June 2012
Subject; 1st of Five Fraudulent WIDNR Records (Spawning assessment record) Short version.
Below is the original copy of the WIDNR’s Spawning assessment record that we copied from the WIDNR’s
website on, 2-7-12. This record is the most revealing because it opened the door to the total exposure of all
the deceptions used by a very few in the WIDNR. Starting with the total eggs produced in 2001,2002 and
2003, percent of progeny that hatched at 67.4%, total 42-day survivors, at 5%. And how the WIDNR with
premeditation apportioned three-years of perch progeny over nine-years. This indicates the extreme lengths
they would take to cover-up the two major risks, Native perch domestication, and introduction of VHS without
any health inspections. We would like to point a finger at those we believe are responsible. But even though
we requested names, they were never provided because of the revelations now exposed and the
consequences of those illegal actions. Five-years of investigation went into this research and effort. It’s ironic
that the WIDNR’s own records and written summaries are most condemning, revealing and embarrassing.
To fully comprehend the complexity in the below WIDNR spreadsheet we refer you to what the completely
forensics detailed in, 1B-WIDNR’s Ultimate LM Deception Exposed document. And the ease of creating as
we did in, WIDNR’s Methodology for Creating Fraudulent Assessment Records and Duplicity of Public
Records. All available from us at, wilmyellowperchcg@worldnet.att.net later on www.lmyellowperch.com .
In this record only relevant years 2001 thru 2009 and the numbers in the (# of females caught) column. All
other numbers, narratives, and summaries are to dazzle, impress, and confuse the naïve. Because with a
comprehensive review of the WIDNR’s narratives, which are available by clicking on any year underlined. It
becomes clearly evident that the vast majority of numbers, in their (# of females caught) column, cannot be
supported with the math they used, meaning those most critical numbers in the (# of female caught) column,
years, 2001 thru 2009, were provided from another source. That being from the fraudulent number of female
brood-stock Domesticated Cultured perch progeny. And not from any legitimate work done on Lake Michigan
Native Wild Perch.
Additional Encrypted Sequences of Key numbers; Encrypted Twice is 337 that Provides the 67.4%.
Taken from the (#of female caught) column in below WIDNR assessment record, 167+26+144=337,
56+117+164=337. Add 337+337=674 same as the critical 67.4% the DNR used for their perch progeny
calculations. The 67.4% is equivalent to 2253 and 167. Three of the five WIDNR assessment records were
created from those two numbers 2253 and 167. One used 1337 and 438 the last used 438 and 167.
The WIDNR only used four numbers to create all fraudulent assessment records, and all relate only to the
Domesticated Cultured perch they raised in their facility in 2001, 2002, and 2003. They stated to law
enforcement they held no Lake Michigan Domesticated Cultured Perch after 2003.
Yellow, Red and Blue only years Perch were Transferred to Lake Michigan
The only true number 438 in 2001reppresents the production of progeny from that number of female perch.
Additional production of progeny; other encrypted sequences of numbers; and 167*+161*+164*=492,
26^+144^+64^+54^+117^=407 for 2003.
Hence there were transferred to Lake Michigan in 2001 the progeny from 438 females.
Hence there were transferred to Lake Michigan in 2002 the progeny from 492 females.
Hence there were transferred to Lake Michigan in 2003 the progeny from 407 females.
Hence
1337 22.53 and 1.67-million @ 67.4%.
There is no likelihood over nine-years of random samplings that there would be five groups of number increasing
by three. Example (161, 164, 167) (26, 144=170) (64+56+117= 173). Same applies to the pair of encrypted 337.
What does that imply; was there a deliberate premeditated attempt to request public funds and use those funds
for something other then the intended use and to use encrypted numbers to cover-up the deceptions while
keeping track of efforts?
The above WIDNR numbers will become clearly more evident as to where and how they fit into the scheme
when compared to, 1B-WIDNR’s Ultimate LM Deception Exposed document. And the ease of creating the
Duplicity of Public Records.
The only relevant columns are (Year) and numbers in the (# of females caught), for years 2001 through 2009.
Wisconsin's Yellow Perch Spawning Assessment from, http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/lakemich/yellowperch.htm.
Year
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
# of males caught
14,417
4,285
5,635
754
994
1,645
1,583
997
1,207
1,580
2,076
209
465
486
200
# of females caught
46
229
232
132
438
167
26
144
64
161
56
117
164
130
435
*
*
^
^
^
*
^
^
*
# of unknowns caught
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total caught
14,474
4,514
5,867
915
1,432
1,812
1,609
1,141
1,271
1,741
2,132
326
629
616
635
Number
tagged
5,163
1,328
3,142
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
After a thorough review comparing raw data with electronic and table summary data, minor changes have been made to this table and its
summaries.
The WIDNR stated in the above, they made minor changes. We say there remain numerous major
changes that are impossible to change without destroying the integrity of their original numbers, narratives,
and summaries. They also failed to mention they started destroying relevant records. The 2008 original
assessment record posted a 122 and was mathematically accurate but was changed to 117 then the original
record was destroyed by someone within the Fishery Div! The same applies to the 2001 record that originally
was 448, and the 2006 record that contained 162, both mathematically accurate but was change to 438 and
161. That imply; there was a deliberate premeditated attempt to preserve a sequence of critical number, like
2253, 167, 438 and 1337 and those numbers are only relevant to the Domesticated Cultured perch they
reared and transferred to LM in 2001, 2002, and 2003! But not the Native specie of perch the WIDNR
requests public funds to assess?