Jim Beers: "Science" as Dogma Oct 16, 2010

"Science" as Dogma

A federal Wildlife Refuge in north central Montana that was once famous for
pheasant hunting is steadily ridding the refuge of pheasants. Russian
olive, a medium size tree that once spotted the refuge, has been cut down
and piled in heaps. This shrub is an important winter cover for pheasants
(especially during blizzards) and the fruit is a preferred food for
pheasants as well as sharp-tail grouse, cedar waxwings, robins, grosbeaks,
quail, and elk (per the 1951 American Wildlife and Plants, A Guide to
Wildlife Food Habits). The Guide goes on to describe the shrub as "hardy to
droughts" "tolerates some alkalinity" and "the Soil Conservation Service
regards it as a good plant for soil cover". Removing the Russian olive
trees in this otherwise healthy pheasant habitat makes no sense unless you
believe environmental radicals and government "scientists".

These "scientists" and the professors they employ with government grants
tell us that "only the plants and animals that were here when Europeans
'invaded' what we now call America 'belong' here today". Alas, the Russian
olive like the pheasant, was not present in North America on that magical
1492 AD date so eradicating these two valuable species (and untold numbers
of other valued species that are similarly widely established) are slated to
be drags on state and local tax dollars for decades to come with no end in
sight.

You would think that the "scientists" would be proud to trumpet this
"science" that they impose as dogma but such is not the case. Instead of
trumpeting this quasi-religious effort by government, federal bureaucrats
justify it as "eliminating perches for hawks in order to save ducklings".
How touching! Were I to tell them we need to protect elk from wolves or
rabbits from coyotes they would identify me as a troglodyte for thinking
that predation bothers anything. Ask them if they will now cut down the few
remaining "native" trees and remove all the fence posts, telephone poles and
power lines to eliminate "hawk perches" and they would look at you like you
were crazy. Were you to ask if this encourages more gun control (fewer
Russian olive trees mean fewer pheasants which means fewer hunters which
means fewer gun owners and therefore fewer 2nd Amendment defenders; you
would be laughed out of the room and called a "conspiracy nut".

You might ask what the Montana state fish and wildlife professionals think
since fewer pheasants and fewer hunters mean less hunting license revenues.
They are evidently mute on the matter albeit that about 15 miles from the
federal refuge I encountered a sign on private property that read
"Sharp-tail Grouse Restoration Project Compliments of Montana Fish,
Wildlife, and Parks". As I walked over the hills of stubble I came to this
"Project" and guess what? It consisted of planted tree rows for winter
cover and food for the grouse (and any wayward pheasants) and there in the
middle was a row of Russian olive trees about armpit high! Who's right? Are
Russian olive trees and pheasants good or bad? Why are all public lands
becoming less and less managed for hunting and fishing? On what basis are
American cultures and traditions being eliminated? On what basis are public
funds (i.e. tax dollars) expended for public lands that are unused and
unmanaged? What possible defense exists for the specious claim that the
plants and animals present when primitive tribes living a hunter/gatherer
lifestyle (pre-1492 AD) belong once again in a nation of hundreds of
millions, massive cities, extensive roads, farms, towns, and
energy-dependence in a technology-driven economy and society?

Environmental "Science" can be just about anything you want it to be. It
can and does hide an abundance of hidden agendas from gun control and budget
request fodder to state bureaucrat obeisance to federal agendas (for money)
and the elimination of hunting (like loggers and ranchers discovered when
spotted owls and wolves replaced snail darters and salmon as rural
life-killers du jour.

Dogma (a principle, a settled opinion) can only persist if it is based on
Truth. Modern "science" has become a tool of unjust laws and the source of
a philosophy of governance that treats human society and human needs as
concerns that are less than, and at most equal to, plants and animals and an
imaginary earth. In other words, Truth has nothing to do with anything.

Daily examples of this perversion of "science" and "scientists" abound:
-   A neighboring Minnesota town reports an outbreak of coyote attacks
on dogs and a rash of coyotes in yards and parks. The Minnesota DNR
employee (the state "wildlife scientist") assures the people that there has
"never been an attack by a coyote on a human recorded in Minnesota". Well
coyotes have only recently spread back into the Eastern US largely because
of a decrease in hunting, trapping, and fur prices for these able predators.
I seriously doubt the business about "never been a recorded attack"; are we
to believe that, as we are led to believe about sharks and wolves and
cougars et al, there is some 1-800 central record-keeping site that has been
notified and duly recorded such things for centuries? Is the "State
Scientist" aware of recent coyote attacks on young children in backyards in
Massachusetts and New York where but for alert adults a child would have
been killed and dragged off to be eaten by the coyote or fed to nearby pups?

-   Minnesota grouse hunter numbers are decreasing for the past 15 years
even as grouse numbers remain strong. The state attributes it to everything
from global warming to fat hunters to kids playing video games. If you
mention the increasing attacks and killing of grouse dogs by the protected
and expanding wolf population, you are pooh-poohed by the "scientists" and
their outdoor writers as silly and having no proof (where do hunters that
have abandoned the sport report; perhaps the 1-800 predator reporting
number?). While right next door in Wisconsin the similarly protected and
expanding wolf-killing of dogs (watchdogs, pets, bear dogs, bird dogs,
rabbit dogs, retrievers, etc.) has reached such proportions that the state
has a "1-800" number for anyone hunting with a dog to get an update on areas
where wolves are currently "most active". Setting aside the fact that
wolves range far and wide and the fact that you haven't seen or heard one
for a month means NOTHING! Who's right? Are the Minnesota "scientists"
right that wolves are not a factor in the disappearance of grouse dogs and
grouse hunters or are the Wisconsin "scientists" right that it is a serious
problem so that a totally ineffective assurance by the two ladies that
answer the "1-800" number gives the appearance and aura of "doing
something"?

-   In line with the above, Minnesota moose are declining as Minnesota
wolf numbers and wolf range increase where the moose exist. Anyone even
asking if wolf predation on moose cows and calves is a big factor here is
immediately dismissed by state, federal and university "scientists" as some
sort of knuckle-dragging, "jack-pine savage" (the Minnesota term for some
sort of uneducated redneck hillbilly jerk). Instead we are told it is
mainly global warming and only by increasing federal authority over more of
our lives and spending markedly more for government and our utilities do we
(and the moose) have any slight chance for survival. Who's right? I vote
for the "jack-pine savage".

-   When recent sightings of wild cougars in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and
Iowa were acknowledged after being denied by "state scientists" for years,
the governmental response was nothing short of criminal. We were told that
cougars were protected (like wolves) and that they "belonged here" (again
like wolves) and that we (humans) were obliged to be alert and keep our
animals "inside". Records of wolf and cougar attacks on humans and the
destruction of human property and endeavors by these dangerous and
destructive animals are indisputable and extend back into the mists of
antiquity. In North Dakota, any cougar "East of the River" (i.e. Minot and
Bismarck) can and should be killed on sight by anyone. To kill a cougar
"West of the River" all that is required is a hunting license. In South
Dakota, enraged ranchers and farmers confronted the State Legislature with
an ultimatum that either they increase the number of cougars taken to keep
the cougars at a tolerable level or they would see a turnover of legislators
similar to the expected Washington DC turnover in 3 weeks. Who's right? I
vote for the Dakotas and their losses to cougars will be as nothing when
compared to their coming abundance in more densely populated (by humans)
states like Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.

The foolishness of our current age is nowhere better demonstrated than in
these broadsides of word perversions and self-serving environmental
"science" of the past 40 years. We have allowed "scientists" to create
dictates disguised as "scientific fact" that have been incorporated into
federal and state laws and regulations. Whenever necessary for their and
their sponsor's purposes, new findings are "discovered" such as new
"distinct population segments" of animals to "List" as endangered or why new
"Sanctuaries" and "Wilderness" are needed. All of this is presented as
founded on a "Green" or "New Age" philosophy wherein no animal is killed, no
land is managed, and mankind is reduced in numbers with a greatly diminished
lifestyle under the absolute control of an all-powerful central or
international government.

One-hundred and one years ago this week, in the Illustrated London News, GK
Chesterton made the following observation:
"Science must not impose any philosophy, any more than the telephone must
tell us what to say."
Oh, for wise men and women of that caliber today!

Jim Beers
16 October 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