ABC online is carrying this report.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/16/2627459.htm
That "conclusion" is from the second report not the first.!
The official "conclusion" has not been released yet.!!!!!!
And why was a second report even asked for.?
And did someone inside NSW Ag ask/direct the DPI to do another report.?
If not, why would the DPI do another "conclusion".????
Something smells big time..
And why did they change the "analysis" of the prints in the first reports as being felid from a cat expert, to canid, by an anonymous public servant.?
And, regarding "evidence" as being inconclusive...its secondary evidence we are talking about..which did actual point to felid...but..NSW Agricultural Dept dont accept any form of secondary evidence for a start so of course they found no %$#@#$ conclusive evidence.
The dept did not examine all the categories mentioned in the article.
That is another lie.
One example.
We provided them with emails/analysis from herpetologists of the scratch marks on trees because the dept did not know how to use google search or emails.
We gave them the results.
At the time we trusted them. :(
They then lost the emails.
This is just another inept/dishonest "'report"/conclusion by a bunch of mendacious pen pushers from the NSW Dept of Agriculture.
And I love how the media, who now have all the reports/conclusions..still managed to miss the main story.
The media`s ineptitude and govt sophistry is truly amazing in this ongoing train wreck.
