|
Become a friend of the Klamath Bucket Brigade All donations are tax deductible |
|
This Website is Dedicated to Alvin Alexander Cheyne January 10, 1921 - June 17, 2005 |
GovTrack.us is an independent tool to help the public research and track the activities in the U.S. Congress, promoting government transparency and civic education through novel uses of technology.
A Question of Wolves
ANSWERING THE WRONG QUESTION
I recently received a copy of a paper by a retired Alaskan Department of
Fish and Game wildlife biologist. The paper described how, in Alaska, it is
possible to manage wolves and big game species so that each prospers while
providing "a balanced abundance of prey and predators for subsistence,
recreational and aesthetic uses." He concludes with, "I have come to
understand that some of the best things in life cannot be decided or even
understood on the basis of logic. I have come to sincerely respect the
perspectives of those who are hurt by even the thought of wolves being
killed. In the calculations we as a society make about this issue, we fail
to acknowledge as honest and important these sentiments only at peril to our
humanity. National Parks and special state areas should be an important
contribution to meeting this valid emotional perspective."
Setting aside the likelihood of this model being applicable to the Lower 48
states where livestock, dogs, and human habitations are ubiquitous; and
recognizing the Rodney King-like "can't we all just get along?" tone to his
sympathies: I am required to respond to this obviously sincere person.
We can write all manner of wolf trivia ("look what they did here", "they
never do this and always do that", "they never kill people", "they only kill
wild animals that are old, sick, lame, etc.") until the cows come home.
There is no end to the natural history information that will enthrall people
yet to be born. But that is not the question.
We can "sympathize" with "those who are hurt by even the thought of wolves
being killed." We can "fail to acknowledge as honest and important these
sentiments only at peril to our humanity" (whatever that means). We can
even "understand that some of the best things in life cannot be decided or
even understood on the basis of logic." What we cannot do is force these
animals into areas where they do not exist against the express wishes of the
states and local communities that do not want them.
The US Constitution squarely placed such animals under State Jurisdiction.
It is both unjust and improper for the federal government to forcibly impose
wolves into rural areas under claims of being "Endangered". It is actually
criminal for the federal government to expose rural communities where wolves
did not exist to the loss of human lives, the loss of livestock, the loss of
hunting and wild game animals, the loss of dogs, the exposure to diseases
and infections dangerous to people and animals, the diminishment of rural
American communities resulting from the loss of hunting and ranching, and
the significant lifestyle changes wrought on rural children and elderly
where wolf interaction and familiarity threats to human life increase -
WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THOSE BEARING THESE BURDENS.
It is always admirable to hear someone intone the expansion of "humanity"
and sympathy with those that would also eliminate hunting and the private
ownership of all animals as they bemoan their feelings of "hurt by even the
thought of wolves being killed." Sad to say many of us, while continuing to
love these neighbors in the Christian sense, view them as radical citizens
that would destroy all that we hold dear - our traditions, our culture, our
way of life, and most importantly our Constitutional guarantees.
The question is not how we must compromise with and adjust to an inevitable
loss of our freedoms. The question is, "how did we lose State
Constitutional authority over these animals and how do we return the
Constitutional jurisdiction over if, where, and in what densities wolves are
to be tolerated within Each State?"
Until we answer this question, everything else is, as they say, academic.
Jim Beers
8 Sep. 2010
I recently received a copy of a paper by a retired Alaskan Department of
Fish and Game wildlife biologist. The paper described how, in Alaska, it is
possible to manage wolves and big game species so that each prospers while
providing "a balanced abundance of prey and predators for subsistence,
recreational and aesthetic uses." He concludes with, "I have come to
understand that some of the best things in life cannot be decided or even
understood on the basis of logic. I have come to sincerely respect the
perspectives of those who are hurt by even the thought of wolves being
killed. In the calculations we as a society make about this issue, we fail
to acknowledge as honest and important these sentiments only at peril to our
humanity. National Parks and special state areas should be an important
contribution to meeting this valid emotional perspective."
Setting aside the likelihood of this model being applicable to the Lower 48
states where livestock, dogs, and human habitations are ubiquitous; and
recognizing the Rodney King-like "can't we all just get along?" tone to his
sympathies: I am required to respond to this obviously sincere person.
We can write all manner of wolf trivia ("look what they did here", "they
never do this and always do that", "they never kill people", "they only kill
wild animals that are old, sick, lame, etc.") until the cows come home.
There is no end to the natural history information that will enthrall people
yet to be born. But that is not the question.
We can "sympathize" with "those who are hurt by even the thought of wolves
being killed." We can "fail to acknowledge as honest and important these
sentiments only at peril to our humanity" (whatever that means). We can
even "understand that some of the best things in life cannot be decided or
even understood on the basis of logic." What we cannot do is force these
animals into areas where they do not exist against the express wishes of the
states and local communities that do not want them.
The US Constitution squarely placed such animals under State Jurisdiction.
It is both unjust and improper for the federal government to forcibly impose
wolves into rural areas under claims of being "Endangered". It is actually
criminal for the federal government to expose rural communities where wolves
did not exist to the loss of human lives, the loss of livestock, the loss of
hunting and wild game animals, the loss of dogs, the exposure to diseases
and infections dangerous to people and animals, the diminishment of rural
American communities resulting from the loss of hunting and ranching, and
the significant lifestyle changes wrought on rural children and elderly
where wolf interaction and familiarity threats to human life increase -
WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THOSE BEARING THESE BURDENS.
It is always admirable to hear someone intone the expansion of "humanity"
and sympathy with those that would also eliminate hunting and the private
ownership of all animals as they bemoan their feelings of "hurt by even the
thought of wolves being killed." Sad to say many of us, while continuing to
love these neighbors in the Christian sense, view them as radical citizens
that would destroy all that we hold dear - our traditions, our culture, our
way of life, and most importantly our Constitutional guarantees.
The question is not how we must compromise with and adjust to an inevitable
loss of our freedoms. The question is, "how did we lose State
Constitutional authority over these animals and how do we return the
Constitutional jurisdiction over if, where, and in what densities wolves are
to be tolerated within Each State?"
Until we answer this question, everything else is, as they say, academic.
Jim Beers
8 Sep. 2010
Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist,
Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow.
He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and
Washington DC. He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western
Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands. He has worked for the
Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security
Supervisor in Washington, DC. He testified three times before Congress;
twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60
Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to
expanding Federal Invasive Species authority. He resides in Eagan,
Minnesota with his wife of many decades.
Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting at jimbeers7@comcast.net