acted in hopes of using the lynx study to place large tracts of land under
tighter regulation. Several scorned the idea that the fakery was merely to
test the laboratory.
"It's equivalent to having Mohamed Atta say, 'I was just checking
airline security,' " Rep. Walden, R-Ore., said, referring to the alleged
ringleader of the Sept. 11 hijackers.
Officials from the Department of Agriculture, which includes the Forest
Service, and the Department of Interior, which includes the fish and
wildlife agency, insisted that while the actions were indefensible, the
credibility of the overall study was preserved because the fake samples
were caught. Scientific fraud is not a widespread problem, they said.
"While the actions of these individuals have caused the public to doubt
the overall credibility of the agencies' science, I do want to point out
that this is not an example of bad science by the agencies involved," said
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service director Steven Williams, who has been in
his job for a month. "Instead it is bad judgment by the individuals
involved. This is a crucial distinction which must be kept in mind in
evaluating this situation."
Committee Republicans expressed incredulity at the news that the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Department biologist and others in his agency
subsequently received merit bonuses and that the Forest Service officials
got only "verbal counseling," essentially a stern talking to.
"The fact that these malfeasant bureaucrats got ...a pat on the back
after engaging in totally unethical conduct is, in my estimation, a
singular outrage," said Scott Mclnnis, R-Colo. "At the end of the day, it
says a great deal about the cultural mind-set of the two agencies."
The Westerners' interest in the issue was displayed when officials
from the GAO, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of the
Interior testified. While the Republican side of the dais was full of
enraged conservatives, few Democrats appeared.
Mark Rey, the undersecretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and
Environment, acknowledged that many in the West view the government warily
on environmenta1 issues and believe that other studies have been faked.
"It's a widely held perception about the agency, and that is something
we're interested in changing," Rey said.
(Embedded image moved to file: pic11102.gif) |
