Biofraud attempt jeopardizes study of threatened grizzlies
Audrey Hudson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Published 1/7/02


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another case of "biofraud" has surfaced in Washington state, prompting lawmakers there to call for congressional intervention.
A state fish and wildlife biologist asked taxidermist Jim Gintz for grizzly bear hair samples in March 2001, said state Rep. Bob Sump, Republican co-chairman of the Natural Resources Committee.
If such a sample had been given, it could have tainted a grizzly habitat study in Washington that encompasses 3,600 square miles and, as a result, affected recreation, timber, mining, road construction and other human activities.
The Washington Times reported last month that seven federal and state employees were caught submitting false samples of another threatened species in the state, the Canadian lynx.
When the taxidermist read that officials used the hair of captive lynx and pelts to fix the sample, he alerted Mr. Sump that additional fraud may be occurring.
"Unfortunately, the lynx biofraud is not an isolated event but an egregious example of a serious malady that has infected environmental regulatory agencies," said Rob Gordon, director of the National Wilderness Institute.
Mr. Sump and state Rep. Jim Buck, both Republicans, are concerned that planting evidence of endangered and threatened species is even more widespread.
"It was our hope that the problems with the lynx study were an isolated incident," Mr. Sump said in a letter to Rep. Richard W. Pombo, California Republican and chairman of the Western Caucus.
"Unfortunately, the publicity from that incident is causing citizens with knowledge of similar improprieties to come forward. These incidents should also be investigated," Mr. Sump said.
"I think it has to be done at the congressional level to put the issue to rest. Anything less will always be viewed with suspicion," Mr. Buck added.
The grizzly is currently listed as a threatened species, but environmental activists are pushing for endangered status.
Mr. Pombo said he has "long suspected" that studies involving endangered species are "faulty." Congress and the General Accounting Office should determine if these incidents are isolated and if the employees should be fired, he said.
"Environmental activism that encourages unethical and mischievous behavior must not be tolerated," Mr. Pombo said.
The state fish and wildlife biologist told Mr. Gintz the grizzly bear hair samples would be used in a blind or control sample for laboratory analysis, but Mr. Gintz refused to cooperate. Mr. Gintz was preparing a grizzly bear rug for a local citizen. The bear was shot on a legal hunt in Alaska.
"I checked with my sources in Washington, D.C., and found that while blind samples are permitted in the grizzly bear study protocol, they may only be submitted from areas where grizzlies have been reintroduced and then only with the approval of the person in charge of the study," Mr. Sump said.
"One can only wonder why the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife must rely on covertly obtained blind samples of grizzly bear fur when it could get an official sample from virtually any state or provincial wildlife office with a simple phone call," Mr. Sump said.
Scientists involved in the survey said they did not intend for the falsified samples to be included in their study, but were testing the laboratory's ability to identify the cats.
The lynx biofraud has prompted a General Accounting Office audit, inspector general investigations in the Interior and Agriculture Departments, and House and Senate hearings. The state lawmakers want the lynx investigation expanded to include the grizzly study, and key House Republicans signaled the scope will be widened.
"If this incident proves true, we absolutely have to go back and revisit any federal study of endangered and threatened species that biologists from the Washington Division of Fish and Wildlife participated in," said Rep. James V. Hansen, Utah Republican and chairman of the House Resources Committee.
"If we get this wrong — if we shut down access to thousands of acres of public land because of endangered species that turn out to not even be there — we not only take away people's enjoyment of these lands, but we wipe out countless jobs that relied on access to that land. We affect recreation, tourism, farming, ranching, logging and more. We put people out of work," Mr. Hansen said.
Ed Owens, a natural resources consultant, said the larger question is whether science is being manipulated to match public policy.
"The grizzly and lynx issues are not directly related but indirectly involve the future use of millions of acres of land," he said.


Copyright © 2001 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Crowdog

EDITORIAL • January 8, 2002

The great biofraud

It's a trick that Yogi Bear would have been proud of — a scientist attempted to fake evidence of the presence of a threatened bear. It follows hot on the heels of revelations that government scientists planted hairs from a Canadian lynx in Washington state national parks as evidence of the presence of an endangered species. What on earth is going on? Had these cases of fraud not been exposed, they would have given rabid environmentalists a free lunch of closed parks and restricted recreational activities. Heaven knows what else these people have been up to.
As reported yesterday by Audrey Hudson of The Washington Times, a fish and wildlife biologist working on a study of the habitat of the threatened grizzly bear in Washington state tried to obtain additional bear hair samples — from a taxidermist. The taxidermist, Jim Gintz, was surprised by the request, since the bear he was tailoring into a rather grisly rug was from a perfectly legitimate hunt in Alaska, not to mention perfectly dead. Although Mr. Gintz was told by the scientist that the hair was simply to be used as a blind sample in the study, he refused to comply.
In doing so, he avoided a boo-boo, since according to the protocol of the study, blind samples could only be submitted from areas in which grizzlies had already been reintroduced, and then only with the approval from the person leading the study.
Mr. Gintz also stayed alert for other traps. When he read Mrs. Hudson's stories on state and federal biologists who tried to fake evidence of the threatened Canadian lynx, the missing links of his ursine request were filled as probable evidence of a foiled attempt at biofraud. He contacted state Rep. Bob Sump, who also happened to be a co-chairman of the Natural Resources Committee.
Mr. Sump recognized that faked grizzly evidence could have created an unbearable situation, restricting recreation at Jellystone Park and other public lands across Washington, not to mention curtailing, or totally cutting off other legitimate commercial activities within those areas including timber, mining and road construction.
Unfortunately, other similar frauds could still be in hibernation. After all, one doesn't have to be a whole lot brighter than Ranger Smith to plant evidence of endangered species — hair samples appear to suffice. Moreover, since it's probably a lot easier to pick up a sample on the way to a Starbucks instead of stomping around a forest for days on end, simple laziness will suffice for extremist environmental ideology.
However, finding fraud is no picnic. It demands both being smarter than the average bear and evidence, such as hairy requests or matching fur samples.
House Republicans already promised to hold hearings on the mysterious missing lynx, and they should expand it to cover this bearish attempt at biofraud as well. After all, faked samples of other threatened species may also be hidden in what increasingly appears to be a forest of fraud.

It's time to write your representatives to express your disgust in how Fish & Wildlife has handled these "studies" of endangered species. Demand action (those responsible should be fired).

And ask that the Endangered Species Act be reformed. This is the reason behind all of the lawsuits and fraud. The ESA has failed miserably in its' mission to protect species. The government spends more time fighting lawsuits than managing public land.

For an more info regarding what needs to be done with the ESA click here (http://www.crowley-offroad.com/grassroots_esa_coalition.htm) or
here (http://www.crowley-offroad.com/national_endangered_species_act_reform_coalition.h tm).

Here is how to find your representatives:
http://www.congress.org/

Here is a letter you can use as a basis to send to your representatives. I didn't write it, but you have the authors permission to use whatever parts of it that you want:

I am writing to express outrage at the recently
uncovered incidents of scientific fraud perpetrated by
scientists from the Department of Fish and Wildlife.
The first incident was the planting of Lynx hairs in a
place that the Lynx does not inhabit. The second is a
report of similar actions being taken but with the
Grizzly bear (as reported in the Washington Times on
January 7, 2002).

The problem seems to be systemic within the various
agencies charged with making land use and public policy decisions. I
refer to Steven R. Arnold, a former researcher at the
Tulane University Center for Bioenvironmental
Research. The Federal Office of Research Integrity
found that Arnold had "committed scientific misconduct
by intentionally falsifying the research results
published in the Journal Science and by providing
falsified and fabricated materials to investigating
officials."

The Tulane Center said it found that various
pesticides, safe when tested individually, were 1,000
times more dangerous when tested together. It raised
the specter of modern agriculture's chemicals
undermining the health of the human population and the
natural ecology through a blind spot in our regulatory
testing. And it was a lie.

Further inaccuracies can be pointed out in desert
tortoise documentation authored by Dr. Kristin Berry
with the USGS. Whether it is intentional fraud,
unprofessional bias or just plain incompetence remains
to be seen. What is certain is that Dr. Berry's
unsubstantiated reports have influenced the California
Desert Plans which are currently in various stages of
preparation and/or completion. These plans, once
implemented, will virtually shut down over 800,000
acres of public lands to public use.

I only point out these incidents to stress that
something is seriously wrong with the way these
agencies are conducting business. Nobody can argue
against legitimately trying to save species or keep
the environment clean. However, when the studies that
public policy is based upon are skewed, fraudulent or
wrong, nothing good can be accomplished. Entire
industries have been shut down or curtailed. Mining,
ranching, farming, logging and recreation are being
shut down in some parts of the country based on these
data. If that data is falsified, the actions are not
only wrong, they are criminal.

With all due respect I am not only requesting, but
DEMANDING, that full congressional investigation be
made into all of these studies that so deeply affect
the economy, private property rights and people's way
of life. This affects the very freedom of this country
and should not be treated lightly.

The Endangered Species Act must be reformed. Until a balanced and fair set of parameters are decided upon, acts of fraud and frivilous lawsuits will continue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Crowdog