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?