In a July 29 editorial advocating the denial of federal Endangered Species Act protections for the Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse, The Gazette of Colorado Springs asserted that there was “flimsy scientific basis for the mouse's original listing.” To support its claim, The Gazette pointed to a 2005 study by biologist and former Denver Museum of Nature & Science curator Rob Roy Ramey that, according to a September 6, 2006, Rocky Mountain News article, suggested “the Colorado-dwelling Preble's mouse is nearly identical to other meadow jumping mice and doesn't deserve the special protections it enjoys as a 'threatened' subspecies under the Endangered Species Act.” However, while the Gazette editorial indicated that a subsequent study refuted Ramey's findings, it omitted that a government-commissioned, independent scientific review panel -- after analyzing both Ramey's study and the later study by U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) biologist Dr. Tim King -- unanimously concluded that “the weight of evidence” supported the “threatened” subspecies designation for the mouse.

As Colorado Media Matters noted, in response to the conflicting conclusions of Ramey and King, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) commissioned the Oregon-based Sustainable Ecosystems Institute (SEI) to assess the two studies. According to the USFWS, SEI was to “organize an independent scientific review panel to analyze, assess, and weight the reasons why the data, findings, and conclusions of King et al. differ from the data, findings, and conclusions of Ramey et al.” In a July 20, 2006, letter conveying its findings, SEI stated: “In the case of the Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse ... the panel unanimously conclude that the weight of evidence currently clearly supports retention of the subspecies as a valid taxon.”

In addition to omitting pertinent information about the scientific research regarding the Preble's mouse, The Gazette also misled on the record of controversial former Deputy Assistant Interior Secretary Julie MacDonald.

According to the editorial, MacDonald “may [have] bullied and badgered underlings into tailoring endangered species science to suit the Bush administration's political agenda. Or,” as The Gazette said it suspected, “she was a hard-charging political appointee who became the target of a witch hunt because she ruffled the feathers of career bureaucrats and challenged agency scientists to justify their conclusions and decisions.” But as The Aspen Times reported on May 9, MacDonald quit her position “after government investigators determined that she violated federal ethics rules by sharing internal agency information with industry lobbyists.” The Associated Press similarly reported on April 15, “The federal Inspector General recently found that Julie MacDonald, the deputy assistant Interior secretary for fish, wildlife, and parks, should face punishment for leaking information about endangered species decisions to industry groups.”

Furthermore, in claiming that MacDonald was the victim of a “witch hunt” because she “challenged agency scientists to justify their conclusions and decisions,” The Gazette ignored a report by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) noting that MacDonald was “heavily involved with editing, commenting on, and reshaping the Endangered Species Program's scientific reports from the field,” including specifically the USFWS study of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse. Because of this activity, the OIG concluded that MacDonald's conduct “violated the Code of Federal Regulations” provisions regarding the use of nonpublic information and the appearance of preferential treatment in the fulfillment of public service obligations. The OIG also determined that MacDonald had “misused her position and disclosed nonpublic information to private sector sources.”

Likewise, as The New York Times reported on July 21:

The Interior Department said Friday that it would review and probably overturn eight decisions on wildlife and land-use issues made by a senior political appointee who has been found to have improperly favored industry and landowners over agency scientists.

The appointee, Julie A. MacDonald, resigned on May 1 as a deputy assistant secretary for fish and wildlife and parks, after an internal review found that she had violated federal rules by giving government documents to lobbyists for industry. The agency's inspector general also found several instances in which Ms. MacDonald browbeat department biologists and habitat specialists and overruled their recommendations to protect a variety of rare and threatened species.

As Colorado Media Matters has noted, The Gazette in previous news articles omitted critical facts in reporting on the Preble's mouse issue. For instance:

• On September 19, 2006, The Gazette printed a shortened version of a September 18 AP article about the Preble's mouse. The version The Gazette published described a “fierce dispute ... about whether the Preble's mouse is a distinct creature,” but omitted the SEI's conclusion that the mouse should continue to be classified as distinct.

• In its October 7, 2006, edition, Gazette reporter Ed Sealover repeated 5th Congressional District candidate Doug Lamborn's (R) statement that he was “not convinced” that the Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse is “a species that is separate from other species,” while omitting the fact that the SEI panel of scientific experts unanimously concluded that the Preble's mouse should retain its classification as a distinct subspecies.

From the July 29 Gazette of Colorado Springs editorial “A twisted tail: Preble's mouse case takes another turn”:

Former Interior Department official Julie MacDonald may in fact be the wicked witch of the West, who bullied and badgered underlings into tailoring endangered species science to suit the Bush administration's political agenda. Or, as we suspect, she was a hard-charging political appointee who became the target of a witch hunt because she ruffled the feathers of career bureaucrats and challenged agency scientists to justify their conclusions and decisions.

But the decision to de-list or not de-list the Preble's meadow jumping mouse should be made strictly on the science -- of which there is now plenty, thanks to agency outsiders who dared to question the listing. Using the political firestorm swirling around MacDonald as an excuse for further delay also amounts to “politicizing” the process.

Fish and Wildlife Service Director H. Dale Hall last week announced that at least eight ESA decisions in which Mac-Donald was involved will be “re-examined,” in light of the allegations. Hall called the MacDonald affair a “blemish” on the “scientific integrity” of the agency he intended to expunge.

But there's been no decision to re-examine, at least in the Preble's case, despite a mountain of new (if sometimes contradictory) scientific data. Let's first have a decision, Director Hall, so those of us in mouse habitat aren't living in regulatory limbo. Then you and others can fret over MacDonald's undue influence, if she had any.

We, too, welcome an objective and comprehensive review of “scientific integrity” at the agency -- if it goes well beyond the partisan focus on MacDonald. We hope Hall also will take a closer look at the flimsy scientific basis for the mouse's original listing, for instance.

We hope he'll also investigate why agency officials, when confronted with DNA and morphological analysis by Dr. Rob Roy Ramey which questioned the listing, went out shopping for a second opinion (from a researcher on the federal payroll) they knew would refute Ramey's work. As well, we hope Hall takes a second look at whether this creature is as rare as claimed, since some have also questioned this “scientific” finding.

[...]

Ramey, whose research first called into question the mouse's status as a subspecies (and who knows MacDonald, through his former work as a DOI consultant), believes a double standard is applied to scientific evidence inside the agency. “No one is asking how good the evidence is in listing decisions or biological opinions,” he says. “Rather, the service seems focused on destroying anyone who questions its authority.”

Ramey likens the heat he has taken for challenging the Preble's listing and offering critiques of how ESA is administered “to the Inquisition of the Middle Ages, or of McCarthyism in the 1950s, when dogma and the authority of certain officials could not be questioned without serious consequences.”

The evidence used in many listing decisions is a house of cards, Ramey told us. “In the case of the Preble's mouse, we checked just one corner of this house of cards and the whole house shook. Subjective and unsubstantiated opinion often pass as science at the service because there are no standards or thresholds to measure evidence against,” he said.

Perhaps MacDonald became a target because she, too, dared to question agency bureaucrats and biologists.