Congress Protests Lynx Hoax

Congressmen Scott McInnis and Jim Hansen, respective chairs of the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health and Committee on Resources sent the following letter to Secretaries Veneman and Norton protesting the lynx hoax and promising an investigation and hearing. In an article reported in The Washington Times (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20011217-7117603.htm), federal and state wildlife biologists representing the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife admitted planting false evidence of a rare cat species in two national forests in Washington state.

Letter dated December 17, 2001

From:
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC 20515

To:

Dear Secretary Veneman and Secretary Norton:

We are alarmed and outraged by the findings of a recent Forest Service investigation regarding the lynx recovery survey, which concluded that hair samples from Canadian lynx had been illicitly "planted" on three known occasions by officials in the Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. While we commend the Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service for investigating the matter and bringing it to Congress' attention, we believe the investigation's findings raise other elemental issues and questions that have not yet been satisfactorily answered. Notably, it calls into question the very credibility and integrity of the broader Canada lynx survey. Given the extraordinary impact that the lynx recovery program will have on the management of national forests throughout the West and around the nation, the Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service should immediately resolve these outstanding matters.

First, we believe that simply reassigning culpable individuals is a grossly inadequate punishment given the magnitude of this offense. While the investigation may in fact be correct in concluding that these incidents do not rise to the level of criminality - a finding we reserve judgment on until we have the opportunity to more thoroughly review the facts and relevant laws- these offenses minimally amount to professional malfeasance of the highest order. Whatever the reason, these individuals appear to have knowingly and willfully planted false evidence that, if unexposed, would have had immense implications on any number of management decisions. Even if not riminal - again, an issue we reserve judgment on this unethical behavior runs afoul of even the most lackadaisical standard of professional conduct. As such, we believe these individuals should be terminated immediately if their guilt is verifiable. We have every confidence that if a federal employee buried or otherwise concealed legitimate evidence pointing to the existence of a lynx on a national forest, their termination would be swift and sure. This incident should be treated no differently. Federal land managers simply cannot be allowed to obstruct a process of this size and consequence with relative impunity.

Second, we believe the nature of these improprieties dictates an immediate and thorough review of all the data acquired during the course of the lynx survey. A December 13 Forest Service emo to Congress detailing this incident asserts that "survey coordinators feel the integrity of the overall lynx sampling effort is being maintained," but the memo offers nothing to support these "feelings." Has the Forest Service attempted to independently verify the scientific authenticity of previously identified lynx samples found in other Regions? Can the Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service say with any level of certainty that other lynx samples were not "planted" in a similarly surreptitious manner? If the answer to either of these questions is no, how can the Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service guarantee Congress and the public that the national lynx recovery effort is grounded in science, rather than in the fraudulent behavior of unscrupulous field officers?

Ultimately, the credibility of the lynx survey is now hanging by a thread. The Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service have an obligation to demonstrate the propriety of other samples before it uses the lynx survey to make sweeping land management decisions.

As your internal audit of this situation moves forward, we intend to ask the General Accounting Office to conduct its own parallel probe of these incidents. In addition, at this time we are planning on holding oversight hearings before the Forests and Forest Health Subcommittee early next year to ensure that this unfortunate occurrence is satisfactorily remedied.

Sincerely,