And on and on it goes as our elites interpret Mother Nature to the rest of
us. Any failure on our part to do what Mother Nature requires will
result
in "extinction for (fill in any number) of species" and
"collapse" of our
ecosystem.
This entire pitiful situation was highlighted recently by a classroom
exercise by a group of Law students at a State University. A University
of
Vermont Law professor led his class on an exercise to force the Federal
bureaucrats to establish and protect wolves in "Maine, New Hampshire,
Vermont, and New York". The students were successful in that they
caused a
Federal judge to direct the US Fish and Wildlife Service to get going on the
introduction of wolves into New England. Such wolf introductions will
have
horrific impacts on big game species, big game hunting, pets, hunting dogs,
livestock, hobby pets, Federal land access and use, rural communities, and
rural residents. So how is such a thing justified?
The professor and his class merely played with the Endangered Species Act.
The judge merely took the Act one more notch down the road toward it's
becoming the most powerful and abusive Act in US history. All the New
England politicians that have supported the Act since it's inception and it's
growing abuses "out west" and "down south" for decades
will leave no
fingerprints on this coming wolf debacle. The State fish and wildlife
agencies will merely shrug and say it is a Federal matter. The US Fish
and
Wildlife Service will shrug and direct us back to the court and the binding
nature of this decision. But how was this decision justified?
The University professors and many government biologists, all of whom will
benefit from increased funding, authority, and grants tell us the wolves are
"necessary" to "balance" the "native ecosystem".
But while this sophistry
is spread by environmental and media elites: it is nowhere in evidence in
the courts rationale or authority. So how can this be happening?
The animal rights radicals speak of the benevolence and charm of wolves and
their "important" role in establishing a "balance" in the
ecosystem.
Supporters of this notion would likely be the first to call the police if
some large dogs were seen running loose near their homes but somehow the
presence of larger, wilder, and much more dangerous wolves doing the same
thing seems like a worthwhile notion. The environmental elites likewise tout
the untold benefits of the return of this magnificent weight on the
"balance" of Mother Nature's scale.
Neither group mentions their expectation that this will enable the
elimination of hunting, fishing, trapping, rural pets, rural communities,
and rural traditions as well as the closure of more public lands by reducing
the level of public use and users. All this however is unmentioned and
unnoted by the Law professor, the "happy" students, or the judge.
So answer
the question already, how can this be happening?
Drum-roll, please. This is happening because decades ago when wolves
were
listed as "Endangered" in the US they were abundant in Alaska and
common
enough in Minnesota, and NW Montana in the US. This was in addition to
there being common to over-abundant wolf populations throughout much of
Canada, Asia, and Europe. They were and are far less
"Endangered" than
elephants or most whales today. (For instance, the best thing, for many
good reasons, that could happen to many whale species and elephants today is
a managed, annual harvest). Anyway, in drawing up the
"science" and
"justification" (for funding) and plans for wolves in the US, the
bureaucrats and their academic "partners" mentioned all the wolf
"habitat"
and "past history" of wolves in New England. They could have
said the same
for Alabama or Illinois or Kansas but since there is less "Federal"
land
there and more land inhabited and in use, they didn't want to form any
determined early opposition from groups or politicians that would later have
to deal with the spreading wolves. Soon enough we will read about the
"need" for wolves in Virginia and the "need" for
"wildlife corridors" to
the Ozarks and down the Mississippi and out to New Mexico and how this fits
with some UN program. New Englanders and their politicians were
apparently
correctly believed to be supportive of the idea of wolves being important
and Federal authority being benevolent.
So after decades of protection, wolf numbers and problems mount annually in
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. The Federal government is pleased to
subcontract (i.e. "delist" the wolves there to State authorities)
management
and control under perpetual Federal oversight to State agencies. The
State
agencies are glad to do so because the complaints are mounting to them and
they can do nothing now and they want the illusion that they may do
something in the future to help those harmed. Truth be told, they are
promised Federal money to help manage wolf problems but it is inadequate
already and the wolves are only going to increase and unilateral control by
States will not be allowed. Besides, the State agencies and the US Fish
and
Wildlife Service are strongly committed to a multi-year campaign to get and
maintain a Billion or more dollars from the US Congress each year for
everything except hunting, fishing, trapping, animal control, and natural
resource use management programs by State agencies.
Anyway, the environmental elites and animal rights radicals do not want the
federal government to even give the appearance of turning wolf management
"over to the States". So one strategy underway is claiming in
Court that
the early wolf recovery documents named New England as a prime target for
wolves and therefore, until wolves are "recovered' in New England we
cannot
begin to even consider turning over wolf management to State agency
subcontractors in Minnesota and Wisconsin and Michigan. Whether the New
England professors or one or two of the "happy" students realize
this or
admit this is moot. They got the judge to order it.
So now New England's ecosystem will be "balanced" by wolves.
Biologically,
no ecosystem is ever "balanced"; but this term "balance"
is not biological.
This use of the term "balance" mimics the other use of this word in
today's
newspapers and on TV. You know, as in the "balance" on the
Supreme Court.
Then there is the "balance" being sought by a repressive Chinese
government
and Chinese reformers. "Balance" can indeed hide a myriad of
agendas and
like the character in Alice in Wonderland "mean exactly what I want it to
mean, no more and no less".
"Balance" may be defined as the current status of conflicting
agendas.
Shifting the legal perspective of the Supreme Court from one of judicial
activism towards one of judicial restraint changes the nature of decisions
and the purported "balance" is nothing more than a measure of where
it was
and where it is currently. Shifting Chinese rights and freedoms either
toward more government repression or towards more freedom is measurable and
the term "balance" is merely a rough indication that summarizes such
a
shift.
It is the same with the "balance of nature" or the "balance of
the
ecosystem". This is not a biological determination with a real
definition
and real boundaries. There is an ecosystem with or without wolves or
bears
or deer or whatever species you want to name. The ecosystem can be
simple
or complex, it can be very beneficial to or overtly hostile to man and
societies and communities. Intensely farmed areas can have greater
biodiversity than untouched wilderness. Areas of unmanaged and unused
plants and animals may be, and often are, less productive of species and
annual increases than nearby intensively managed and used areas. This is
true of marine environments, plains, lowlands, and mountains as well as
remote valleys or busy seaport areas.
You may want wolves everywhere; I may not. Bostonians may want cougars
and
bears protected completely; ranchers, hunters, farmers, dog owners, and most
rural residents may want their numbers kept low and their distribution
strictly circumscribed and control allowed in any emergency.
Birdwatchers
may want all logging and hunting and fishing stopped on and all land
controlled by the government over 5.5 Million acres of southern bottomlands
of potential use by an Ivory-billed Woodpecker; those that live and work and
recreate there may not. These are all legitimate perspectives that, like
the Supreme Court and Chinese politics, reflect human conflicts that involve
confrontation, dialogue, and resolution.
To allow the mythical "Mother Nature" and her "balance" to
be pronounced by
elites and radicals so that it trumps all else is both foolish and
dangerous. Yet it continues unabated with an awful box score of
victories
over property owners, rural communities, families, ranchers, hunters,
fishermen, animal owners, business, and even the very fiber of our system of
government.
The time has come for recognizing that "sound science" and
statements about
the "balance of nature" are terms of art and not science. They
represent
information that may or may not be worthy of consideration as we (the voters
and our elected representatives) decide what our ecosystem will be or won't
be. I vote for these questions to be matters for State and local
decisions
as served us so well for 200 years. The time for rural constituencies to
be
hostage to urban myths or westerners to be hostage to Eastern city voters or
all of us to be hostage to what some professor says is needed to
"balance"
things should come to an end. Whether we are talking about endangered
species or predators or government land control or government/non-government
land acquisition, or water projects or whatever: giving up our right to
self-determination whether to the Federal government or powerful factions or
"Mother Nature" (per Clint Eastwood) "ain't cutting it!"
Jim Beers
26 August 2003
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://www.allianceforamerica.org/bb/viewforum.php?f=91
