The Latest on Lynxgate

[Dru]

From the April 2002 edition of Outside Magazine

Debunking LynxgateAs lawmakers accuse seven government biologists of fraud, the truth isdrowned out by the headlines

By Daniel Glick

"THE ONLY THING we were doing was trying to get to the truth," says MitchWainwright, a 46-year-old Forest Service wildlife biologist based in Amboy,Washington. Instead he got an unwanted starring role in the most bizarreenvironmental flap of recent memory: Lynxgate.

Details of "the great biofraud," as the The Washington Times has dubbed theaffair, first emerged just before Christmas. Wainwright and six other stateand federal wildlife scientists in Washington State allegedly "planted"clumps of wild lynx fur in the Gifford Pinchot and Wenatchee nationalforests. The intent, say their accusers, was to trigger the protections thatare imposed when a threatened species like the Canada lynx is found livingin a new area, namely closure of the forest to recreationists and loggers.For their roles in a green conspiracy that seemed worthy of Oliver Stone,Wainwright and five colleagues were reassigned to other programs-one otherretired-and were told to keep their mouths shut. Wainwright was veryreluctant to speak to Outside, fearing not only for his job but also for thefuture of all endangered-species programs in the United States.

Why? Because industry groups, pundits, and conservative lawmakers-led byRepublican House Committee on Resources chairman James Hansen of Utah andScott McInnis of Colorado, the Republican who chairs the subcommittee thatoversees national forests-are using the lynx controversy to launchwide-ranging attacks on endangered-species policies past, present, andfuture. "There is so much fear out there about how [the Endangered SpeciesAct] works," says McInnis spokesman Blain Rethmeier. Then again, at leastsome of the fear has been inspired by McInnis himself. Last year, after fourwilderness firefighters perished in a blaze in Washington State, he chargedthat Forest Service officials may have been culpable by delaying a decisionallowing a helicopter to scoop water from a river containing threatenedfish. The charge was later proven false.

What emerges is not a scientific scandal but a case study in media-amplifieddemagoguery.

It's all pretty rousing stuff, but the real untold story is that the greatlynx biofraud is baloney. Outside interviewed 25 scientists, investigators,and policy makers familiar with the incident, and reviewed all the relevantreports. What emerges is not a scientific scandal but a case study inmedia-amplified demagoguery. There is no evidence whatsoever to supporteither a conspiracy or a cover-up. The scientists didn't "plant" lynx fur inthe forests. They didn't plot to invoke the Endangered Species Act throughfalsified data. And even if they had, it wouldn't have worked, because anyevidence of lynx would have to be confirmed with further research before newmanagement decisions could be made.

Lynxgate's selectively told tale of environmental skullduggery has soangered some biologists that they've started using the M word. "It'sMcCarthy politics all over again," says Elliott Norse, a founder of theSociety for Conservation Biology, an Arlington, Virginia-based group thatencourages biodiversity research. "It's the stupidest thing I've everheard."

To understand this fracas and why it has staying power, it helps to know alittle bit about the threatened Canada lynx, a cousin to the bobcat found inCanada, the Rockies, and across a northern swath of the United States. Thecat first landed at the center of controversy in 1998, when ecoterroristscited the need to protect its habitat as justification for burning down $12million worth of facilities at the Vail ski resort. But our story begins thefollowing year, in 1999, when an interagency team of American biologistsbegan a three-year, 16-state survey to determine where in the nation the catstill roamed, and where it didn't. The team's primary scientific tool is asimple rubbing post, wrapped in carpet, laced with attractant scent, studdedwith small tacks, and placed in the woods. Drawn by the odor, critters brushagainst the tacks and leave behind hairs, which are then collected and sentto the Carnivore Conservation Genetics Laboratory in Missoula, Montana. If asubmitted sample turns out to be lynx, that means the cat exists in thewoods where it was collected.

The problem was that in previous lynx studies, biologists had complainedthat the lab's results were screwy. In one case, technicians reported thatsubmitted hair samples came from feral house cats-though the fur in questionwas taken from the middle of a wilderness. (The lab says it has clearprotocols in place to correctly identify samples.) So in 1999, and again in2000, several biologists working on the survey on behalf of the U.S. ForestService, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and the Washington State Department of Fishand Wildlife independently decided to test the men and women in white coatsby sending them hairs from a captive lynx. One biologist even sent in hairsplucked from "Harry"-a stuffed bobcat that he keeps in his office.

In September 2000, somebody at the Forest Service sounded an alarm about theuse of these "unauthorized" control samples. A departmental criminalinvestigation cleared the biologists of any wrongdoing, but a second report,prepared by a Portland, Oregon, private investigation firm and completedlast June, notes that the biologists claim to have done everythingaboveboard, except for a small detail: The national lynx study doesn'tauthorize using control samples, whether they're taken from Harry or acaptive lynx. The scientists shrugged, and the whole thing landed in abinder on a shelf.

In mid-December, someone tipped off The Washington Times, and the papersubsequently ran with news that "wildlife biologists planted false evidenceof a rare cat species in two national forests." Other papers followed suitwith bombastic editorials, and the fur really began to fly. CongressmanHansen called for a top-to-bottom federal review of the lynx survey. Thescandal, he warned, threatened the very economy of rural America. "Thishoax, if it hadn't been discovered," Hansen said, "could have wrecked somepeople's way of life."

Mitch Wainwright and the other alleged conspirators, whose names wereblacked out of the private investigator's report, could do nothing but sittight as a maelstrom began to rage around them. Interior Secretary GaleNorton and Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman, who oversee Fish and Wildlifeand the Forest Service respectively, each put their Office of InspectorGeneral on the case. A congressional hearing was scheduled for February 28.But while Wainwright declined to discuss specifics, citing theinvestigation, he flatly denies the conspiracy charges.

"There was no collusion," he says, "no agenda."

The strangest thing about the so-called planted fur samples is theassumption that saws and snowmobiles will fall silent wherever lynx arediscovered. In fact, there are virtually no cases in which the presence oflynx has changed management policies. Lynx certainly didn't stop the ForestService from approving the Vail ski area's planned expansion into whatColorado state biologists considered prime lynx habitat on the White RiverNational Forest.

When presented with this fact, Marnie Funk, a spokeswoman for Hansen'scommittee, would only refer back to the private investigator's findings."There is clearly no smoking gun in that report," she allows. "But there areunanswered questions." She declined to elaborate, citing the pendingcongressional investigation, except to add that the biologists' use ofunauthorized control samples was "a questionable way to conduct a study."Wainwright acknowledges that he erred by not following the chain of command."We did things wrong," he says, citing their failure to clear the controlsamples with the head of the lynx program. (The biologists' immediatesupervisors were aware of the control samples.) The small point is welltaken, but the bigger picture here should give pause to anyone concernedover how easily politics trumps science inside the Beltway.

"Anything endangered-species related is now being called into question,"says Eric Wingerter, national field director for Public Employees forEnvironmental Responsibility, a green-tilted group that includes federalland managers. And the conservative press rushed to provide those criticswith a soapbox: "The tendency of true believers," sniffed an opinion piecein The Weekly Standard, "is to defend any means to their end. "Indeed,post-Lynxgate, some lawmakers have called for a review of an unrelatedfederal grizzly-bear research program, while others are rehashing dubiousstories that federal biologists faked data that touched off the spotted-owlwars of the eighties. "The people with the agenda aren't the biologists,"says Wingerter. "And the biologists are scared to death."

For his part, Forest Service scientist Mitch Wainwright, who is now workingon timber-sale evaluations, does plead guilty-"of naïveté." But as forcharges that he and his colleagues were engaged in a crusade, he isemphatic. "Nothing," he says, "could be further from the truth."

[vegetablebelay]

That is some sweeeeet spin-doctoring. It was all just a test!

[freeclimb9]

I had understood that the "controls" weren't noted in the scientists own records (a deviation from lab technique not tolerated even in High School science courses, BTW); And they only fessed to the deception after samples from a wide geographic area were found to be from the same animal.

I think it very likely that the individuals fingered in "Lynxgate" could have been trying to influence the portent of their studies by padding the data. I speculate that the fact that these folks thought the Lab contractor was "screwy" led them to not be more careful in choosing samples to plant from a wider array of animals.

This kind of stuff happens all the time. It's the goverment employees (or contractors) out in the field conducting surveys that have real power in formulating policy. Their own politics influences what they see and report, without question.

[gregm]

thanks for posting that dru. i knew there had to be more to that story when i heard it on the news. i'm more inclined to believe the biologists in question were checking the lab work. when it comes to conspiracy theories i am inclined to use the law of parsimony: the simplest solution is usually the best one. i have a hard time believing seven people would embark on such an elaborate scheme. i can see the isolated disgruntled nut case but in my experience these wildlife management agancies are anything but sink holes for radical environmentalists. definately a boo-boo the way they did, and that's why these guys got reassigned, but i highly doubt it's the conspiracy the media and conservatives are making it out to be. but then i suppose we all interpret facts to support our pre-existing beliefs.

[vegetablebelay]

quote:

---

Originally posted by gregm:

i have a hard time believing seven people would embark on such an elaborate scheme.

---

Like there's never been groups before who've concocted schemes?

[ 04-12-2002: Message edited by: vegetablebelay ]

[Dru]

And: the following information comes from a presentation inOregon last week by Kevin McKelvey (USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station andleader of the National Lynx survey protocol). I got it via mailing list email from a registered professional biologist presenting a biologist's interpretation of the whole matter.

Kevin gave a brief synopsis ofthis debacle which not surprisingly was quite different than that whichappeared in the press and thankfully more complete.

1. The origin of the contraversy was that a lynx researcher working inWashington reported 14 positive results from lynx hair pads which had beenplaced in a number of National Forest sites in Washington State. Thisresearcher had processed the DNA samples in his own lab.

2. There were a number of biological staff who were quite skeptical of thisand as a result introduced some "blind" tests into the system the followingyear. These blinds, unfortunately lacked any reasonable care and scrutinyfor the most part and the results that came from them caused the staff whosubmitted them to stand up and say - Hey this doesn't work. In fact theprocess for obtaining and submitting the blind samples was ad hoc and notwell controlled. As a result there were problems with samples (e.g. one mayor may not have been a European Lynx (someone's pet - but the person whosubmitted was not sure), Harry the Bobcat (who not surprisingly after goingthrough taxidermy and sitting in the light for many years had no usable DNA)etc etc.

3. The original researcher (almost 1.5 years after the fact) indicated thatthe samples in his lab had been contaminate with known lynx DNA and theresults had in fact been false positives.

This points out a couple of critical issues:

1. The critical need for issues like this (particularly those surroundingthe status of species at risk) to be based on quality science.

2. The need for appropriate and effective communication. In fact the lynxprotocols and the lab doing the national lynx survey work had conductedblind trials. If there had been proper communication between those skepticalprofessionals and the lab the whole issue could have been resolved a lotquicker. In addition had the original researcher re-assessed his sampleswhen the contraversy started the issue would have been put to rest a lotearlier and not endangered the entire national sampling protocol andprogram.

3. The need for the utmost levels of professionalism in the practice of ourprofession. We can't afford to be distracted into spending energy dealingwith the types of side issues like this one in the states. There are manyother more important issues that really need energy and attention in thespecies at risk realm.

[AlpineK]

quote:

---

Originally posted by vegetablebelay:

Like there's never been groups before who've concocted schemes?

[ 04-12-2002: Message edited by: vegetablebelay ]

---

Ya know vegy maybe they were trying to cheat, but if you read the report, even if nobody detected the fake sample, the only result would have been more research. There wouldn't have been an instant ban on use of the forest.

Maybe they did maybe they didn't cheat. I sure don't know and you don't either.

[Duchess]

quote:

---

Originally posted by freeclimb9:

I think it very likely that the individuals fingered in "Lynxgate" could have been trying to influence the portent of their studies by padding the data... This kind of stuff happens all the time. It's the goverment employees (or contractors) out in the field conducting surveys that have real power in formulating policy. Their own politics influences what they see and report, without question.

---

interesting opinion. not terribly enlightened, however. as a field biologist that conducted these same lynx surveys last summer, there are a few things that i would respectfully like to clarify.

1. it is (among field biologists) a well known fact that DNA testing is, at best, questionable. the tests can almost always determine family (canid vs. felid, for example). generally, the tests can tell the differences between cougars and bobcats. however, lynx and bobcat are so similar genetically that it is doubtful that DNA tests can accurately and consistently differentiate between them.

2. working in the field last summer, i myself wondered on many occassions if the lab would report the correct findings. after all, our hard work in the field would be absolutely worthless if the lab couldn't identify the species properly.

3. a coworker of mine knew the biologists in question quite well. as far as anyone can tell, these were good, honest, hardworking folks who truly believed in the integrity of their work. the results of the lab tests were never supposed to be released, nor were they supposed to be used to make false claims or change policy. the forest service, and the media, jumped on this without verifying facts.

as far as the field surveyors having the power to formulate policy?! whoa there. if only that were the case. just so you know, field workers are the absolute lowest players on the totem pole. a GS-5 biologist has NO VOICE whatsoever within their agency. it's the administrators (the fatsos pushing paper in the office) that have the power and push their agendas. you got beef? aim your distrust towards bush, cheney, and norton. field workers only have the power to manipulate data. most data goes into some file cabinet and never sees the light of day again! and any data that doesn't agree with what the administrators and policy makers want to see, only results in more data collection, until it can be twisted around enough to get the desired results. you don't believe that? look at anwr. twelve YEARS of objective science determined that drilling would negatively affect the caribou and other wildlife. bush and his henchmen didn't like that finding--so they ordered another study. seven DAYS later, the same data is used to prove that drilling can proceed without negatively impacting wildlife. you see? the field workers become helpless lackeys of the administration.

field workers only play along in these ridiculous schemes so that they can work outside and with the creatures they love. i have seen, among my colleagues, more helplessness and despair than any other profession i have encountered.

sorry to run on. this is quite possibly the most MISUNDERSTOOD issue in research today.

[freeclimb9]

Hey Duchess,

Uh, . . . Nevermind.

 

[ 04-14-2002, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: freeclimb9 ]

[Fairweather]

Everyone knows biologists don't ultimately lay out policy. But they know damn well what influence their studies will have. Don't try to absolve the "researchers" of responsibility here. They knew EXACTLY what they were doing, and knew the cause/effect their research would have. I think a congressman made the analogy of bankrobbers getting caught and then claiming that they were only trying to test the bank's security.

 

They got busted. Simple as that, Dru.

 

[ 04-14-2002, 09:51 PM: Message edited by: Fairweather ]

[Dru]

Well just to keep you happy, I am going to smuggle a lynx across the border with me every time I come down from now on (we have so many of them up here they are common as dirt ) and release them in all your supposed wilderness areas that'll show you!

[Alpine_Tom]

The most interesting (and internally consistant) part of this is that the story was broken by The Washington Times, which is owned by the Unification Church, the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, presiding.

The newspaper is far enough to the right fringe that they make the Cato institute sound pretty reasonable.

[freeclimb9]

The thinking on ANWR? http://www.salon.com/politics/comics/2002/04/13/caribou/index.html

[AlpineK]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fairweather:

Everyone knows biologists don't ultimately lay out policy. But they know damn well what influence their studies will have. Don't try to absolve the "researchers" of responsibility here. They knew EXACTLY what they were doing, and knew the cause/effect their research would have. I think a congressman made the analogy of bankrobbers getting caught and then claiming that they were only trying to test the bank's security.

 

They got busted. Simple as that, Dru.

---

F you aren't a judge and I'm not either.

 

Seems to me that guilty or not the checks and ballances worked here, and even if they didn't there was a long way to go before use of the area would have been restricted.

[Alpine_Tom]

That was cool! I didn't know half that stuff about caribou!

[Alpine_Tom]

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlpineK:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fairweather:

Don't try to absolve the "researchers" of responsibility here. They knew EXACTLY what they were doing, and knew the cause/effect their research would have. I think a congressman made the analogy of bankrobbers getting caught and then claiming that they were only trying to test the bank's security.

 

They got busted. Simple as that, Dru.

---

F you aren't a judge and I'm not either.

 

Seems to me that guilty or not the checks and ballances worked here, and even if they didn't there was a

long

way to go before use of the area would have been restricted.

---

Did either of you actually READ the article as posted above? There was NO attempt to deceive, there was NO guilt involved. They did, apparently know "EXACTLY what they were doing" which was checking the lab. (The scandal ought to be that the guidelines didn't provide for control samples.)

But they never presented the results as though it showed there were lynxes in the forest. That was a complete red herring, misreprsented by newspaper with a political agenda.

 

It reminds me of that "ketchup is a vegetable" firestorm during the Reagan administration, where the FDA (or the dept. of education?) was accused of calling the ketchup in school lunches as a vegetable for nutritional purposes. In fact, they never did that, some muckraking newpaper reporter read the proposed guidelines, and guessed that the way they was written, it was conceivable that they could be interpreted this way. And naturally it was the guess that made the headlines, and is now received wisdom that "everybody knows."

[AlpineK]

Tom I'm in your camp, but the point I was trying to make to Fairweather (knee jerk Anti Environmet Nazi) is that even if they were guilty the checks and balances in scientific research would have caught their attemt to cheat long before any restrictive action happened.

[Fairweather]

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlpineK:

Tom I'm in your camp, but the point I was trying to make to Fairweather (knee jerk Anti Environmet Nazi) is that even if they were guilty the checks and balances in scientific research would have caught their attemt to cheat long before any restrictive action happened.

---

AK

 

Don't call me a NAZI, and I'll refrain from calling YOU ugly names as well.

...Additionally, I am not "anti environment" but rather, "anti-ENVIRONMENTALIST". Be sure you get your tags right in the future.

 

[ 04-16-2002, 09:43 PM: Message edited by: Fairweather ]

[Dru]

CATSUP (you call it ketchup, ok) IS A VEGETABLE. Processed tomatoes have a higher bio-availability of lycopene, an imprtant anti-oxidant.

 

Thats why i put catsup on everything I eat.

Catsup is good for you

And it tastes neat

I like it on icecream and salad and meat

And in breakfast oatmeal it just cant be beat

Catsup for breakfast, lunch, dinner and tea

Catsup - its good for both you and for me!

[AlpineK]

I guess I've pushed your buttons F. You should try having a German last name; you'll have a thick skin in no time especially if all your friends are jackasses.

 

I get the feeling reading your posts that you like many people think that scientists have a political agenda just like politicians. Everyone has some sort of political belief, but I can tell you, from my experience in science classes, anyone doing research puts a high value on correctly interpreting data and making logical arguements. Yes there are those who cheat, but eventually they get exposed.

 

If you read the report above you would see that there is lots of evidence to support the idea that no one was trying to cheat on the Lynx study. I don't think you read it, and I think you responded with a knee jerk reaction based on you political beliefs.