The 1970's and 1980's saw the growing acceptance in State and Federal
bureaucracies (US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Forest Service, BLM, State
Fish and Wildlife agencies, and Universities et al) that hunting, fishing,
trapping, logging, grazing, mining, animal ownership, animal use, etc. would
soon be outlawed and things of the past. I still remember a meeting with
Carter Administration officials where we were told "trapping would be
outlawed by many states by 1990 and by 2000 many states will have outlawed
hunting", the message was that we should begin to prepare for this Brave
New
World.
Most bureaucrats (certainly most Federal but some State bureaucrats as well)
embraced this concept because they believed that only those prepared to
switch from resource management and use to "save and lock up EVERYTHING
under Federal control" (including State agencies) would keep their jobs,
get
promotions, and receive bonuses that were initiated under then president
Carter. Universities were just beginning to see the rewards of Endangered
Species, Marine Mammals, Wilderness, and Animal Welfare Acts so the notion
that there was yet another new concept coming down the pike that could
generate similar revenue and prestige so they began to get in line.
Finally, the Federal politicians, like the University professors swallowed
the environmental/animal rights predictions of the future and began to
envision grateful urban voters and uninformed rural voters clapping and
voting as they were told of how Senator Claghorn had gotten money and
"positions" (i.e. "bureaucrats") for some favored new
environmental property
or to research some critter or to "save" some heretofore unknown tree
stand
or mouse.
Who objected you say? Well, no one. The hunting organizations only
did
what their staffs said. So the staffs believed this stuff for the most
part
and asked themselves where they would be working when some President of the
Humane Society of the US became US Fish and Wildlife Director or Secretary
of the Interior. The fishing organizations have been long under control of
well-to-do moderates who never fight for anything but believe in compromise
and a "you scratch my back" philosophy. The hunting and fishing
corporations saw no one objecting so they kept putting on free buffets and
breakfasts for bureaucrats at annual meetings and opening museums that
praise animals and avoid mention of animal use.
But what about the State Fish and Wildlife agencies you say? Good
question.
They are our friends and advocates. They work for "our"
Governor. They
hunt and fish. Surely, they will tell us what is going on and what we
should do about it. Well, actually, not. I used to believe that they
would
stand up for us too but the last 8 years have shattered that confidence. I
no longer believe in such a Santa Claus.
In the 1980's the State Fish and Wildlife agencies and their Washington
lobby group made funding and a role in a world without hunting, fishing, and
trapping their #1 priority. It remains so to this day.
If the State agencies were to lose over ¾ of a Billion dollars (hunting and
fishing excise taxes) annually and millions more in license money, how could
they keep their jobs? What would they do? The Federal government had
seized migratory birds, endangered species, marine mammals, and animal
welfare; what was left if the hunted and fished and trapped species no
longer "needed" attention?
The always benevolent US Fish and Wildlife Service worked with the State
agencies and their Washington lobby group to come up with a new
"concept".
They would ask Congress for a "check-off" on Federal tax forms for
"Non-Game
Wildlife". They would collect millions from taxpayers anxious for
some
warm-fuzzy thing that the bureaucrats would publicize in every imaginable
way. The US Fish and Wildlife Service would "give" the money
collected to
the States (just like the "hunting and fishing excise taxes" for
"non-game"
projects (after, of course, taking out "administrative" money and
telling
the States how they could or could not use it). Only thing was, Congress
and the public weren't supporting it so it sank.
Next they came up with a tax on "binoculars, tents, hiking shoes, etc.) to,
just like the hunting and fishing excise taxes and the defeated
"check-off"
distribution, tax the "outdoor users" like the hunters and fishermen.
Funny
thing, that went down in flames too. All those "non-game users"
and
"outdoor equipment manufacturers" weren't as committed as the
"game and fish
users" and the hunting and fishing equipment manufacturers.
Next they tried the same Rube Goldberg scam on birdseed sales but surprise,
surprise; they weren't having any of it either. Congressional political
lethargy (as being currently exemplified in the US Senate by Senators
Chaffee and Jeffords and Clinton's burial of any Endangered Species reform)
sometimes, but not often, is a good thing.
By this time the Clinton Administration was on board and we were in the
period when Presidential Executive Orders tied up natural resources and
Federal appointments were mostly non-management, no-use zealots. It was
also the period when the US Fish and Wildlife Service stole $45 to 60
Million from the State hunting and fishing excise taxes and then used it for
things Congress refused to fund (wolf introduction into Yellowstone and a
California Office) and for bonuses and operations unrelated to State
programs. The Federal perpetrators were never punished and have since been
rewarded but most astonishing the State agencies or their Washington lobby
group NEVER EVEN ASKED FOR THE STOLEN MONEY TO BE REPLACED! Why?
The mid 1990's saw the birth of the "Native Ecosystem as a Government
Responsibility" movement. What is a "Native Ecosystem"?
A "native
Ecosystem" is a bureaucrats' dream and a radical's tool, it is indefinable
and it can NEVER be attained. Climates, land uses, plant and animal
adaptions, civilizations, extinctions, and many other real factors through
the centuries and millennia make the definition of "Native
Ecosystem"
whatever your favorite professor knows you want it to be.
What we can all grasp about "Native Ecosystem" is that there are some
plants
and animals that "belong" somewhere and others that "don't
belong". The
term that describes the plants and animals that "don't belong" is
Invasive
Species.
So the Federal and (now) State bureaucrats are telling us that we
"must" or
"should" or "need" to have a "Native Ecosystem"
(this is after all what is
behind all the "wolves everywhere at any cost" Endangered Species
program).
How do we get this "Native Ecosystem"? Why by
"fighting", "controlling",
"eliminating", "studying", etc. Invasive Species because
once the Invasive
Species are removed (voila!) you have what is left, the "Native
Ecosystem".
Now the State bureaucrats are smart enough to realize that if the US
Congress won't fall for birdseed taxes, or tent taxes, or tax check-offs
that the approach for "Native Ecosystem as a Government
Responsibility" scam
must be conducted carefully, especially if the State agencies are to get
significant money from the Federal Treasury. US Fish and Wildlife Service
knows this elemental fact all too well. The radical animal rights
organizations and the environmental organizations understand all this in
even more detail.
Starting in the late 1990's the US Fish and Wildlife Service has hoodwinked
the US Congress into giving them some money each year for "Landowner
Incentive Programs" and "Habitat Incentive Programs". This
is annual money
that the US Fish and Wildlife Service gives to landowners and States for
non-game wildlife although they do not use such terse and accurate language
in their justification. This is now up to nearly $100 Million per year.
In the early 2000's the US Fish and Wildlife Service and State agencies got
authority to spend many millions of dollars for each State to prepare a
Comprehensive Wildlife Plan that is essentially a wish list for people and
money to KEEP ANY AND EVERY GROUP OF PLANTS AND ANIMALS IN THE STATE FROM
BECOMING ENDANGERED. These are compendiums of all manner of wild-eyed
dreams for money and power to RESTORE NATIVE ECOSYSTEMS AND "COMBAT"
Invasive Species among other things. Honestly if I we3re hired to put
together such a plan for any state, I am sure it would call for thousands of
employees and hundreds of millions of dollars and lots of new legislative
authority. The bases for such budget tomfoolery are unlimited and claims
of "needs" are without bounds.
These 50 State Plans will be rolled into one grand National Plan and used as
a basis for increased budget requests BY THE US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE FOR
STATE FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES TO BE ADMINISTERED JUST LIKE THE HUNTING AND
FISHING EXCISE TAX PROGRAM. The Federal agency will not only get the money
from Congress and keep back some for administration but additionally THEY WILL
DICTATE WHAT THE STATE AGENCIES WILL DO WITH THE FUNDS. The National Plan
will describe needed Billions and probably get several hundred million each year
to start and then increase every year like Endangered Species has done.
The likelihood of it becoming Billions each year is not remote. Then just
like Endangered Species and Marine Mammal Protection and Wilderness and Animal
Welfare as Federal responsibilities, Invasive Species regulation expansion by
bureaucrats, competition between agencies, lawsuits by radicals, and cooperative
synergy between bureaucrats (Federal and State) and radicals and professors and
politicians will stretch Invasive Species beyond anything mentioned or even
imagined today.
END OF PART II.
Jim Beers
- If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others. Thanks.
- This article and other recent articles by Jim Beers can be found at
http://jimbeers.blogster.com/
(Jim Beers Common Sense) or at
http://www.jimbeers.net/
- Jim Beers is available for consulting or to speak. Contact:
jimbeers7@verizon.net