JACKSON - More than 200 scientists nationwide employed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service say they have been directed to alter official findings in order to lessen protection for wildlife and other species, according to a survey conducted by two conservation groups.

The Union of Concerned Scientists and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility sent out a survey to 1,400 scientific staff, and had a 30 percent response rate.

In the Mountain-Prairie region of which Wyoming is part, 83 percent of respondents said they knew of cases "where U.S. Department of Interior political appointees have injected themselves" into agency scientific decisions. The same number said Fish and Wildlife was not "acting effectively to maintain or enhance species and their habitats, so as to avoid possible listings under the Endangered Species Act."

Erik Molvar with the Laramie-based Biodiversity Conservation Alliance said the findings come as no surprise.

"We certainly have been hearing from a number of people in a number of different agencies that they are afraid to do their job in good conscience for fear of reprisals," he said.

He said there is pressure to speed oil and gas development, which might come at the cost of land and wildlife, "and anyone who stands in the way of that does so at their own risk."

The decision not to list the sage grouse as an endangered species in December was seen by some as an example of political pressure morphing the findings of scientists.

In a scientific paper discussing the status of the grouse, Julie MacDonald, a Bush appointee at the Department of Interior, made significant notes in the margins. For example, scientists discussed sagebrush as the winter diet of the grouse, and MacDonald wrote, "they will eat other stuff if it is available."

The listing of sage grouse could have spelled problems for the energy industry.

Paul Hoffman, U.S. deputy assistant secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks and former executive director of the Cody Chamber of Commerce, said he had not seen the survey results and could not comment on the findings.

But Mitch Snow, a spokesman for the Fish and Wildlife Service, said the agency had no comment on the survey, except to say "some of the basic premises just aren't so."

Survey results

Fish and Wildlife scientists in 90 national offices were asked 42 questions and given space to respond in essay form in the mail-in survey sent in November.

More than 20 percent of survey responders reported they had been "directed to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information." However, 69 percent said they had never been given such a directive.

And while more than half of the respondents said that they had been ordered to alter findings to lessen protection of species, nearly 40 percent said they had never been required to do so.

In the Mountain-Prairie region, one biologist said the integrity of work could be improved by allowing scientific decisions "to be made based on the best science available - there is far too much influence by DOI political appointees, state and local government elected officials and commercial interests," according to the survey results.

The two groups that circulated the survey also made available memos from Fish and Wildlife officials that instructed employees not to respond to the survey, even if they did so on their own time. Snow said agency employees may not use work time to respond to such outside surveys.

Some in Congress, including U.S. Sen. Craig Thomas, R-Wyo., are calling for a revamping of the Endangered Species Act, saying it does not adequately allow for removing species from the list.

Sally Stefferuda, a biologist who retired in 2002 after 20 years with the agency, said Wednesday she was not surprised by the survey results. She said she had been ordered to change a finding on a biological opinion.

"Political pressures influence the outcome of almost all the cases," she said. "As a scientist, I would probably say you really can't trust the science coming out of the agency."

Don Lindburg, head of the office of Giant Panda conservation at the Zoological Society of San Diego, said it's unrealistic to expect federal scientists to be exempt from politics or pressure.

"But when it comes to altering data, that is a serious matter," he said. "I am really sorry to hear that scientists working for the service feel they have to do that. Changing facts to fit the politics - that is a very unhealthy thing. If I were a scientist in that position, I would just refuse to do it."

Molvar called the inherent fusing of politics and science a "faulty design."

"You have agencies with professionals that are overseen by politicians that are beholden to special interests," he said. "This is what happens."

Environmental reporter Whitney Royster can be reached at (307) 734-0260 or at royster@trib.com.