"Get Outdoors" - Evolution of Bad Legislation

The Get Outdoors Act (GO) has recently been introduced in the US House of
Representatives. It proposes to spend over $3 Billion per year for the
Federal government to buy land, conduct "conservation" programs, give grants
to cooperators, and give millions to state agencies each year to do the same
things. The purpose of the bill is, ostensibly, to improve Americans'
health and fitness by getting them "Outdoors." This bill is not new, it is
like that patch of poison ivy in your yard that, despite everything you do
to it (spray, clip, pull, burn, and dig) keeps popping up again each summer
to present a threat to everyone using the yard.

In the midst of unprecedented Federal power growth in the environmental and
animal rights arena, it is very worthwhile to lean back and review the
origin and history of this proposed GO legislation. Like so many other
"feel good" proposals (Endangered Species, Animal Welfare, Marine Mammal
Protection, Wilderness, etc.) this one is a real werewolf that has been
disguised over the past 25 years in more costumes than Lon Chaney and
Laurence Olivier.

In the 1970's, Federal legislation expanded Federal jurisdiction over many
migratory birds, any Endangered or Threatened Species, marine mammals, and
an assortment of domestic and commercial animals. Federal land managers
began managing (and not managing) Federal properties as if they were not
within the states where they occurred but rather as separate (from state
authorities) entities ruled by Washington bureau offices. All of this "save
the (fill in the blank)" fever necessitated hiring Federal and state
bureaucrats to "do NEPA", "preserve ecosystems", and begin to give
"non-game" animals the attention that was formerly "lavished" on game
species. While the new employees were hired for Endangered Species this or
Marine Mammal that, they chafed that they answered to employees who were
"hook and bullet" types. They were also constantly complaining that "all"
the money and promotions went to game animal (or timber management in the
Forest Service or grazing management in the BLM) programs. The fact that
the "hook and bullet" money and positions were generated by taxes, revenues,
and Appropriations for those specific purposes was always ignored. They
"needed" money for "non-game" management. Non-game management was variously
painted as amphibian conservation, songbird research, native ecosystems,
plant surveys, UN cooperation, wetland preservation, wildlife corridors,
invasive species inventories, recreation, trails, and a whole string of
"feel good" pursuits that could never surface for funding if forced to
compete with legitimate government pursuits. More often than not, the
hostility towards hunting or logging or ranching or trapping stayed beneath
the surface but occasionally it boiled over and the anti-management agenda,
while never justifiable, was seen for the waste it represented.

In the late 1970's the first attempt to get money for "non-game" (and all it
's etceteras) was the "Chickadee Check-off" on state tax returns and a
failed attempt to get a similar Check-off on the Federal tax return.
Initial support at the state level soon waned and it was abandoned in most
states.

Then there was the push to get birdseed manufacturers to accept an earmarked
tax (like gun manufacturers, hunters, fishermen, and fishing tackle
manufacturers had done 50 to 70 years ago.) That failed too. The
manufacturers and the birdfeeders quibbled and hemmed and hawed.

Then there was the attempt for a Non-Game Recreational tax on recreation
equipment. Purchasers and manufacturers of boots and binoculars and outdoor
stuff were asked to support an earmarked tax like the hunters and fishermen
but again there was no soap. The hikers wanted to know why it didn't all go
to trails and the binocular folks wanted it all to go to birds and the tent
people objected to even being included. In short the support for "non-game"
funding was like the Platte River, "a mile wide and an inch deep."

Now at this point (the late 1980's) an honest person would have concluded
that non-game support in the population was widespread but very weak.
Hunters and fishermen believe that if they do not constantly pour money into
their pursuits that eventually they won't be able to hunt or fish, so they
cough up millions year in and year out to support their programs. Everyone
says they support "non-game" but unlike natural resource users, they proved
unwilling to pay for what they say they "want." Naturally, the conclusion
was not that the citizens had spoken but rather that the citizens needed
something that they were too ignorant to realize that they needed. The
Federal bureaucrats, state bureaucrats, and all their environmental and
animal rights cooperators set their sights on Appropriated Federal tax money
as the proper source of funding to seek and they have never lacked for
Federal and State politicians willing to help them for a price.

First they proposed a Federal Non-Game Program for Federal agencies like US
Fish and Wildlife Service and others to get Appropriated funding for
themselves and to pass through additional millions to state agencies. This
would give the Federal agencies more power over the state agencies and
further weaken state government resolve to manage their own natural
resources. One need look no further than the recent Federal declaration
about what uses states may allow on lands they have purchased over 50 years
ago with the excise tax funds from guns and ammunition. Because the Federal
government collected and apportioned those funds they (the Federal agency)
may dictate whether dog field trials may be conducted on those "state"
lands.

However, the Federal Non-Game Program never got off the ground. Once again,
the concept of tinker bells skipping through the woodlands buying land and
studying and "saving" things to no real purpose, failed under scrutiny.

Then in the mid 1990's the old wine was yet again given a new label. CARA
(Conservation And Reinvestment Act) was born. This multi-billion dollar
proposal to buy land and study and save it had another new wrinkle. It wasn
't going to be taken out of the Treasury, no, it was going to be funded by
offshore oil and gas revenues. Believe it or not, the papers and millions
of folks actually believed that funding something out of money headed for
the Treasury didn't have the same effect (government cost) as taking out the
money after it was deposited in the Treasury. The word "Reinvestment" acted
like Lon Chaney's mask in The Phantom of the Opera. Another wrinkle was
that states that prohibited offshore oil development like California and
Florida would get funds from oil leases off places like Louisiana and Alaska
so states that did develop their offshore energy were given a bigger share
of the "Federal" oil receipts. Go figure.

The truly insidious effect of CARA was demonstrated to me at this time.
CARA was proposed as billions for the Federal agencies and billions more for
the states to be passed through the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for
the state fish and wildlife agencies. This is just like the administration
of the hunting and fishing excise taxes collected for 70 years and
apportioned by FWS to the state fish and wildlife agencies. Enter the FWS
appointees during the Clinton Administration.

In the late 1990's I testified twice before Congress about the excise taxes
being stolen from state fish and wildlife agencies and how those funds were
being used for things Congress prohibited (for instance wolf reintroduction
in Yellowstone and a new office in California), bonuses for top managers,
and an assortment of things generally harmful to natural resource
management. The General Accounting Office verified what I said and
testified that over $45 million had been so diverted (the polite word) in
the previous two years. The state fish and wildlife agencies, their
Washington lobby group (the International Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies) and the Washington-based "conservation" organizations like the
Wildlife Management Institute downplayed the whole affair. When Congress
set about to rewrite the law to prevent future theft of the funds (actually
from sportsmen) these usual suspects opposed not only any publicity but also
any law change. As a result no one in FWS even missed their bonuses that
year and almost all of the "diverters" are still honored Federal employees
or officers of Washington "conservation" organizations.

Why would states (from whom over $45 million was stolen) keep quiet? Why
would their lobby group and the national "conservation" organizations oppose
preventing such a scandal in the future? Why were Field and Stream and the
Washington Times covering this in depth and the Foundation for North
American Wild Sheep awarding me a plaque for what I did while the state
lobby group and the Washington "conservation" groups were actually hostile
toward me? The answer is CARA. They were very upset that this scandal hit
when they were expecting to get billions (and all the power and influence it
would bring) from Congress to spread around just like the hunting and
fishing excise taxes. If FWS was stealing millions from the states to do
whatever they wanted, would Congress give them billions more to increase
their "walking around money?" Not hardly.

CARA failed for all the reasons that all of it's predecessors failed. When
served to the taxpayer and examined, the refrain is "where's the beef?" Add
to this the activism due to bitter recent experiences of property owners,
hunters, trappers, and rural residents and CARA was beginning to face not
only the indifference of supporters but also the hostility of those who
strongly opposed it.

In the mid 90's while working for FWS I wrote a review of proposed CARA
legislation that asked why weren't lands acquired with these funds going to
be open to hunting, fishing, and trapping? I didn't get any bonus that
year. The fact is that any lands acquired with these proposed funds and all
the current Federal lands and State lands acquired in whole or in part with
funds that came from Uncle Sam are a growing problem for us all. The old
saw that it is better for government to "save" the slough or the woods or
whatever than for it to be farmed or developed is not true. It is better
for the land to grow families and food and communities than for it to grow
government power or be used as an excuse to diminish our rights or to be a
natural resource waste pit where management and use are forbidden.

We have seen how access to public lands has been reduced. We have seen how
unmanaged resources cause fires and decimate logging communities and ranch
families. We have seen how game species are ignored and dangerous predators
are given the status of deities. We have seen neighbors arrested for trivia
and friends who have lost their property without compensation. We have
watched more and more land made off limits to hunting or fishing or even
canoeing.

In the future there will be more. For instance, I have no doubt that a
future anti-2nd Amendment President will have Washington appointees
suggesting restrictive and expensive Federal gun licensing on these public
lands. They will require "training" and "testing" and subject you to
"inspections" while on such lands. Dogs and horses will be increasingly
restricted and entrance fees will only increase until bureaucrats determine
that they must be "rationed." Uses, active management (hunting, logging,
grazing, etc.), and energy development will all be forbidden. Do any of us
want this? Does it make sense to just keep pouring more and more private
property into the control of bureaucrats and environmental and animal rights
groups that are so hostile to the things we hold dear? The answer is NO!

So today we have GO legislation proposed to slim us down and do whatever it
is we want. It sits in drawers and on computers all over Capitol Hill.
Some say it won't pass "this year, but maybe next year." Like so much other
bad legislation it gestates waiting for the right conditions to germinate.
A new President, a robust economy, an election when someone needs votes, an
unrelated event that causes a chain reaction, there is no forecasting what
the future holds or how it will affect events.

Remember they only have to win once; we must win every time. This
confrontation is neither inevitable nor beneficial. The ultimate answer to
this dilemma is to stop treating animals and the environment as though they
rule us. We should not be in retreat before the environment or any animal.
We should not be placing more and more of our land off limits to ourselves.
We should be managing our environment in ways to compliment our human
pursuits in a free society. The issue should not be managing ourselves to
provide for the environment. The issue should be how to manage the
environment to provide best for ourselves. In other words, we should
provide the healthiest mix of plants and animals around and within our
society and not manage our society so as not to intrude on the environment.
This is an important distinction that may ultimately be the only answer to
this recurring generational nightmare of the GO/CARA/Non-Game Check off.

Jim Beers
28 May 2004

This article and other recent articles by Jim Beers can be found at
http://www.allianceforamerica.org/bb/viewforum.php?f=91

Jim Beers is available for consulting or to speak. Contact:
JimBeers7@earthlink.net