Jim Beers: 4 Duhs

First there is all the American soccer "mums" (I think that is the proper
Australian term) mourning the death of the Australian man that made his
living taunting, teasing, holding, and "conserving" practically every
dangerous wild animal on the planet. There was support both in Australia
and here for a "day of mourning" and the papers and "telly" went on for a
week about his demise and his "legacy". The public reaction was
unquestioning and widespread.

In all honesty his example without a doubt has encouraged both needless
risk-taking and dangerously misleading propaganda about tolerating deadly
and harmful animals in areas of human habitation. He was a spokesman,
albeit apparently innocently, for the "man doesn't belong here", "we are in
their habitat", "these animals need to be 'protected'", "he/she (human) died
because he/she didn't behave correctly or the poor critter 'had a toothache
or tummy ache'", or "there are no recorded instance of this animal attacking
or killing a human" crowd. Anyone with a bit of common sense realizes that
millions of young people have it in their head that not only must man let
these animals exercise precedence over man and his activities and that man
must never kill (i.e. manage numbers, distribution, and impacts) any of
these animals but even more chilling that approaching or handling these
animals is possible if you "do it right".

No animal, wild or domestic, is predictable. While in the case of a cat
that jumps to its' death out a high apartment window the result is minimal:
when the result is a young person dying from a snakebite from a handled
snake or a child killed by a wolf or cougar "protected" by animal rights
lawsuits and urban naiveté based on the belief that "they belong there", we
must all share in the responsibility for the tragic and avoidable result.

Next time you speak with one of these "soccer mums" or their allies ask them
(I have) if their son or daughter would like to go to a gun range with you
to learn about shooting safety or take a Hunter Education course to learn
about wildlife conservation. Need I describe the reaction? They will buy
videos of the snake handler and bemoan his needless death and send money to
every animal rights or gun control outfit using the mails while going
ballistic about a kid taking up shooting, hunting, or natural resource
management.

Think about it. Management of animals (deadly, useful, harmful, or benign)
to preserve them responsibly while using nature to provide a safe and
healthful existence for all peoples of the world is politically incorrect.
Guns (and other deadly devices) that allow us to manage animal populations
are likewise forbidden and to be avoided. While our armed forces protect us
with citizens adept at gun use and the old, weak, and poor (outside certain
dangerous cities where guns are forbidden) protect themselves nationally, we
follow the example of a nation (Australia) that is only now attempting to
recover from disastrous and failed gun control policies. Instead, the
modern parent encourages the acceptance of deadly and harmful animals
wherever they might occur, the total "protection" of and the approachability
of all animals, and the "control" and disappearance of all guns. Try as I
may, the contradiction and total nonsense at work here seems overwhelming.
This is the first "DUH".

Second there is all the hoopla of the past two weeks over the discovery of a
massive oil and gas deposit in American waters in the Gulf of Mexico. The
international price of oil and pump prices have fallen and the Federal
government is already worried about collecting all the royalties since poor
government staff work may have allowed some of the deposits to be
royalty-free. Everyone is happy because no one is bemoaning it or whining
about how it "increases our dependence on oil" or "slows our search for
alternative fuels".

Well if this is such a joyous occasion, what in the world is preventing us
from drilling off the North Slope of Alaska? We know there are massive oil
deposits there. We know it does not harm caribou or cause irreparable
damage and that drilling is supported by the local population and the State
of Alaska. If this Gulf strike lowered international prices and caused all
this happy reaction what holds us back from drilling in Alaska or for that
matter exploring off all our coasts or in the Great Lakes or on public
lands? Why don't we increase tax incentives for oil exploration or permit
the construction of more oil refineries?

If energy supplies are so obviously beneficial why are we so hesitant about
nuclear power or why are we ignoring all the low-sulfur coal under our
public lands? Why are we considering destroying energy-producing and
irrigation-supporting dams to favor fish that we allow unmanaged
overpopulations of seals, sea lions, and whales to eat into oblivion? "DUH".

Third is the coverage in the press of the political campaign in the 11th
Congressional District of California. The incumbent, Congressman Richard
Pombo, is the Chairman of the House of Representatives' Resources Committee.
As such he has advocated the management and use of our renewable natural
resources, the utilization of our domestic energy resources, and the
proactive growth of the US Society AND the protection of the plant and
animal diversity that we all treasure. For standing tall for things such as
introducing an improved Endangered Species Act and legislation to protect
and increase marine fisheries he is pummeled by all the "usual" forces from
the animal rights outfits to the environmental socialists and their media
allies. Two examples suffice to show how black is white and good is bad.

Congressman Pombo's Democrat opponent "runs a company that manufactures wind
turbines". He is pictured in the press in jeans, a denim shirt, and a
backdrop of endless wind turbines on a hilly horizon while Congressman Pombo
is shown in a suit. So here is the guy that works for a managed environment
and human benefit depicted as an urban businessman. Conversely, the guy
that will "keep ANWR closed"; "protect" endangered species and every plant
and animal; and support every cockamamie wilderness, marine sanctuary, and
road closure he sees is the "outdoorsy type".

Speaking of wind turbines, much needs to be said. I understand and support
the use of wind turbines but that said, compared to all the lawsuits about
hunting or fishing or grazing or logging, etc. "impacts, wind turbines have
been given a total pass. The turbines are placed where there the most winds
and/ updrafts occur. These are exactly where migrating birds fly once or
twice a year and where many local or breeding birds utilize this air
movement for flight. Turbines kill lots of birds. It may be only for a day
or two or a week once or twice a year and local predators probably pick up
on it quickly and "clean" up the mess. Imagine the reaction if I owned a
ranch and put up a bunch of painted big propellers where birds fly just
because I liked to watch them. Care to guess if the government or the
environmentalists or the animal rights radicals would be tolerant?
Research and lawsuits on this self-evident phenomenon of birds and
propellers is lacking because ignoring wind turbine effects on birds like
fueling our economy on trash and berries are axioms of environmental
doctrines that may not be questioned, only mindlessly supported. So the
wind turbine guy is "good" and the guy in the suit is "bad" according to the
media pundits.

Then there is the ultimate "black is white" media shot at the Congressman.
"The Defenders of Wildlife calls the incumbent (Pombo) a 'villain'". OOOH,
"Defenders of Wildlife", they must be good guys. Not so. Although the
press never mentions it, the "Defenders" have long made their millions off
of anti-hunting and anti-trapping campaigns and lawsuits that line their
pockets and those of all their radical anti-natural resource management and
use chums in the other extremist environmental and animal rights ranks. Oh
and the fact that they ("Defenders") are being led by the former Director of
the US Fish and Wildlife Service when $45 to 60 million was stolen by the
agency from excise taxes collected for state fish and game agencies to be
used for things that Congress refused to fund and that Congressman Pombo was
one of the leading Congressmen that exposed the theft, don't let anyone tell
you there is any "payback" here for an honorable service to rural residents
and natural resource users nationwide. The support from all those hunting,
fishing, logging, ranching, and animal-use organizations today is deafening.
So we let the media picture the good guy as bad, the bad guy as good, and a
political "payback" for honorable government service as non-existent. "DUH".

Last but not least, road taxes. My county has a budget of one Billion (that's
right Billion), 300 Million dollars. Every time I go to vote there are bond
issues for education and roads. We are always on the verge of closing
schools and without money to care for or expand roads. We here in Northern
Virginia even speak of splitting off from Virginia (like West Virginia once
did) because we don't get our "fair share" of highway funds. Hardly a week
goes by without some news article about infrastructure deterioration from
bridges and tunnels to road surfaces and subsidence. Why we have even had a
private firm build a toll road west from Dulles airport that will soon have
the dubious distinction of having the highest toll/mile rate in the nation.
I even live next to a National Park that has done all the homework (plans,
meetings, "input", etc.) to allow our Senators and Congressmen to authorize
millions in road tax money to be used to close two state highways through
the Park, condemn hundreds of acres of private homes and property, and
generally make commuting an even bigger nightmare. Then there was the last
Federal Highway Transportation Bill that advocated "the bridge to nowhere"
(actually the only place Ketchikan, Alaska can expand to due to Federal land
ownership and maintain cruise ship business) and Federal "Invasive Species"
authority (uncalled for, ineffective, and the biggest Federal boondoggle
since Prohibition).

In the midst of this highway taxes situation, I am treated to a US Fish and
Wildlife Service glossy article about how just one National Wildlife Refuge
(Prime Hook) used "$34,100 in Federal Highway Administration grants" (i.e.
road taxes from the sale of gasoline) to rehabilitate "more than eight miles
of walking and canoe trails." Further the article reports that "$450
Million of a Federal tax on gasoline sales for off-road vehicles funds
construction of walking and hiking trails and pedestrian/bicycle paths".
"Projects on national wildlife refuges are eligible for the money."
Accompanying articles tell of millions here and millions there being spent
for such NON-VEHICULAR purposes across the country and why we need to have
more Federal authority and money for Invasive Species falderal.

Four "Duhs"