by Jim Beers
The devastation and illusions being created by the Endangered Species Act
continue to grow and harm more citizens and threaten ever more components of
this Nation. Two current examples of this will suffice for the purposes of
this article.
WOLVES. Wolves continue to spread over the Upper Midwest and in the West.
Midwestern dogs in yards, on walks, and engaged in hunting for their masters
are killed and maimed at increasing rates. Western elk, moose, bighorn
sheep and deer herds decrease and then plunge in the wake of expanding wolf
populations and wolf range expansions. Hunting permits and success are
likewise plunging which in turn causes revenue to State fish and wildlife
agencies to plunge. State governments (with the exception of Wyoming)
emulate European nations in the 1930's when Hitler was on the move and again
in the 1940's when Stalin stayed in Eastern Europe, in other words they
capitulate to power.
Dogs are being killed all over the wolf areas but the press and pet owners
ignore the problem. Wolf censuses are conducted by "volunteers"
who are
advocates of stopping hunting, ranching, logging, closing down public lands,
moving people out of rural areas, etc. and that purposely shape wolf figures
to please the Federal bureaucrats and State employee sympathizers.
Ranchers
are selling out as public land allotments are closed down and wolf
depredations erase slim profit margins. A Saskatchewan miner walking home
from work was recently attacked by a non-rabid wolf but the matter received
little to no attention in the US press. The US press always covers
predator
attacks that kill and maim people as examples of people either being in the
"wrong place" (i.e. the predators "habitat") or behaving
improperly. Like
overweight McDonalds customers, wolves or mountain lions are never to blame.
Meanwhile the US press and the communications directors of government
agencies and radical environmental "Centers" are grinding out wolf
propaganda like communist pamphleteers in 1917 Russia. Wolves are
"bringing
back streamside vegetation" by killing big game animals. Wolves are
"restoring the balance of nature" (whatever the heck that means).
Everyone
is "accepting wolves" (except a couple of high school-dropouts in the
back
country). The Federal government is "allowing" certain ranchers in
certain
States (those that recognize the Federal power to do whatever they want with
wildlife) to kill certain wolves when they are killing livestock and the
rancher can prove it. "Experts" and bureaucrats blame the loss
of wildlife
on weather and mumble about how more land set asides and purchase by
government are "necessary". Predictions of Armageddon from the
reelection
of the President or any attempt to touch the Endangered Species Act are as
common as poppies along an Italian roadside. States beginning to receive
wolves are practicing laying on their backs with their paws in the air
(those of you that have seen dogs fight know what I mean) to the Federal
bureaucrats. State reports on the matter and State rationales about why
wolves won't be harmful are shameful but reflective of the transition of
State fish and wildlife agencies from State employees to Federal underlings
beholden to Federal dollars for their very jobs.
CALIFORNIA BIGHORN SHEEP. Bighorn sheep exist all over the western
mountains. Although they have been very responsive to management programs
and they generate millions of dollars in revenue and benefits from hunting,
they are becoming a tool to kill hunting and further disable the State fish
and wildlife agencies from serving the residents of their State. Bighorn
sheep (like other big game) are feeling the sting of wolves as the wolves
spread in the Northern Rockies. Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming see it now and
(the honest ones) admit that it will only get worse. Remember this silence
about disappearing bighorn sheep as we look at California bighorn sheep.
California bighorn sheep are simply the bighorn sheep that live in the
Sierra Mountains of California. They are the exact same bighorn sheep as
the other Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep around the West, only they inhabit
California.
In the late 70's and early 80's radical animal rights organizations and
hysterical urbanites spread disinformation widely about the "poor"
mountain
lions that were being "hunted and killed". Since, in those
bygone halcyon
days, the urbanites didn't see mountain lions, they swallowed the bait and
voted to prevent any management (by California Fish and Game) or hunting of
mountain lions. The lions increased in numbers and began to pop up
everywhere. People were and are killed and maimed, pets are killed, and
the
more numerous mountain lions found the bighorn sheep giving birth every
spring in Sierra meadows. Killing the female bighorn as she gave birth was
and is a snap and the hungry lion gets both the large female and the tender
lamb as it is experiencing birth. It doesn't take much of this sort of
predation and pretty soon, no more sheep. Thus did the California Bighorn
Sheep come to the attention of Federal Endangered Species' bureaucrats at
the behest of the same radicals and extremists that got the mountain lion
protected in the first place.
It was a bonanza for the radicals, extremists, and bureaucrats. The US
Fish
and Wildlife Service got another "charismatic mega species" to
"save" (and
request money and personnel for from Congress). They then expanded the
Act's
coverage by fabricating something called a "distinct population
segment".
No, not a species, not a subspecies, not a race, not even a
"population" or
a "distinct population"; their success with "Listing" a
"distinct population
segment" (essentially a few of any kind of animal on any side of any legal
boundary) meant that the Feds could "List" ANYTHING they wanted
anytime they
wanted. The States understood this and so did the Feds' radical
"partners".
Further Federal success came when the US Fish and Wildlife Service had the
USDA government trappers take on the annual job of trapping and
"transplanting" California mountain lions each spring to
"save" the bighorn
sheep. So USDA gets more people and more Federal Appropriations (that is
your and my income taxes at work here) to "manage" California's
mountain
lions in bighorn sheep areas. Note to the naïve: they may
"transplant" them
or they may not. At least one State that is prohibited from managing an
overpopulated and problem species Listed under the Federal Endangered
Species Act is quietly "transplanting" them underground. The
reason?
Wolves, mountain lions, bears, alligators, and other "problem" species
that
are live-trapped and "transplanted" can generally get back to that
"problem"
area quicker than a Canada goose (that may be a bit of an exaggeration but
you get the point). The real point is why are ALL OF US paying Millions
for
this nonsense when hunters PAY the State to do the same thing? The answer
is that while the Federal government absorbs all the management authority
over these animals, the States lose wildlife managers and hire ideologues in
tune with Federal protectionism and State residents are left with no one to
protect them and their rights.
So the radicals boast about the "balance of nature" and how you
"don't need
to kill" (fill in the blank). The Feds "keep an eye" on
things and the
Californians wonder about why hunters are even allowed in the State (and
what about fishermen?).
Oh, I almost forgot. The radicals and the Federal bureaucrats have begun
to
"worry" that domestic sheep grazing in the Sierras will
"infect" the
precious California bighorn sheep. So the Federal government is using the
bighorn as the reason they "have" to shut down the sheep grazing
allotments
all over the Sierras. If this stands (as it has) what about domestic dogs
transmitting parvo or distemper to the precious wolves? Dog owners (like
every other animal user group) continue to look inward and argue among
themselves about shelters and rescue and some old lady found with a bunch of
dogs and the need for "more" laws while such precedents are
established and
expanded. I was told once as a kid in Illinois that when hogs were
butchered "they use everything but the squeal". Well those hogs'
utility
had nothing on these California bighorns. I wouldn't be surprised if in
the
next 5 years they are the reason Californians shut down fast food joints,
outlaw SUV's, and sign the Kyoto Treaty on their own.
STATUS OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT. In February of 2005 the status of
the
Endangered Species Act is problematic at best. The Act has become a tool
to
implement the nightmares of radical organizations and the dreams of federal
bureaucrats. The previous President grew the Act dramatically and hired
activists throughout government to expand the Federal authority for Federal
benefit. State government authority and private property owners have been
greatly diminished. Citizens in practically every walk of life (except
bureaucrats, environmental extremists, and animal rights radicals) are being
hurt. The disruption of the natural environment of the United States is
extreme and damaging to plants and animals and their habitats.
The current President is more benign. His appointees are a mix of persons
in high places that talk a good game of helping citizens but they are
surrounded by a sea of activist Federal managers and low-level appointees
that are true "partners" with radical groups and their agendas.
While they
work surreptitiously on creating a Federal Invasive Species mandate,
publicly their only suggestion for improving Endangered Species Programs is
more money and more power for themselves.
The Congress, for the first time since passage of the Act, has a large
number of members who are sensitive to the growing Endangered Species
complaints from constituents. The cries for "reform" have
attracted
attention but the radical groups, radical appointees, bureaucrats and press
are out in force. What should be a rosy picture for amending the
Endangered
Species Act or maybe even revoking the UN Convention that underpins the Act
is slowly turning a shiny brown.
First, and perhaps rightly, the perception here at the center of the
Universe is that the current Secretary of the Interior and a few other
appointees have been so "nice" lately. They won't
"List" the Preble's
jumping mouse, they are letting certain ranchers shoot a wolf, and they are
giving lots of "support" to States that play ball. The
perception here in
Washington is that there is no longer an army of outraged citizens willing
to back the politicians against the radicals and all their allies. What
everyone misses here is that EVERYTHING and I do mean EVERYTHING the current
appointees give you; the next appointees will have the same power to take
away. It is the power taken from State governments and private citizens
and
given to Federal bureaucrats that MUST be returned or things will only
continue to get worse to the point of eventual collapse.
Second, an "Energy Bill" (meaning the debate over the needed oil
drilling on
the Artic Slope in Alaska) will be taking all of the attention of the two
key Chairmen that must oversee any Endangered Species Act reform.
(Remember
the Endangered Species Act has gone unauthorized for over 15 years [a
violation of law] while it continues to get more funding and expand beyond
the wildest dreams of its' authors. This bizarre circumstance is due to
the
power of the radicals, the self-interest of bureaucrats, and the lies and
deceptions that flood the media and schools.) Those two Chairmen,
Congressman Pombo of California and Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma, are perhaps
the two finest politicians in Washington. Based on what I have observed
over the years, they are concerned (in a practical and common sense way)
about the natural environment of the US, they understand the role of the
bureaucracy, and they are aware of the current and future threat posed by
the Act as it now stands. They and the members of their Committees (the
House Resources Committee and the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee) need all the encouragement and help they can get to take on this
difficult task and see it through.
Third, this Congress is no longer openly opposed to reforms. There may not
ever again be such a Congress. The longer the Act grows and establishes
precedents and get powerful bureaucrats committed to it for themselves, the
harder it gets to change anything. That is why some in Washington are
stressing "strengthening" the Act rather than reforming or amending
the Act
as acceptable jargon. Whether it is wise to use such verbal judo I leave
to
others to decide. What I am concerned about is the current campaigns by US
bureaucrats to work with UN bureaucrats to sponsor international meetings to
draft and sign 2 new UN "Conventions" or Treaties. Clever US
bureaucrat
ideologues are conniving with UN counterparts to create international
meetings for two such new Conventions. Invasive Species (or Native
Ecosystem) and Small Arms UN Conventions signed off on by the US would
superceded the 2nd Amendment and give the US Federal government power over
the environment that would dwarf what the Endangered Species Act is doing.
If we embark on an Endangered Species Act "strengthening" effort
instead of
publicly recognizing the Act (that is based on a UN Convention, CITES) as a
source of immeasurable problems and harm, what argument is there against
giving the Federal government similar power over guns and all aspects of
"the environment" based on similar "Conventions"? If
there are problems we
can merely "strengthen" it down the road.
I can't predict the future any more than you but I can recognize a problem
today. It seems that if we let the current opportunity slip away, there
may
not be another. Think about what you can do to let the politicians you
know
understand that you expect change. Don't worry about the bureaucrats or
the
radicals, they are known entities and must be dealt with accordingly.
Changing the law and placing the bureaucracy under appointees that mean
business will take care of that. Of course we must fight the day-to-day
battles but we must not lose sight of the big picture. At minimum the Act
must be changed to return State authority over Endangered and Threatened
Species to State governments. Private property must not be taken without
compensation and restoration of species should be based on their occurrence
in recent years, not the wild imaginings of what met Columbus or Lewis and
Clark. It is up to each of us.
Jim Beers
29 January 2005