Forum Index > Trail Talk > Fed and State biologists falsify habitat study
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostTue Dec 18, 2001 11:17 am 
These folks should be fired and prosecuted as well. "Federal and state wildlife biologists planted false evidence of a rare cat species in two national forests, officials told The Washington Times. Had the deception not been discovered, the government likely would have banned many forms of recreation and use of natural resources in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest and Wenatchee National Forest in Washington state. The previously unreported Forest Service investigation found that the science of the habitat study had been skewed by seven government officials: three Forest Service employees, two U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials and two employees of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. The officials planted three separate samples of Canadian lynx hair on rubbing posts used to identify existence of the creatures in the two national forests." "Retired Fish and Wildlife Service biologist James M. Beers called the false sampling amazing but not surprising. "I'm convinced that there is a lot of that going on for so-called higher purposes," Mr. Beers said." Now that's a shock. And they wonder why people don't trust them? http://www.washtimes.com/national/20011217-7117603.htm

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
salish
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 2322 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
salish
Member
PostTue Dec 18, 2001 11:55 am 
MtnGoat: I read this report (in much greater detail) on another site on the Net this morning and was troubled by it. This past year I submitted an extremely detailed and lengthy sighting report to the WDFW Sighting Database on a lynx my buddy and I saw near Rachel Lake. In speaking with this individual who took the report, I was told the sighting was classified as a "very high probability" sighting of this lynx. I am a federal employee and work in fisheries (but not as a scientist) so I am very troubled by this report. I plan to speak with WDFW staff and ask if there is any truth to this story. Salish

My short-term memory is not as sharp as it used to be. Also, my short-term memory's not as sharp as it used to be.
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Stefan
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 5082 | TRs | Pics
Stefan
Member
PostTue Dec 18, 2001 12:00 pm 
As I understand it, they were "testing" the laboratory. If they wanted to test the validity of the laboratory, then they should have contacted the GAO and go forward from there. Let the GAO then take the heat. This was downright dumb--and yet another example of what the Forest does wrong.

Art is an adventure.
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostTue Dec 18, 2001 12:10 pm 
Yeah, "testing" the lab by not telling anyone about it, even *after* the determination of valid lynx hairs had been made! They're now testing the gullibility of the public.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
salish
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 2322 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
salish
Member
PostTue Dec 18, 2001 1:36 pm 
Sort of like testing the police by robbing a bank and waiting around to see how long it takes the cops to show up.

My short-term memory is not as sharp as it used to be. Also, my short-term memory's not as sharp as it used to be.
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Tsolo
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 166 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
Tsolo
Member
PostTue Dec 18, 2001 4:48 pm 
I'm not sure the topic title "fed agents falsify wildlife study" should be taken at face value just yet. As we're always reminded in life: consider the source. The issue first surfaced yesterday in the Washington Times, which is considered pretty unfriendly to everything conservationist (and liberal). A lot like Fox News, but that's another issue. The accounts in the Seattle papers today didn't draw any accusatory conclusions, they just said that it seems suspicious, or at least stupid on the part of the various wildlife researchers. Note that the suspicious results did NOT get included in nor affect the final study, according to the local accounts, contrary to the Washington Times claim that "the science of the habitat study had been skewed." I'll reserve judgment until I hear more. The average person, or the average newspaper reporter, probably isn't qualified to make a scientific assessment of what constitutes proper research methodology. Also, my feeling is that people engaged in real conspiracies don't tell multiple people across several agencies of government.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostTue Dec 18, 2001 5:09 pm 
You make some good points. I disagree with one of your last sentences though, that we're not qualified to make determinations of methodology. The dictates of science are clear enough for even laymen to see bad practices in some instances, corrupting evidence (if it did occur) is one such case. Not everything is so complex that only a few can understand the methodology.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
salish
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 2322 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
salish
Member
PostTue Dec 18, 2001 7:09 pm 
Good points, Tsolo (you too, MtnGoat). That's why I wanted to defer to a couple of my friends from WDFW before I made any judgements on this. Unfortunately, they're on leave until after the first of the year. Still, it kind of reeks. Salish

My short-term memory is not as sharp as it used to be. Also, my short-term memory's not as sharp as it used to be.
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Timber Cruiser
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 220 | TRs | Pics
Location: Cosi
Timber Cruiser
Member
PostWed Dec 19, 2001 9:37 am 
MtnGoat, Thanks for bringing up this topic. After dealing with state biologists on other T&E species on private timberland, my trust level was already at a low point. We survey for spotted owls and marbled murrelets using protocol developed from a combination of "best science" and politics. The evidence needed to determine occupancy of these birds in a timber stand is very subjective, especially when it comes to the MM. Although we employ third party surveyers (contractors) the state has "helped" us a number of times and found more occupancy behavior thus creating more habitat off limits to timber harvest. The only evidence required to establish occupany of the MM is observation of flight pattern. Which at 70 mph is not something you can record for instant replay or review. They don't build nests, so unless you are prepared to climb every 32"+ tree and inspect every large limb for evidence of them having sat on a clump of moss, you are out of luck in arguing they don't occupy a stand. rant.gif

"Logging encourages the maintenance of foilage by providing economic alternatives to development."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Tsolo
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 166 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
Tsolo
Member
PostWed Dec 19, 2001 12:15 pm 
Here's an article and an editorial from today's Seattle Times. The researchers' explanation in the article is not all that implausible, but I'll still withhold judgment until I hear more. The editorial seems a little too accusatory in my opinion. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/134380113_lynx19m.html http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html....19.html

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostWed Dec 19, 2001 12:35 pm 
I can wait to see how it shakes out as well, the editorial is on target *if* their view is substantiated. As long as no captive samples were submitted and represented as from a rubbing post, I'd be more inclined to believe the "test" theory.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Rich Baldwin
Mister Eddie



Joined: 22 Dec 2001
Posts: 1686 | TRs | Pics
Location: Martinique
Rich Baldwin
Mister Eddie
PostSat Dec 22, 2001 12:30 am 
I understood the employees had already been "counseled" and were no longer permitted to work on the lynx study. That kind of implies things were amiss.

Was you ever bit by a dead bee?
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Tsolo
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 166 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
Tsolo
Member
PostThu Feb 07, 2002 9:15 am 
Latest update on this issue: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/57246_lynxfur06ww.shtml http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/134401191_lynx07m.html I'm interested in seeing if some of you posters who were quick to jump to conclusions do a little backtracking...

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostThu Feb 07, 2002 1:58 pm 
I personally never claimed the outcome was a flawed study, I held that the action undertaken was very poor method at least and at worst presents the appearance of data manipulation even if it isn't the case. If they wanted to test the labs they chose the wrong way in which to accomplish this. It's their job to use good methods that *insure* they stay above even the appearance of bias. Following the report that the factual data for the Klamath mess does not specifically support the actions taken, and that those actions cost farmers a hell of a lot of money, these issues are not just harmless. I reported here what was reported in the papers, and if it turns out the study itself was not damaged, I have no problems accepting that.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Rich Baldwin
Mister Eddie



Joined: 22 Dec 2001
Posts: 1686 | TRs | Pics
Location: Martinique
Rich Baldwin
Mister Eddie
PostSat Feb 09, 2002 8:38 pm 
Whether the study was scientifically flawed or not is now moot. Once the public gets the perception that it is flawed, it is no longer credible or viable. The situation reminds me of the scientist who got fired by the administration for posting a map of carribou migration patterns while Bush and Norton were arguing for oil drilling in ANWR.

Was you ever bit by a dead bee?
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Trail Talk > Fed and State biologists falsify habitat study
  Happy Birthday speyguy, Bandanabraids!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum