Canadian Lynx Research Hijinks

In December 2001, the political fur began to fly, after word leaked that several wildlife biologists in Washington state involved in a government interagency research project attempting to survey the population of Canadian lynx in the Pacific Northwest, admitted to submitting falsified samples of hair for DNA testing.

Related Resources • Animal Home • Animal Pictures

The Canadian lynx is a very elusive animal, currently listed as threatened in sixteen states under the Endangered Species Act. When the activity was first publicized by the Washington Times in December 2001, the researchers were publicly charged with fraud and attempting to sabotage commercial logging in National Forests under the pretense of a need to protect an endangered species.

Speaking for the Western Caucus, a group of primarily western Republican members of the House of Representatives, Richard Pombo (R-CA) stated, "As Americans, we should have been astounded by the recent findings that federal officials intentionally planted hair from the threatened Canadian lynx in our national forests in order to impose sweeping land management regulations."

Upon discovery of the matter, the charges of fraud and malfeasance continued. Investigations by the General Accounting Office and the Departments of Agriculture and Interior ensued. On March 3, 2002 The GAO released a report Canada Lynx Survey: Unauthorized Hair Samples Submitted for Analysis.

In testimony before the Committee on Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, Ronald Malfi, Acting Managing Director, Office of Special Investigations stated the following regarding the report:

"In summary, there were four instances in which unauthorized hair samples not obtained from the Wenatchee and Gifford Pinchot National Forests, were submitted for DNA testing as part of the National Survey for those forests. These included one submission of bobcat hair in 1999, and three submissions of lynx hair in September and October 2000. The Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife employed the biologists who made those submissions. These biologists maintain that they submitted these samples to test the accuracy of the work performed by the laboratory, although they knew that the Protocol for the National Survey did not provide for such action."

Of course, there are two sides to every story and the latest issue of Forest Magazine (Spring 2002), a publication of Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, reports that the researchers in question had informed their supervisors of their activities and defended them as being blind controls or scientific controls to assess the reliability of the testing lab.

Forest Magazine also reported that the British science journal, Nature defended the blind controls as a reasonable scientific practice.

In sum, what's happened is that the episode has been filtered through both a political and a scientific lens.

Contrary to what the Republican members of Congress have asserted, there is no evidence that the wildlife biologists planted the hairs in order to produce false results of the presence of an endangered species in the National Forests of the Pacific Northwest. However, in the court of public opinion, appearance is often as importance as evidence.

Given recent history, when the spotted owl endangered species designation was used to substantially reduce commercial logging in National Forests, it's understandable that proponents of commercial logging interests would use an event such as this to try to demonstrate scientific bias on the part of the wildlife biologists. After all, it would be in the interest of portions of the environmental community to have evidence of the presence of an endangered species in the area.

At the same time, the issue of uncovering facts that can be spun to rouse the passions of those with interests with respect to commercial logging in the Pacific Northwest turns both ways.

Charges of arson, fraud and sabotage could equally be leveled at the timber industry every time there are suspicious fires in National Forests. Recent history also shows that fires in National Forests are in the timber industry's interest. Fires provide them with an opportunity to petition for salvage logging in areas that would otherwise be closed off to commercial logging.

In fact, recent evidence of illegal logging in the Bitterroot National Forests (which the Forest Service called an "honest mistake") could very well be interpreted as the timber industry using salvage logging claims as a pretense for logging unauthorized old growth trees.

Ultimately the charges of fraud and dishonesty from both sides, do nothing more than incite an already inflamed situation. Recent history suggests the pattern will not soon change.

© 2002. Patricia A. Michaels. All rights reserved.