|
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 |
What
About Section (H),
Para
. 1, Item (c.)?
I often get asked about specific
strategies to minimize or oppose government
harms being imposed on communities across the
nation. Whether it is the
economic harm or deadly danger of government predator programs to
hunters,
ranchers, and rural residents; or proposals to close more public land
access, management, and use that wastes sustainable resources and
diminishes
rural communities and structures by government fiats; or simply attempts
to
outlaw horse slaughter or create a governmental mission to restore
"Native
Ecosystems" (whatever that may be) or to begin a never-ending
"nature-worship" campaign to eradicate all "Invasive
Species": the questions
are essentially the same.
As confused and fearful
citizens contemplate the loss of their property or
their community or their traditions or their livelihood or the safety of
their homes and families and animals to new "laws" or
government "agencies"
they rightly consult lawyers and begin examining the basis of the harms
being aimed at them. This naturally leads to legalistic
preparations for a
"challenge" or "lawsuit" or "lobbying"
for, most often, a narrowly focused
insertion of or removal of several key words in the legislation or
government "regulation" that is given as the basis for the
intended
government harm. So it is not surprising that some windbag like me
might be
asked a specific question like, "What about Section (H), Paragraph
1., Item
[c.]?"
While it is a legitimate and understandable approach to these expanding
government harms (new Wilderness and Marine Sanctuary
"Declarations";
expansion of deadly predator ranges and protection; Roadless Areas and
Road
Closures from trails and paths to State and County roads;
"Wildlands"
Corridors and land transfers from National Forest status to National
Park
status; subsidized land easement programs and sub rosa coordination
between
bureaucrats and radical NGO's to fulfill hidden agendas; and erosion of
State authority and responsiveness by use of Federal grants,
apportionments,
and subsidies that make State public servants into subcontractors and
servile followers of Federal bureaucracies are but a few of the harms
faced
by Americans as I write. I am asked about specific legal
strategies to
fight these government abuses. While I respond as best I can: I
honestly
feel that too often we are missing the mark and only greasing the future
for
more such mistreatment at the hands of those abusing American government
power for their own ends. I refer to the simple fact that since we
fight as
isolated small communities being harmed sequentially we almost
invariably
stand alone. When we stand alone: we fight alone. When we
fight alone: we
disappear unnoticed. Only after we (hunter, rancher, whatever)
disappear
are we called back as both precedent for the next targeted group and as
a
warning to others that opposition equals destruction.
One need look no further that the recent Congressional election to see
the
"warning" and "precedent" touted by the
"Defenders" of Wildlife, the
National Wildlife Federation, and other such groups regarding their
defeat
of the former Chairman of the House (of US Representatives) Resources
Committee. His offense was his commitment to try and modestly
reform the
Endangered Species Act's outrageous use to justify taking private
property
without compensation. The radicals poured millions into his District and
got
him ousted in favor of a "friendly" (to their agenda)
replacement. The
message to politicians was that opposing current or increased
environmental
and animal rights laws only results in smashing defeat. The
radical's
bureaucrat "partners" were greatly emboldened by this display
of power. The
change in philosophy and name of the House Resource Committee and the
breathtaking "banking' of all manner of extreme new legislative
proposals in
preparation for the upcoming Presidential election season should a
matter of
deep concern for all Americans.
Then there is the "precedent factor". Since the fact
that Californians
refused to control cougar numbers and distribution years ago thereby
almost
eradicating bighorn sheep in the Sierras at the (claws or teeth?) of the
more numerous cougars; the Federal government successfully declared the
(numerous everywhere else in the West) bighorn sheep in the Sierras
"Endangered" and therefore subject to Federal intervention
(i.e. cougar
control) thereby absolving Californian consciences and ratifying the
childish "fairy tale" biology of radical NGO zealots.
Working on this
"precedent" today the
"Endangered" status to prevent surrounding states from killing
those bison
that leave the Park with the potential for spreading brucellosis, a
disease
deadly to livestock and life-threatening to humans. The
unjustifiable
"Listing" of wolves 35 years ago as "Endangered"
when they inhabited
Minnesota and Montana and were abundant and extremely harmful throughout
Canada, Alaska, central and northern Asia, as well as Russia and eastern
Europe is another example of 'precedent" "running amok"
at the expense of
millions of people as well as billions of dollars.
For decades now, we have all accepted the "knowledge" that
these laws are
"necessary", "needed", "working", and
based not on mere politics but on
"science". We bristle when told bureaucrats can be as abusive
as any other
person handling unaccountable and growing power. Thus has the
scope and
mistreatment of American rights, freedoms, institutions, and citizens
grown.
Opposition amounts to minor skirmishes that occasionally result in a
temporary halt for some group but which more often serves merely as
"combat
experience" for bureaucrats and opportunities for bureaucrats and
radicals
to "fine tune" future regulations, processes, and both new and
current laws
for the next skirmish. We are too often like high school
basketball teams
trying to play an NBA team. Like such a contest, few would show up
to learn
how they might play the NBA: reports of the results would merely
intimidate
any others from trying such a one-sided contest.
Folks it is time to stop talking and acting like these laws (ESA, AWA,
MMPA,
WHBA, etc.) are either proper or inviolate. We need to be pushing
this
issue before this sorry (in my view) crop of Presidential candidates.
They
are all soft on this. They are all advocates for urban values that
are out
of touch with biological and societal reality being forcibly opposed on
rural
their "partners" in the Congress are prepared to support an
orgy of "more"
of what is destroying rural America and all the traditions and rights we
hold dear in this upcoming Presidential election contest.
While we must still focus on our individual fights, we either come
together
and get the attention of these politicians regarding meaningful
amendments
to or repeal these laws or we will soon be no more than "the person
who
lived in
on the big picture. Either we change the basic laws that are
harming us or
all is eventually lost.
If The Founding Fathers had followed our example, the world would have
never
known the possibility for freedom and individual rights that is and has
been
The United States of America. They would have
"demonstrated" in
been jailed) and argued "through some Solicitor" to get one
bedroom left for
their family when British troops chose to live in their homes.
They would
have argued about the tea tax for a few months and then just paid it.
They
would have eventually shrugged (like so many rural Americans today)
about
not being "represented in Parliament", resigned themselves to
whatever our
"betters" deigned to impose on us, and said there is no way to
modify what
is happening. They would have ignored what was happening in "
if they lived in the "South" or what was being done to
merchants if they
farmed. They would have finally concluded that Parliament (like
"scientists"
today) knows best and we should "go along to get along". In
other words they
would have accepted the concept that government is a tool for the
powerful
to impose their agenda on the powerless rather than a creation of
"We the
People" for specific and limited purposes designed for the good of
all.
In short they would have lived under the dictates of a
Parliament/Monarchy
until they were told it was "approved" to become part of a
Commonwealth.
They would have fought
forces, not fully "English" yet, under English command.
The guaranteed
rights and freedoms we see today eroding all around us would have never
existed. We would have certainly been more of a socialist society
and the
miracle of the American economy and all it has generated would not have
even
been a dream. Government control of everything from medicine and
guns to
schools and rights would have been absolute and subject only to the
advantage of government and powerful forces. We would have been
expendable
"revenue sources" under government control every bit as much
as serfs and
peasants down through history. Not only
been a much different and much poorer place.
That is the kind of thinking that tells you fighting oppression and
tyranny
in isolated locations all alone and believing that "reasoning"
with
government from a position of weakness will somehow guarantee something
other than total defeat. At issue are things where government is
not
worried about any accountability or consequences for what they do.
Therefore
they do what benefits them and their "partners" with
increasing impunity.
Recent discussions I have had with rural landowners in eastern
with Gamefowl Breeders in
startling clarity. Next week (22 Sep.) I will speak to ranchers
threatened
with the loss of ½ million acres and most of two counties in
a proposed expansion of
Oregonians the ultimate solution lies in tough and pointed national
reforms.
Absent these, the future is dark for all of us.
We must follow the example of The Founding Fathers if we are to maintain
our
freedom and rights. We must question the underlying assumptions
that others
have the "right" to say you have no "rights" but
what they grant. More
important than our local fights is this national fight. Energize
every
Local, State, and Federal politician you can. Find out where they
stand on
reforming and repealing these laws and either support them or work to
defeat
them. Use every "tool in your toolbox" (a smart-alecky
Federal term for all
the ways to "snooker" the public into any Federal scheme) and
enlist friends
and neighbors. Read my talk in La Junta,
believe it is the sort of fresh and bold thinking necessary to preserve
the
rights and freedoms of all of us.
Ben Franklin said it best when he was reputed to have observed upon
signing
The Declaration of Independence, "Gentlemen, we must now all hang
together,
or we shall most assuredly all hang separately." Those are
words as
meaningful to us today as to those signers 232 years ago. We
cannot afford
to give up or become resigned to incremental oppression.
Jim Beers
-
- This article and other recent articles by Jim Beers can be found at
http://jimbeers.blogster.com (Jim Beers Common Sense)
- Jim Beers is available for consulting or to speak. Contact:
jimbeers7@verizon.net
- Jim Beers is a
retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist,
Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional
Fellow.
He was stationed in
Pacific and on
Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security
Supervisor in
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