The National Canada Lynx Survey

Dear Senator Murray/Cantwell,

My name is Scott Church. I am a Seattle based IT professional and landscape photographer who has a great interest in environmental issues. I am writing to you today to express my concern regarding the so-called "lynxgate" controversy. As you are probably aware, it was discovered last fall that several field technicians participating in the National Canada Lynx Survey on behalf of the US Forest Service and the Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife were caught submitting hair samples from a captive lynx and a bobcat and reporting them as being from the Wenatchee and Gifford Pinchot National Forests. Since then, this issue has become a lightning rod for critics of the Endangered Species Act and large predator conservation measures throughout the country. I too am concerned about this incident and am glad that it is being investigated at a Congressional level. There is NEVER any excuse for falsifying data in a scientific study. However, based on numerous popular press accounts, newsgroup discussions and personal contacts with policy makers, I have become deeply concerned about both the accuracy of reporting about it and the objectivity of the subsequent investigations. Given the gravity of the issue and your position to defend the ESA and NCLS in Congress, I would like to take a few moments to share what I know about this incident and why I feel that programs like these should be protected in spite of it.

The National Canada Lynx Survey (NCLS)

In 1999 the US Forest Service, in cooperation with several other federal and state agencies, initiated the National Canada Lynx Survey (hereafter referred to as NCLS) to determine the range and health of the Canada Lynx (Lynx Canadensis) on federal lands within its historic range in the lower 48 states to support of the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (hereafter referred to as ESA). It is widely known that populations of Lynx Canadensis in North America have plummeted from their historic numbers and its range has been drastically reduced. Yet recovery efforts have been hampered by a shortage of quality data regarding its current range and population status. The ongoing NCLS is intended to rectify this situation. Lynx Canadensis is by nature a shy animal, difficult to detect and track, and given its depressed numbers and range, reliable data about it can be difficult to come by. As recently as 1994, there were large gaps in knowledge of its range and numbers (Ruggiero et al., 1994). Even so, much is known about its ecology and conservation requirements. As a large boreal forest predator, it has very specific habitat and prey requirements and is quite susceptible to having these degraded and its movement and behavior interfered with by various human economic and recreational activities (Quinn & Parker, 1987; Koehler & Brittell, 1990; Koehler, 1990; Koehler & Aubry, 1994; Mowatt et al., 2000; McKelvey et al., 2000; Ruggiero et al., 2000a; Ruggiero et al., 2000b; McCord & Cardoza, 1982; Bittner & Rongstad, 1982; Ruediger et al., 2000). Thus, efforts to protect Lynx Canadensis populations could have wide ranging impacts for it and the human communities that share its habitat, and it is of the utmost importance that its range and numbers be accurately determined before policy decisions are made (Ruediger et al., 2000). Among other things, this means that it is just as important to determine where Lynx Canadensis does NOT exist as where it does. False positive data may lead to inflated population numbers that might make it appear less threatened than it actually is and/or lead to investments of time and limited resources on follow-up efforts where they will not be productive (McKelvey, 2002). This point is commonly overlooked by critics of the ESA and NCLS, many of who seem to think that conservationists have something to gain from false positive results. Given limited funds and manpower, the NCLS was set up along specific guidelines that were intended to insure uniformity and reliability of all data and its verification. These guidelines were based on lessons learned from previous efforts. The history of events leading up to this incident is as follows.

History of the NCLS

In 1998, the USFS, Region 6 contracted biologist John Weaver to survey possible populations of Lynx Canadensis in areas covered by the Northwest Forest Plan, which mainly covers the Washington and Oregon Cascades. His work was based on a hair snagging technique he had devised for this survey. This technique, which was based on observations of captive lynx behavior, uses a 6" square carpet pad nailed to a tree and used in conjunction with visual attractors and scents to elicit neck rubbing. When the lynx rubs its neck on the pad, hairs are left behind which are then gathered by field technicians and sent to a lab for mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) analysis. The survey, which ran throughout the year, turned up positive results for lynx at 15 evenly spaced locations from northern California to the US/Canada border. The results were made public, and due to the wide range figures cited and a significant number of positives, several environmental organizations called for a moratorium on logging in the Washington and Oregon Cascades. However, Weaver's results were widely questioned by large predator biologists for several reasons,

• Details of his DNA analysis protocol were never formally made available for scientific peer-review or blind tested for accuracy and robustness.
• Given that detection rates from hair snagging techniques of this type are usually low (only small portions of given populations are expected to be sampled), the proportion of positives in his data showed a pattern that was highly suspect on statistical grounds. If his data were to be taken at face value, lynx populations should be high enough to support extensive visual sightings. These simply did not exist.
• His results contradicted everything that is currently known regarding the range of Lynx Canadensis, which has never been known to exist in the Cascades (in Washington, populations have been verified only in the Okanogan National forest and small portions of the northeast corner of the state).