Invasive Species Update #1 - March 7, 2003
If you have read my recent nine articles regarding Invasive Species, you may be
interested in two current developments.
First, Senator Collins of
It is legitimate for the Federal government to prevent future organisms arriving
here in this way. The proposed ballast water management parts of the Act are
worthwhile but could be accomplished under amended current regulations and
Federal authorities already in place. The Federal agencies do not need
legislative authority to tighten current requirements for arriving vessels.
The proposed Act does several other things. It purports to establish “our
first national monitoring network” by “building” “plans” to respond at
“the state and regional level. This establishes the Federal government as
responsible for “invasive species” wherever they occur, indeed the sponsor
has put in money for water milfoil an aquatic plant that has been here for years
and has been a problem in Maine. Also think for a moment about that often-heard
term “state and regional levels.” According to the Constitution and 225
years of governance, states are the government level responsible for many
specific things, including the management (control, harvest, distribution, etc.)
of the plants and animals within their states. When we constantly equate this
level of government with “regional” concerns so far as the Federal
government is concerned, we reduce the state governments to invisibility. Why do
they not complain? Because the proposed Act authorizes “more money (sic
Federal) to the states.”
The proposed Act also establishes a research program and “grants”. These
would be administered, in fact dictated, by Federal bureaucrats. There is no
room for state management intentions or needs. On the assumption that the states
are too naïve or too dumb to consult each other or for University professors to
search computerized databases regarding what other Universities are researching,
the Federal government will dictate what is to be done and how it will be done.
Can anyone involved spell E-n-d-a-n-g-e-r-e-d S-p-e-c-i-e-s? For all the same
good intentions, the Federal government is grown and powerful interest groups
are given the same tools to do the same mischief and damage they have been
utilizing the Endangered Species Act to do for years.
Second, the Invasive Weeds Awareness Coalition “honored” the National
Wildlife Refuge Association for its “exceptional educational efforts and
cooperative support in the battle against invasive species in the
The Invasive Weeds Awareness Coalition is the umbrella outfit for all the
lobbyists and organizations who are intent on getting all invasive species under
the Federal umbrella so that they can be manipulated like Endangered Species to
build power, obtain Federal tax money, dictate citizen activities, subvert
private property landowners, and further restrict uses and access on public
lands.
The National Wildlife Refuge Association is an association of retired Refuge
employees bent on making National Wildlife Refuges a separate (from the US Fish
and Wildlife Service) Agency and getting every dime and regulatory power
available for National Wildlife Refuges. They are not unique. There is an even
more powerful National Parks group and another for the National Forests. They
would each quadruple the budgets of their old places of employment each year if
they could do it. They would stop all uses on, most access to, and development
of energy on all the National Parks, Refuges, and Forests.
This award was mainly for the Refuge Association publication called “Silent
Invasion.” It is full of pictures and paints invasive species as “the #1
threat to refuges.” It asks Congress to provide “$150 Million over the next
five years” to “implement the strategic management plan of the “National
Invasive Species Council.” All this, while detailing invasive species budget
needs on the 95-million acre National Wildlife Refuge system.
A couple examples of what the “threats” consist of are in order. One of the
“invasives” is Russian olive, a small tree that grows throughout the west
and has been here for a century. A friend told me recently that while hunting on
a western refuge he witnessed the Refuge employees cutting down these trees.
When he pointed out their importance to wintering pheasants and other birds and
wildlife, he was told they weren’t native. He, a wildlife biologist like me,
believes that it will also get rid of the pheasants but no one dares say that
until more vilification of all “invasives” takes place. Similarly, western
refuges claim that another “invasive” shrubby tree, salt cedar, must be
eliminated. Salt cedar is the number one nesting tree in the southwest and
The acreages of these species are included when the Association testifies about
“invasive species budget needs” before Congress to get big Refuge budget
increases each year. Unlike private property owners who spend their money
available each year based on priorities, Federal land managers invent new
“needs” each year. These “needs” are then presented to Congress in the
budget each year and Congress always agrees to increase funding and personnel
for some or all of those “needs” based on the politics of the moment. All of
these and similar groups hope that this year or next will be “the year of
Invasive Species” for budget increases for their agencies, newly established
Federal authorities over plants and animals, new grant money availability, and
Federal positions for certain members of the invasive coalitions and councils
putting it all together for the Federal politicians.
No one is saying that there are not problems that must be addressed. No one is
saying that there are not Federal Constitutional authorities that should be
exercised IN SUPPORT OF STATES once a species arrives and begins to spread.
State priorities should be what sets the agenda for all plants and animals
within their state. The Federal role may include research to fulfill its role.
Research should be coordinated with the states being or potentially threatened
by new species. States cannot and should not abdicate their roles whether they
get Federal money or not. Federal money to states should not include new Federal
authorities. Does anyone doubt that all this support for Federal authority
expansion reflects personal and organizational gains, budget growth, new
bureaucratic powers over citizens, and hidden agendas?
While salt cedar and Russian olive should be managed and controlled where
appropriate, using their elimination for hidden agendas should be exposed. After
a coalition of states conducted research and determined that several Asian
insects could be “introduced” to control purple loosestrife, the Federal
role should be to make the introductions possible and not to use pictures of
large stands as cynical budget ploys or reasons for expanding Federal
authorities.
The last Administration, tried to rewrite the purpose of the National Wildlife
Refuges. While the majority were wetlands bought with specific Congressional
authorization for waterfowl management (a genuine Federal responsibility), the
political appointees organized policy, regulations, and manuals to state that
the purpose of the Refuge System was to be “Pre-Columbian Ecosystems.” That
merely meant that they could begin acquiring any piece of property for which
they had money. Oh, and is also meant that waterfowl management could be
steadily diminished so that waterfowl hunting could be slowly constricted and
eventually, closed. The current Administration stopped that, but has done very
little to prevent it from starting up again under the next “green” bunch.
It is worth remembering that Adolph Hitler was intent on building some sort of
Aryan Valhalla. Along with all the things that most of us are familiar with
there was his environmental agenda. From early in his rule there was an office
charged with re-establishing the plant and animal environment found in
“Pre-Roman”
Jim Beers
7 March 03
Invasive Species Update #2 - Two Questions - March 9, 2003
Several readers have asked me for bill numbers for introduced legislation
regarding Invasive Species. The two bills that were introduced last week have
not yet gotten a number so far as I can tell. As soon as I obtain those numbers
I will send them out. It is much more efficient if you can tell your
Congressman, your Senators, and your organizations that they should oppose H.R.
# and S.B. #.
Several others have challenged me that since the Federal government can and does
do a better job (because they are bigger?, because they are richer?, because
they are smarter?), the states should get out of the way and let the Federal
government deal with Invasive Species.
I was thinking about this as I drove through the
The National Parks here in the East have had chronic and disgraceful
overpopulations of deer for decades. This has caused increased fatal car
accidents and an elimination of nearly all vegetation up to 5 feet in the
woodlands. This latter decimates biodiversity and eliminates habitat for
songbirds, small mammals, and reptiles. Would the Park Service allow reductions
of deer? Not on your life while they babble about contraception they are rabid
about forbidding active wildlife management or hunting. They even lied to the
The US Fish and Wildlife Service also lied about permitting trapping on the Ohio
Islands National Wildlife Refuge before buying it and then set about stopping it
and other uses like tying a boat up to downed trees along the bank. Trapping of
predators on Refuges was being eliminated under the last Administration while
nest depredation on waterfowl seriously reduced nesting success. This was OK
however because they wanted to shift from marsh management to “Pre-Columbian
Ecosystems” and producing ducks for hunting was passé. Also, those
The US Forest Service has been a lady of the evening to the environmental
radicals who are stopping any active timber management; closing down access and
roads; and eliminating logging of renewable forest resources, grazing by
ranchers on renewable grasses, and recreation from hunting to mountain biking
and horseback riding. The big recent fires alone and the analysis of how all
this non-management “management” causes and sustains them should be ample
proof of the overhaul needed in this agency. Any similarity between Forest
Service policies and the management and use of the renewable and durable
resources for the benefit of the nation is purely coincidental.
Last but not least, the vast lands of the Bureau of Land Management throughout
the West. They too have lost any goal of “managing” the grazing lands and
timberlands they administer. Where they used to work with ranchers and loggers,
today they strive to close access roads and eliminate grazing and logging. Their
answer is to clear the uses and people from large swaths of the West so that
their new supporters in the environmental movement can insert “Wildlands” of
government controlled lands where people and human uses from mining and logging
to recreation and homes are forbidden except for the few influential folks and
government “managers.”
Some other readers said that the states always mess things up. That is too often
true.
Speaking of deserts, does anyone remember Desertification? This was the
budget-getter “du jour” for these same agencies and Departments during the
Carter Administration. Like the Invasive Species supporters, desertification
supporters descended on
Since the Desertification Office blew away, the bureaucrats and
environmental/animal rights radicals have learned how to manipulate the
Endangered Species Act to put people out of business, to buy more land, to clear
areas of all humans, to reduces access on Federal lands, to eliminate everything
from hunting to pet ownership, and on and on. We can hope that if Federalizing
Invasive Species succeeds it will eventually blow away but only a fool would
count on that.
Jim Beers - 9 March 03
It was during the early 1900’s that Federal and state governments began to
hire employees and organize concerted programs to actively manage fish,
wildlife, and plants. Birds and fish were managed to provide sustainable, annual
harvests for recreational and commercial purposes. Large mammals were managed to
provide citizens with sport and meat year after year. Small mammals were managed
to provide fur or winter meals to rural families and urban residents who enjoyed
hunting or trapping. Trees were managed to provide sustainable timber products,
wildlife, erosion control, grazing, and a pleasant landscape. Streams were
managed to provide fish, recreation, power, drinking water, irrigation, and
commercial transportation while minimizing the damage caused by floods or
droughts. Songbirds, amphibians, and plants were studied and categorized by
Universities and groups of citizens like the Audubon Society influenced other
citizens to provide for these lesser-known species as citizens went about their
daily activities.
It was during the middle part of the century that the Federal government hired
more employees and began to purchase, proclaim, and “protect” land units on
a regular basis. Wetlands were bought and made “National Wildlife Refuges.”
Battlefields and places of beauty or wonder were bought and proclaimed
“National Parks.” Woodlands were bought or reserved from the Federal
landholdings in the West and proclaimed “National Forests.” Western
grasslands and what were fairly termed wastelands were not turned over to the
states as was done in other states and eventually were proclaimed BLM (for
Bureau of Land Management) grazing lands. These last were leased routinely for
grazing, mining, and other uses while the others on a scale from the Forests to
the Parks allowed many (multiple) to limited uses.
Up to the 1970’s, Federal employees, Federal statutes (laws), Federal
regulations, and Federal and state programs all recognized that they existed to
manage the natural resources on these landholding for the wise and sustainable
uses of citizens. The employees were trained by Universities to do this job and
governments hired and promoted based on proven performance to manage natural
resources. The plants and animals are termed renewable natural resources and
oil, gas, coal, and minerals are called non-renewable natural resources. All
were managed and harvested or extracted using the best management practices
known at the time.
When the public accepted the Endangered Species Act and the Animal Welfare Act
in the early 1970’s things changed dramatically. The future for US Department
of the Interior employees (where the Refuges, Parks, and Grazing Lands were
managed) moved away from managing resources for people to managing plants and
animals to protect them from any and all uses. The Endangered Species Act
(administered by the US Department of the Interior) corrupted the sensible
management of natural resources by the employees of that period by being the
growth part of employment and the basis for most bonuses and promotions. New
employees whispered resentments at the way old programs managed for sustainable
uses and assured that new programs did not allow uses. Steadily the old programs
changed. An example is the way the 20-year old, always unsuccessful attempt to
get millions of dollars by taxing binoculars, camping gear, etc. to buy
“non-game” lands was always intended to be lands without any sustainable
uses of resources. During the last Administration persistent attempts were made
to modify policies and even regulations that would eliminate management or use
of all resources on the Refuges, Parks, and Grazing Lands. Some limited progress
was made by the illicit use of Executive Orders around election time and
Presidential Proclamations prohibiting certain uses on certain areas like the
coal under Southern Utah Grazing Lands or offshore oil development to gain votes
in states like California and Florida.
A parallel development took place in the US Department of Agriculture that
manages the National Forests and administers the Animal Welfare Act. The future
for employees left management and use programs and became focused on eliminating
uses and cooperating with the socialist-oriented, no-use power-brokers like the
Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, the US Humane Society, the Natural Resources
Defense Council, and the Animal Protection Institute. As happened at the
Department of the Interior, promotions and bonuses were given for eliminating
management and uses and new employees hired from the power-brokers assured that
new and old programs reflected this change. Again, Executive Orders and
Proclamations imposed Roadless Areas, de facto Wilderness’, and prohibitions
on natural gas extraction in the midst of power shortages and mideast terror.
The recent growth of the Federal government, the astronomical increases in the
Federal budget for these Departments, and the modifications of national rights
and jurisdictions from private property to states rights due to these two laws
and these two Departments is a matter of record known to all. The Federal and
state bureaucrats who have witnessed the effect on their employment, careers,
and power know that this expansion can go on for a long time but like the
changes I mentioned during the last century there is the “Mother of all
Government Programs” on their horizon. They plan to enlist all the “usual
suspects” from the last thirty years to help get them there. The University
professors, the power-brokers, and the reelection-obsessed politicians will all
help willingly to get their piece of the action.
This next and apparently unlimited guarantee of budget increases, employment
increases, promotions, bonuses, and most-importantly power increase is something
called the RESTORATION OF PRE-COLUMBIAN ECOSYSTEMS. Its’ greatest features are
that it is both impossible and immeasurable. Never mind that it is also foolish
and nonsensical. However, if the “general public” et al, can be made to
believe in or accept the fallacies of the Endangered Species Act (like the
“need” or desirability of wolves or the wisdom of eliminating logging and
entire rural communities for imaginary effects on owls or lynx) they will
believe anything. Goebbels fed the Germans ever-greater lies, just like getting
a dog to eat more and more over time, and it apparently worked. The bureaucratic
“success” of the past thirty years has illuminated a darker future for us
all.
The American public accepts the lie that the plants and animals that were
“here” in 1492 AD were somehow designated (certainly not by God, but then by
who?) as the best or highest or only such plant or animal to be at any given
location today. Never mind that millions of us living incredibly different lives
make that impossible. Never mind that the pre-European US environment of 1492 AD
is as different from today’s’ environment in the US as the Mississippi is
from the Amazon. Never mind that thousands of plants and animals have arrived in
hundreds of different ways and their seeds, their crossbreeding, their uses,
their effects, and their superior abilities to compete (when they survive) mean
they are here to stay every bit as much as the oldest living species in the
middle of Nebraska. Never mind that the bureaucrats whine about eradicating a
grass you have never encountered but will eventually be eradicating plants in
your landscaping or garden. Always remember the Endangered Species Act was
touted as “saving” bald eagles (another lie) but never mentioned putting
loggers out of business for an owl or causing Southern California homes to burn
up because of a rodent.
No, and you can take this to the bank per an old wildlife biologist, there is
nothing sacred, good, or desirable about Pre-Columbian Ecosystems or treating
any plants or animals differently based on their time here. Sure, keep out new
ones as best you can based on what we know. Sure eradicate or redistribute some
plants or animals based on their effects or on the needs of people. Sure let the
Federal government do their job regulating import, export, and interstate
commerce while states administer all the plants and animals within their state
as they see fit. But don’t, whatever they tell you, accept the notion that the
Federal government has any mandate for the silly, immeasurable, never-ending,
unimaginably expensive, and impossible task of restoring Pre-Columbian
Ecosystems.
That said, there is a big push to do just this today. All of the proposed bills
before Congress that have a Title or Section that mentions INVASIVE SPECIES does
just that. If the Federal government proclaims a mandate to attack INVASIVE
SPECIES it automatically tells the Courts and every bureaucrat that ONLY NATIVE
(Pre-1492 AD) SPECIES are to remain everywhere in the USA. Think of the money,
the people, the land, the grants, the programs, the bonuses, the permits, the
land needed, the POWER “necessary” to begin and continue this bureaucratic
attack on everything from brown trout to all the clovers. It can never be
accomplished, it can never be measured, there will never be a lack of new
“problems” needing “more”, and the power needed (like the species
identified) can only increase. It literally boggles the mind. No bureaucrat
since the mandarins in ancient China ever conceived of a greater self-serving
program for unlimited expansion over an unlimited number of decades or even
centuries. All this and what was once the best educated public in the history of
man ready to swallow it like a bass eyeing a hula popper overhead.
If you can, tell your Senator, tell your Congressman, and tell your state
representatives that you do not want the Federal government responsible for
anything except the import, export, or interstate commerce involving new species
that may harm the current natural or commercial environment of the United
States. Tell them that you want the Constitutionally mandated responsibility for
all plants and animals (wild and domestic) to remain with the state governments.
This is already longer than I planned, but I will be writing more about the
current rush of activities here in Washington concerning INVASIVE SPECIES over
the next few months. I will try to make this all more understandable as I try to
sift the wheat from the chaff. Share this with a friend and thanks for taking
the time to read it.
Jim Beers
29 March 2003
Invasive Species Update #4 - April 7, 2003
A friend obtained an invitation for me to attend an Invasive Species briefing
last Thursday. The briefing featured three high appointees, one each from the US
Departments of Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce. They addressed about 30
representatives of Senators, private corporations, interest groups, and even two
United Nations representatives. This took place in a conference room at the
headquarters of a very large US corporation located in the heart of downtown
Washington. Each of the three speakers spoke for 5 minutes on the topic of
Invasive Species. This is a report of what they said, two questions that I
asked, some observations about their statements, and my attempt to follow up
with two assistants to US Senators who were in attendance. You should find this
both interesting and informative. Please do not let it discourage you.
The Interior appointee (meaning he is not a career employee but one appointed by
the Administration and therefore subject to removal if they are not reelected)
began with the unproven hyperbole about Billions of dollars of Invasive Species
damage per year and untold Billions lost annually for as far back as we can
estimate. Occasionally Invasive Species were called exotics, non-natives,
aliens, non-indigenous, or introduced species. All were bad and dangerous. Like
the other two speakers that followed, nearly all Invasives mentioned were
terrestrial plants or animals. He opined about the need for more money and
people. He mentioned how the National Park Service “had” to form “swat
teams” to find exotics and “raise flags.” [NOTE: The National Parks have,
for decades ignored and refused to manage the overabundant deer that have eaten
every native and non-native plant beneath a height of 5 feet. Suddenly they
“need” swat teams to find invasives that may “harm” plants?? Puhlease!]
He mentioned how Indian Tribes were being invited to work with other Federal
agencies to get new legislation and “needed” funds. Then he said they were
working on a “novel” solution to a problem. Salt Cedar (tamarisk) is an
Invasive Species but it is also a preferred nesting tree for the ENDANGERED
WILLOW FLYCATCHER. So government “scientists” went to work and
“discovered” that cowbirds parasitize (wreck) the willow flycatchers nests
“less” in native bushes so therefore, IT SHOULD BE OK TO ERADICATE THIS
NESTING TREE FOR AN ENDANGERED SPECIES! [When I asked him if there was any
precedent for this, he mumbled about how glad he was to see me and then talked
without saying anything. EVERYONE EVER HARMED BY AN ENDANGERED SPECIES OR ITS’
CRITICAL HABITAT SHOULD NOTE THIS! The arrogance of this ploy rivals 10 years of
midnight dumping of toxic sludge by the DC Water Authority through a National
Park onto endangered sturgeon spawning areas in the Potomac River alongside
Washington, DC. under permit from the EPA, FWS, NMFS.]
The Commerce Department appointee talked about cross-cut budget needs (meaning a
bunch of agencies at once), matrix management (meaning no real goal but lots of
work for new employees), AND HOW THE BEST THING ABOUT INVASIVE SPECIES WAS HOW
IT MADE THEM “MORE COMPETITIVE FOR DOLLARS!” What can you say to something
like that?
Finally the Agriculture appointee mentioned their “leadership” role and how
they are “discovering” that oaks on the west coast are being killed by
Sudden Oak Death that may require USDA control of rhododendrons and more
employees to monitor nurseries. He also mentioned that algae on Hawaiian beaches
is smelly and may depress tourism to Hawaii also requiring USDA intervention.
Either he or the Commerce fellow mentioned already getting Homeland Security
money and hoping to get more.
When the two UN representatives complimented all 3 speakers and said how well it
fits into UN plans, they were told there would be new jobs in the State
Department to handle the “worldwide” and “holistic” issues. My
impression was that the UN folks might even be encouraged to apply for the new
jobs when new funding was obtained.
When I asked the three appointees where Federal authority ended and the state
jurisdiction and private property rights spelled out in the Constitution began,
there was no answer as they looked at each other. Finally the Agriculture fellow
said that it was “necessary” to do this job in spite of what individual
states might want or property owners might want. This is so important, that in
order to keep things from “spreading” public or private land cannot be
allowed to get in the way. All three of these guys were reminiscent of three
aristocrats explaining why restoration of a monarchy would be good for the
United States since it would be “beneficial” to them and the “ecosystem”
as they define it.
On Friday afternoon I met with two representatives of two powerful Senators who
had attended the briefing and who I would have expected to be supportive of
keeping Federal growth both jurisdictionally and budget-wise in check. I was
wrong. I explained to them how these Invasive Species proposals are meant to
generate new laws granting wide-ranging and expanding authorities to Federal
bureaucrats who will then interfere with citizens, business, and public lands
beyond their wildest imaginings. I explained how the interest groups and
bureaucrats will draft key sections of the new law and how the courts will then
be incorporated to interpret the wording to expand the law just like the
Endangered Species Act. I explained how one powerful western Senator was being
“snookered” into believing that new and more powerful laws were needed to
assure that the major Federal land managers (BLM, USFS, NPS, FWS, etc.) were
forced to control noxious weeds that cover currently unmanaged Federal lands.
This last when current Federal authorities and jurisdictions were more than
adequate to force them to clean up the lands they own (before they buy more?).
Their reaction? They only wanted to talk about the Aquatic Invasive Species Act.
This ignored the fact that the briefing was 90% about terrestrial plants and
animals. When I mentioned that zebra mussels do a lot of good and helped restore
the Lake Erie fishery, they ignored me. I was told the Invasive Species
“cat” was “out of the bag.” I was asked if I “really thought the
states were doing a good job of managing their resources?” My reply that the
Constitution gave them that responsibility and it was up to their residents what
they did and how they did it, brought only a smile to their faces. I was asked
if I would tell Senator ---, to “his face” that he had been “snookered?”
My response of sure was ignored. My feeling as they left was that they thought I
had a lot of nerve wasting their time over a done deal.
If someone had known what I know today back in 1970 and had approached such
powerful political aides about what the Endangered Species Act was going to lead
to, they probably would have received the same brush-off. They know, as do those
appointees, what they are doing because they see how the ESA was twisted and
perverted. They understand how it is practically untouchable today yet how much
early supporters appreciated it and how much power it has given Federal
politicians and bureaucrats. They know - and it is up to us to stop this
Invasive Species juggernaut before it takes away more rights for no good reason.
I will write more about this and what to do in the weekly updates I am planning
to write. As I finish this Update I will write a piece I will title How Laws Are
Conceived. By writing about the formation of these laws I hope to explain what
is going on with Invasive Species at this point in the game based on my two
decades of playing this game here in Washington.
Thanks for taking the time to read this and please share it with others.
Jim Beers
7 April 2003
Invasive Species Update #5 - April 18, 2003
As I prepare my testimony for the House Oversight Hearing on Invasive Species it
is like Endangered Species de ja vu (pardon the French) all over again. Where
are our “friends” and the organizations we pay to defend us? Thirty years
ago they were either absent or telling us not to worry. Today they are all AWOL.
Those scheduled to testify at the Hearing in favor of Federal authority
expansion over a few (to start with but all eventually) Invasive Species consist
of the Dept. of the Interior, the Dept. of Agriculture, the US Army Corps of
Engineers, the National Oceanographic and Aerospace Administration, the
Smithsonian, the National Environmental Council, Williams College, Bishop
Museum, the National Cattlemen, and the International Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies. The first six are Federal entities who stand to gain money,
staff, and an incredible chunk of growing power when Invasive Species are
declared to be responsibilities of the Federal government. The next two are
representing the Universities and Museums who have benefited from Endangered
Species grants and prestige such that they quickly understand what a similar
Federalizing of Invasive Species will mean to them. The Cattlemen see weed
control on public and private land getting a big financial boost as weeds are
some of the first species to be named. They, like the elk hunters who supported
Endangered Species thirty years ago, have not the slightest inkling of what
Invasive Species legislation has in store for them.
Finally, we come to the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.
Yes, you read that correctly, the lobbying group for the state fish and wildlife
agencies – the representatives of the 50 governors who are charged by the
Constitution with the jurisdiction over all wild and domestic plants and animals
– they support Invasive Species legislation. This lobby group that collects
license money from state license funds paid by people who hunt pheasants and
chukars. This lobby group also receives fishing license money from people who
fish for brown trout, salmon in the Great Lakes, largemouth bass in western
reservoirs and bass in Lake Erie where the water was clarified by zebra mussels.
Thirty years ago they supported Endangered Species legislation and for the past
decade they have used hunting and fishing license money to campaign and lead
national lobbying efforts to get Federal taxes for non-game wildlife, The last
three years have seen them lead repeated but failed campaigns for the infamous
CARA, a $40 Billion raid on offshore oil revenues to funds state fish and game
agencies and for the Federal government to buy more land. Setting aside the
legality of the states using license money or the International using Pittman
Robertson or Dingell Johnson excise taxes to lobby the Federal government, their
support of Federalizing the jurisdiction over Invasive Species only points up
the corrupting effect of Federal money to even the state agencies who will
gladly give up Constitutional authority for job security, political support, and
the status of working “with” those who relieve them of their authority.
There are only four of us questioning this Invasive Species juggernaut. A former
Assistant Secretary of the Interior under President Reagan, Mr. Ray Arnett is
standing tall (and not for the first time in his long career.) The Farm Bureau
sees where this will lead and is taking a stand both for its members and their
future. A Mr. Grau of Pennsylvania, who grows and markets roadside groundcover
plants, is likewise concerned both about the immediate future but also the long
term and national implications of what is sure to develop. Finally, there is
yours truly, a retired wildlife biologist, refuge manager, and special agent
from the US Fish & Wildlife Service.
But where are you? Where are the fishing organizations that represent the folks
fishing for trout, bass, and walleyes on Lake Erie or the lake trout fishermen
in Yellowstone Lake, or western bass fishermen, or Great Lakes trout and salmon
fishermen, or brown trout fishermen? These and many more will eventually be put
out of business by Federal/anti-fishing Invasive Species jurisdiction. Where are
the hunting organizations and gun organizations that represent Invasive pheasant
hunters, Invasive chukar hunters, and supposedly all the native and introduced
game birds and mammals that feed on and get critical and winter cover from
Invasive Species? Has anyone ever mentioned to them that while we have
supposedly endured “Billions of dollars of damage per year from Invasive
Species” game populations have soared? Where are the hikers and trappers and
public land users who have seen how Endangered Species has restricted both their
activities and public land access and who ignore the Invasive Species sequel at
their own risk? Where are the taxpayer groups who are busy arguing about tax
cuts and capital gains when the Mother of all tax pits for the foreseeable
future is looming on the horizon.
The property owners in the American Land Rights Association have asked me to
represent their interests at the Hearing. They are an organization of small,
generally rural property owners with members in all 50 states. When you meet a
member, thank them and then ask your organization why they either support or are
hiding when this very important legislation is being discussed.
Jim Beers
18 April 2003
Invasive
Species Update #6 - Testimony in DC - May 1, 2003
The US House of Representatives Oversight Hearing on Invasive Species took place
on Tuesday, April 29, 2003, in Washington, DC.
Seventeen witnesses testified before the Congressional Committee.
Fourteen of the witnesses representing a range of interests including State Fish
and Wildlife Agency lobbyists, Universities, Museums, and Federal Departments.
They essentially supported taking the authority over nonnative plants and
animals from the state governments.
I realize that it is unfair to characterize the testimony of these groups in
just a few words, but I must try to do just that.
The Federal Departments all want more money, people and power to "meet the
challenge."
Universities, museums, and the Smithsonian all describe Invasive Species as
enormously challenging -- and in need or much research and data for
"decision-makers" to design programs and "partnerships."
The lobby group for the state fish and wildlife agencies see the need for a
Federal program, and look forward to working in "partnerships."
Forester lobbyists expressed a need for a Federal program -- but wanted to still
be able to cut trees and "manage for fire."
Cattlemen lobbyists support a National Invasive Species program and mentioned
the need for Federal assistance to private landowners.
All presentations (5-minute limit) interspersed their claims with "tens of
billions in annual damage" and "thousands of species."
It was all overstated [in order to] to generate Congressional support (just like
Endangered Species supporters did 30 years ago).
The claims are all overblown, and the beneficial aspects of Invasive Species
went unmentioned.
State Constitutional authority was ignored, even by the states themselves.
Everyone had an angle that they figured would profit them -- from grant money to
private land payments to bigger budgets and Federal powers.
Each clouded their testimony a bit, in order to answer any objections from
constituents.
For instance, nearly everyone said [that] we support a National Invasive Species
Program -- except for this, or, if it includes that.
Their purpose being to say something that makes no difference to getting Federal
legislation passed -- but tells their supporters that they asked for this or
that.
All such things mentioned would never matter to getting a bill passed -- but
would sound good, back in Nebraska.
The object is to get a bill passed that authorizes the Federal government to
assume authority.
Like Endangered Species, the rest will take care of itself.
I thought at one point, how funny it is that, for the last decade, these same
Departments were appealing to Congress to give them money to "save
biodiversity" -- and here they are today, urgently appealing for money to
eradicate "thousands" of species.
It is a joke no one would laugh at, because no one would believe it.
The Washington lobbyists actually represented themselves, not their rank and
file supporters.
From cattle ranchers to hunters, fishers, and trappers; their future was being
jeopardized.
The Cattlemen organization and the gun organization, and the state lobby group
and the hunting and trapping groups all "get along" and "work
together" -- and express concern for the rank and file in 'flyover country'
-- less and less all the time.
Just like all those harmed by Federal Endangered Species activities, the impacts
of Federal Invasive Species authority swill be incremental, and only affect a
few people at a time, so opponents will never come together.
Also, just like Endangered Species actions, once the Federal government obtains
the "right" to begin making a "List" of Invasive Species for
which they are responsible, it will be too late -- as it is with the Endangered
Species Act.
That Act has gone unauthorized for decades, and causes increasing and senseless
harm -- to citizens -- but no politician will touch it, except for an occasional
cosmetic proposal on it's periphery. All the while, the ESA gets increased
budgets and expands its power through the Courts, regulations, and Federal
funding incentives.
Even more so than the Endangered Species Act, government Invasive Species
programs will make no positive changes for the either people or Listed things.
Even more so than the Endangered Species Act, eliminating Invasive Species is
immeasurable and unattainable -- so the flow of "needed" money,
people, and power will never be "enough."
The hidden agendas of interest groups -- from eliminating hunting and fishing to
further restricting private property owners and closing more public lands to
access and dictating the day to day activities of more and more citizens -- will
be exponentially enhanced.
There were three of us who made our objections to proposed Invasive Species
authority for the Federal government.
Mr. Ray Arnett, a California entrepreneur who was President Reagan's Assistant
Secretary of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (he supervised the National Park Service
and the US Fish & Wildlife Service) flew in from California to share his
reasons, based on experience, for knowing what a debacle Federal Invasive
Species authority is sure to become.
Mr. Fred Grau, a Pennsylvania and Colorado seed producer for highway roadside
cover, told about all the day-to-day uses of plants from floral shops and using
greens to control erosion -- that minimal-maintenance ground covers that will be
jeopardized and eventually become unavailable if Federal authority is generated
for Invasive Species.
Then there was me.
My 5-minute testimony follows this report and speaks for itself.
There is a growing opposition to Federal Invasive Species authority and I hope
to begin describing it in subsequent Updates. Until then (next week) I hope you
find these developments worthy of your attention.
-----
Statement of James M. Beers, Science Advisor, American Land Rights Association (ALRA)
Testimony before the House Committee on Resources - Oversight Hearing on
Invasive Species
Thank you Mr. Chairman for inviting me to testify at your hearing today.
I represent the American Land Rights Association, an organization of small
property owners in all 50 states.
I worked for the US Fish and Wildlife Service for 30 years in four states and
Washington, DC as a wildlife biologist, special agent, and refuge manager.
I have enforced Injurious Wildlife regulations and investigated Endangered
Species cases both here and in Europe.
I have worked on Invasive Species control programs for nutria and purple
loosestrife.
I have attended UN Wildlife Conferences and represented state wildlife agencies
fighting a threatened European fur embargo.
I currently write and speak extensively about both Endangered and Invasive
Species.
Mr. Chairman, it is wrong for Congress to consider passage of a law to confer
Federal jurisdiction over any plant or animal occurring within the United
States.
Such jurisdiction was assigned to state governments by the Constitution, and can
only be taken from the states by a Treaty or an Amendment to the Constitution.
Invasive Species jurisdiction seizure is being attempted with 14 bills before
Congress; by Federal agency proposals for new programs; and by United Nations
plans for a proposed Treaty to either Control Invasive Species or Restore Native
Ecosystems, which is the same thing.
Our Founding Fathers placed the jurisdiction over plants and animals at the
state level for, among other reasons, the inherent responsiveness of the lowest
level of government to citizen concerns. The Endangered Species Act verifies
repeatedly the wisdom of the Fathers in this regard.
That Act has eliminated businesses, communities, and fish and wildlife
management programs and their financial support.
It has justified taking without compensation that was specifically prohibited in
the Constitution.
It has made professors and science responsive to government grants and
bureaucratic regulation.
It has changed the emphasis of many Federal agencies from proactive natural
resource managers to public land locksmiths who reintroduce unwanted and harmful
native species on private lands.
The proposed Invasive Species program will be worse.
It will start, like Endangered Species, with a modest list of a few noxious
plants like leafy spurge and yellow starthistle.
Then bureaucrats and courts will add species, subspecies, populations, etc., to
the List.
Soon a Court will affirm a lawsuit that claims elimination of "Invasive
Species" is a Federal responsibility, so its natural goal is the
restoration of "Native" ecosystems.
Mr. Chairman, that goal is neither desirable nor attainable.
The only beneficiaries of such a policy will be Federal agency budgets,
University Grant offices, and non-governmental organizations bent on restricting
property rights and human uses of natural resources.
Our ecosystem should be managed to reflect our needs and our Constitution, not
the socialist intentions of environmental philosophies.
There is no difference between "native" ticks transmitting disease and
"Invasive" purple loosestrife taking over wetlands.
Management or eradication should be considered equally, based on community
needs, not the species' arrival date.
Many "Invasives" are highly utilized food and cover for desirable
wildlife.
Others -- like Zebra mussels -- clarified Lake Erie waters, which helped to
recover a sport and commercial fishery.
Actually, any species can be alleged by any group or scientist to
"harm" something.
Innumerable hidden agendas are poised to take advantage of Federal Invasive
Species authority, if it ever materializes.
The Federal government should stick to managing the import, export, interstate
commerce, and foreign aspects of the United States plant and animal community.
Federal lands should be managed to minimize harmful plants and animals.
Research on harmful species could be conducted and shared through Land Grant
Universities and USDA Research Centers.
Excess Federal money could be appropriated on a formula basis to the states much
like Pittman Robertson excise tax funds that have proven so successful in
managing and restoring desirable wildlife species for 70 years.
Today, the National Park Service seeks to eliminate highly desirable species
like lake trout and chukars because they weren't where they are today in 1492
AD.
Likewise, the US Fish & Wildlife Service is eradicating Russian olive trees
that have been here [for] over a century, despite the fact that they are an
important food and winter cover for pheasants, sharptails, and migratory birds.
The goal is elimination of the Invasive pheasants and trout, plus the hunters
and fishermen, and even hunting on Refuges like Bowdoin in Montana. Ask yourself
honestly: What is sacred about the year 1492?
Species have been coming and going forever.
The ludicrous nature of this is illustrated by the NPS recently forming
emergency "swat teams" to find "Invasive" plants -- even
though they have ignored overabundant native deer herds eradicating plant
communities on National Parks and neighboring lands, for decades.
The Interior Department justifies eradication of "Invasive" salt cedar
trees -- in spite of the fact that they are prime nesting sites for Endangered
willow flycatchers.
They propose this eradication based on spurious "science" and
questionable interpretation of law [that is] unavailable to private property
owners that have 'Critical Habitat for an Endangered Species' designated on
their land.
This is similar to the dumping of toxic sludge on an Endangered sturgeon
spawning area in the Potomac River.
This practice, presently before the Court, involves the US Army Corps of
Engineers routinely flushing toxic sludge from the DC Water Authority under EPA
permit through a National Park -- for years.
Giving these agencies more authority over more species only invites further
abuse. The Founding Fathers wisely crafted our Constitution to place that
authority at the state level.
Mr. Chairman, my organization -- and a growing cross-section of citizens --
plead with you to avoid giving the Federal government any more authority over
plants and animals.
For the sake of property owners, natural resource users, and for the sake of our
American way of life, do not go down this imaginary Pre-Columbian path.
Stay to the course that history and our Constitution have proven was well-chosen
when the United States of America was created.
Further explanation of these issues may be found on the American Land Rights
Association website http://www.landrights.org
Thank you and I am ready to answer any questions you might have.
Invasive Species Update #7 - May 6, 2003
There is a broad front of activities underway to obtain passage of Federal
legislation to create Federal jurisdiction over an open-ended List of Invasive
Species. Current news items confirm this campaign.
- The Maryland Invasive Species
Council announces an “Invader of the Month.” This month it is giant
hogweed that causes blistering and sun sensitivity. While an extensive
article tells of it’s origin in SW Asia and how it is N of Maryland in
Pennsylvania and S of Maryland in the District of Columbia control is not
explained other than to mention that Pennsylvania sprays it “with herbicide
and treats seedlings for several years.” The Federal government already
prohibits interstate shipment and importation. Last months “Invader”, the
hemlock wooly adelgid (an insect) is likewise being treated by state release of
predatory beetles. The Federal role should be to assure supplies of
effective herbicides and the importation and interstate shipment of beetles
after environmental analyses have been completed. The only person quoted
(4 times) in the long (Capital News Service by Elizabeth Shack) article is a Mr.
Trasker, of the US Department of Agriculture.
- A USDA Workshop on Invasive
Species scheduled for next week in Washington, DC purports to discuss
“bioteconomic risk assessment”. This, like Feasibility Studies and
Environmental Impact Statements, is the latest Federal ploy to give a patina of
public participation to the planning and executing of Federal actions to manage
Invasive Species. Bioteconomic Risk Assessments will be thick documents
full of charts and tables and bureaucratese purporting to justify Federal
action. They will be unintelligible to 99% of the population and even when
questioned by all-too-rare experts like the National Wilderness Institute,
bureaucrats will deny and evade until you give up or find the time and money
necessary to take them to Court and endure through the inevitable delays and
motions meant to discourage all but the richest and most persistent.
- The USDA Workshop will also
cover the “links between trade expansion and invasive introductions.”
This claim, while perfectly plausible, exposes yet another hidden agenda that
would benefit from increased Federal authority over Invasive Species. Just
as Wilderness advocates and anti-logging advocates successfully manipulated the
Endangered Species Act for their own ends, anti-NAFTA and anti-free-trade
advocates can be expected to take advantage of Federal Invasive Species
authority.
- Federal government witnesses
at the recent US House of Representatives Hearing introduced a new concept.
They claimed that invasive doesn’t necessarily mean nonnative. This is
contradictory on its face and any judge would probably throw out such a farcical
declaration immediately. Invasive means it is or has “come into” a
place it wasn’t before. Invasive by definition means nonnative and in
today’s climate, the reverse is also true. Native Ecosystem is assuming
the religious tone of Wilderness or Roadless as an inarguable good reason to
lock out citizens and eliminate the use of natural resources for any purpose.
An invader as opposed a native plant or animal is always a bad thing in
today’s thinking. Invaders only harm. Why would they deny such an
axiomatic truth? Because they are concerned that opposition that is
growing and beginning to threaten the intended Federal authority creation by
offering logic and common sense. The public is becoming aware that
nonnative plants and animals are everywhere; that many nonnatives have
beneficial aspects; that nonnatives can never be totally eliminated; that native
ecosystems are not attainable or even desirable; that the cost of declaring war
on nonnatives is astronomical, that modern ecosystems are constantly evolving
and biodiversity and human activities demand active management, not Federal
non-management as is increasingly common; and finally that a Federal Invasive
Species List bodes far more damage to national life than 30 years of the
never-reauthorized Endangered Species Act. To target harmful plants and
animals is one thing, to target nonnatives or invasives is an entirely different
agenda. It is a positive sign when bureaucrats feel forced to misrepresent the
very power they are seeking. It is only because they cannot answer the
objections that they are taking this tack.
There are currently two bills being considered before Congress that intend to
begin the expansion of Federal authority.
In the House there is a proposed bill, H.R. 119 titled the Harmful Invasive Weed
Control Act, known as the Hefley Bill after its Colorado sponsor. When I
asked a staff person for the Congressman why the bill defines a Weed as “is of
foreign origin”, he talked a long time and never answered my question.
When I suggested he would obtain the result he wanted of getting money to
ranchers to control weeds by just referring to harmful plants, he implied I
didn’t know what I was talking about.
The Senate recently passed S. 144 titled the Noxious Weed Control Act of 2003,
known as the Craig Bill after its Idaho sponsor. Like the Hefley Bill it
intends to get money to ranchers for weed control. A representative of the
Cattlemen’s Association told me it didn’t refer to nonnatives. A staff
person for the Senator said there was no way the Senator would sponsor a bill to
create Federal authority over any plants and animals or restore native
ecosystems. The first sentence of S. 144 says its purpose is “to control
or eradicate harmful, nonnative weeds on public and private lands.”
By now you realize that “harmful” just like “endangered’ can be
stretched in a court to mean many things never envisioned by the authors.
Likewise “weed” which is defined in the US Code already can be expanded both
by regulation and by a court. Bottom line, the groundwork for a Nonnative
List under Federal auspices will be laid and just like the Endangered Species
Act, the future will be defined by bureaucrats, non-government organizations and
courts. The victims will be the very ranchers who support this today and
all the victims of Endangered Species from property owners to hunters, horseback
riders, and public land users.
We must make others aware. Politicians, neighbors, newspapers,
bureaucrats, and our Washington organizations all need to know that you know
what is going on. To that end I will begin writing Update # 8 as soon as I
send this out. I will mention other Invasive Species bills before Congress
and I will suggest who to contact. Finally, I will create a list of talking
points for you to mention either verbally or in e-mails or letters. A
similar push 30 years ago might have given us an Endangered Species program that
worked, not one that violates people’s rights and yet goes on unauthorized by
Congress for nearly 20 years. The time to protect our future and get
natural resource management back on target to control harmful plants and animals
is now. Tomorrow could be too late.
Jim Beers
7 May 2003
Invasive
Species Update #8 - May 12, 2003
There are currently 18 proposed bills before the House of Representatives and
the US Senate that directly mention Federal authority for Invasive Species.
There are 14 proposed bills that mention “nonnative” plants or animals
requiring Federal intervention. Four other bills mention invasive plants or
animals without using the word “species” after the word “invasive.” Late
last week a last-minute (“midnight”) amendment to the Healthy Forest
Restoration Act attempted to establish Federal authority over an Invasive
Species List. It was defeated in part because more legislators are becoming
aware that many of you are aware of what Invasive Species really means.
A few of these proposed bills address legitimate Federal responsibilities. The
National Aquatic Invasive Species Act (S. 525 & H.R. 1080) aims at the
regulation of ballast water discharges from international vessels; our concern
is it goes too far and attempts to give Federal jurisdiction over
already-present species and property owners near aquatic environments. Others
like the Nutria Eradication and Control Act (H.R. 273) and Tamarisk Research and
Control Act (H.R. 695) are simple Federal money giveaways by powerful Federal
politicians to constituent states.
The rest of the proposed bills are parts of the Federal Invasive Species
authority drive by bureaucrats, academics, environmental and animal rights
activists, and politicians. All of the sponsors and supporters of these bills
avoid affirming that the proposed legislation will establish new Federal
authority just like the Endangered Species Act. Some of the politicians are
dupes, some know exactly what they are doing; but all the bureaucrats,
academics, lobby groups (including the state fish and wildlife agencies’ lobby
group), and environmental/animal rights radicals know exactly what is supposed
to happen. Simultaneously, the Cattlemen support one bill and a property rights
defender politician sponsors another bill. Exotic game ranchers from Texas are
absent, ski resort owners who stabilize slopes with nonnative plants are nowhere
to be found; trappers, circus owners, beekeepers, hunters, fishermen, and a long
list of others who will be harmed are all AWOL. These groups will be adversely
affected incrementally (just like Endangered Species impacts have caused.) If
they can’t come together now to oppose Invasive Species legislation, they
won’t come together later to help each other when the incremental adverse
impacts begin (just like Endangered Species.) Just like Endangered Species, once
such Invasive Species Authority begins, no politician will reauthorize it or
even touch it with a ten-foot pole while watching it grow. National
Organizations are distracting members with other issues or smoothing over
Invasive Species concerns with assurances of the “need to get along” while
identifying opponents of Federal Invasive Species authority as the “black
helicopter crowd.” The old saying about these National Organizations being
formed to “represent their constituents in Washington and then evolving to
represent Washington to their constituents” was never more true.
Some of the worst bills before Congress that could fairly be called Invasive
Species Acts because they are meant to establish Federal authority over
nonnative plants and animals are the National Invasive Species Council Act (S.
536 & H.R. 266), Great Lakes Ecology Protection Act of 2003 (H.R. 989), and
Noxious Weed Control Act of 2003 (S. 144 & H.R. 119). The sponsors of these
bills are western politicians wanting to get Federal money to ranchers and
Michigan politicians wanting to give a Federal windfall to Michigan (the longest
coastline after Alaska) and Federal politicians with strong ties to
environmentalists, animal rights radicals, and activist bureaucrats in search of
power and money.
Additionally, the Federal bureaucrats are putting Invasive Species-oriented
requests in their agency budget appropriations requests just like Endangered
Species 30 years ago, biodiversity 20 years ago, environmental education 10
years ago, or Roadless Areas of recent vintage. There are always current
buzzwords to get the most money at any given time (Homeland Security, Education,
Housing, etc.) and Invasive Species is the current one for the environmental
bureaucracies and their friends. Federal politicians are also introducing House
and Senate Resolutions (“Be it resolved, blah, blah”) that make great quotes
in newsletters back home and are used by radicals to tell others that Congress
supports Federal Invasive Species authority.
So whom do you go to and what do you say?
First, I recommend you talk or write to any Federal politician or their staff
whom you know or who represents you. Aside from the Federal politicians getting
money for constituents (who you probably can’t influence anyway) alerting as
many politicians as we can is the best way to get opposition to Federal Invasive
Species authority when the votes really count.
Second, talk to or write your governor, state senator, and state delegate (and c
opy your fish and wildlife agency Director.) Tell them that you expect them to
protect the state jurisdiction over plants and animals that were assigned in the
US Constitution. Tell them you expect them to work with and not for Federal
bureaucrats and national environmental groups. Tell them they should oppose
Federal Invasive Species Authority.
Third, contact your national organization such as the Cattlemen, Ducks
Unlimited, National Trappers, Seed Coop, Commercial Organization and Pheasants
Unlimited to name but a few. Tell them the Federal bureaucrats already have too
much authority and that Federal Invasive Species Authority will, just like
Endangered Species Authority lead to the abuse of natural resources, natural
resource users, and a wide range of citizens from pet owners and businesses to
private property owners and renters. Tell them you expect them to oppose such
legislation and not be absent in this debate as they have been to date.
Third, let Federal bureaucrats know that you are aware of what they are up to.
You can’t influence them away from money and power anymore than you can stop a
rottweiler from sniffing at some meat by waving a rose but you can put them on
notice that you are watching. If there is anything that bothers a bureaucrat, it
is knowing that non-bureaucrats are not intimidated about what the bureaucrat
says or does. When they actually think you know about the matter and are willing
to actually assert that they work for you, they are more likely to go in search
of another vehicle for money and power.
Fourth, tell your friends, family, and coworkers about Invasive Species. Tell
them that Invasive Species aren’t necessarily bad and most of them are far
more beneficial than harmful. Control, manage, or eradicate plants and animals
based on whether they are harmful, not on when they arrived in the United
States. Tell them how people with other agendas are trying to establish Federal
Invasive Species Authority and how that will lead to more and worse abuses than
the Endangered Species Act. Tell them how native ecosystems are a phony illusion
meant to grow bureaucracies, grow your tax bill, and grow the power of
environmental/animal rights radicals and Federal agencies for as far into the
future as we can imagine. Ask them to tell these things to others and also the
people mentioned above.
Here are a few “bullets” or talking points as they say in the bureaucracy. I
hope you may find them helpful when writing a note or talking to others about
Federal Invasive Species Authority.
-State governments were given authority over plants and animals in the US
Constitution. This can only be changed by a ratified Treaty or an Amendment to
the Constitution.
-The Federal government should concentrate on managing the import, export,
interstate, and international aspects regarding the plants and animals occurring
in the United States.
-State governments should resist Federal attempts to transfer authority over
plants, animals, or lands (where state authority does not interfere with a
legitimate Federal function) from the state government to the Federal
government.
-Invasive Species and Native Ecosystems are illegitimate concerns of government.
Plants and animals should be managed, controlled, or eradicated based on their
harmful and beneficial impacts in total not based on their arrival date.
-The Federal government should manage the hundreds of millions of acres that
they own in cooperation with state governments and the local communities in
which they occur.
-Native Ecosystem restoration and Invasive Species eradication are unachievable
and immeasurable concepts that will cost immeasurable billions while eroding
private property rights and the activities and traditional rights of citizens
everywhere.
-If the Federal government feels an irresistible urge to cooperate with state
governments on the management and control of harmful plants and animals off
Federal lands, they should consider research at Federal Research Centers and
Universities on the subjects such as control methods and control agents.
I hope this Update is helpful. It is a tough issue to stand up to and a broad
front of opposition is what is needed, in my opinion. The people and groups
pushing this have learned a lot in the past thirty years from what worked and
what didn’t work with Endangered Species. That, for instance, is why many of
the biggest supporters of Invasive Species like The Nature Conservancy were
missing at the recent House Hearings. Well we have learned a lot too. We know
what we must do. Thomas Jefferson observed over 200 years ago that an activated
citizenry is vital to prevent tyranny from reoccurring. All it takes to preserve
our freedoms is knowledge and commitment to reaffirm the wisdom of that great
thinker.
Jim Beers
12 May 2003
Invasive Species, Who To Contact
I apologize for not mentioning the single most influential person to contact
when I recently wrote Update # 8 recommending action.
Please consider writing the President of the United States. The President, his
White house advisers and his Cabinet Secretaries are giving tacit approval to
Federal Invasive Species authority at this time. Whether it is political
advisors imagining it will generate votes (it won’t) or Secretaries taking
advice from bureaucrats seeking money and power or appointees trying to get
along with environmental/animal rights activists, they are ultimately responsive
to the President and to you when you make your views known. They are supposed to
be the ones who supervise the bureaucrats, so for the few bureaucrats who
recognize that fact, their views are important.
Write them and speak to them when they travel near your homes. For the next 18
months at least, we can rightly expect them to be responsive to voters.
Jim Beers
12 May 2003
Invasive Species Update #9 - May 19, 2003
Three important documents regarding Federal Invasive Species authority have just
crossed my desk.
The EPA website has published four lists of “aggressive” alien species.
The tree list contains the Norway maple. The shrub list names species like
privet, two sweet clovers, and two mulberries. The grasses and herbaceous
list names Kentucky Blue grass, Lily-of-the Valley, and Periwinkle (Myrtle.)
I was curious as to why EPA is joining the US Department of Agriculture, the US
Department of the Interior, and the Department of Commerce in fomenting hysteria
about nonnative species. I am convinced it is because they smell new money
and positions forthcoming from the Congress to save all of us from the myth of
Invasive Species. However I did not understand what authority would put
EPA into the race for new Congressional money and authority (power) currently
under consideration. My curiosity led to two other documents that while
justifying each other justify almost any Federal action unless challenged in
Court.
In 1999, then-President Clinton signed an Invasive Species Executive Order.
This Order was justified by a Cornell University Report that was published soon
thereafter but whose findings were common knowledge when the Order was signed.
This Report, called the Pimental Report, is the origin of claims such as “$138
billion per year” in damage, “42% of all endangered species” are
endangered by invasive species, there are 50,000 species of invasive plants and
animals, US Parks and Hawaii are on the verge of annihilation, introduced cats
and dogs are deadly threats, pigeons are examples of ecological destruction, 138
species of fish must be eliminated, plus the usual horror description of Brown
tree snakes in Guam. These latter could have been exterminated years ago
if the will and willingness to use known control methods were simply applied.
Anyway, this overstated Report, that was the sort of tracts we saw before the
Endangered Species Act was passed, was meant to usher in Federal legislation.
It probably would have been successful if a Presidential election had not
intervened. What it did justify was a Presidential Executive Order.
The Invasive Species Executive Order directs everyone except the Congress and
Courts to “control” “alien species” which are defined as “non native
to that ecosystem.” “Invasive” species are “alien species.”
There is no mention of any state jurisdiction over plants or animals.
States are merely one of several “levels” such as in “state, tribal,
local, and ecosystem-based levels” where “planning” is to be
“encouraged.” The Order directs the restoration of “native
ecosystems.” It establishes an Invasive Species Council to work with
Federal agencies and develop an Invasive Species Management Plan. As an
afterthought an Invasive Species Advisory Committee is to be formed consisting
of “appointed” members to give the illusion of non-Federal participation.
Finally the Order directs the “control” of Invasive Species and the
restoration of “native species and habitats” in ecosystems defined as “a
community of plants and animals.”
As someone who watched the Endangered Species Act grow from a simple-sounding
effort to “save” a few widely appreciated animals to a Godzilla that
trampled rights and grew the power of Federal bureaucrats beyond their wildest
dreams, this Executive Order lays out the plan for Invasive Species to do more
of the same thing. Clearly the Order seeks to establish Federal hegemony over
Invasive Species just like Endangered Species. Between the Order, the
Report, and the big public relations push by Federal agencies seeking power,
politicians seeking votes, and a bevy of interest groups bent on radical
societal changes; it was expected that Federal legislation was a foregone
conclusion. Heck, even the state’s own fish and wildlife agencies
testified in favor of such loss of state authorities in hopes of getting Federal
money.
The Bush election and 9-11 both disrupted this expansion of Federal power.
The normalization of homeland security matters and the naïve assumption by Bush
appointees that Invasive Species support will convert otherwise recalcitrant
environmentalists to Administration supporters are why the matter is cropping up
before Congress today.
Invasive Species Federalization supporters recently tried to amend a Forest
Health Bill the night before it was to be voted on but were defeated in that
effort. US Senator Craig is sponsoring S. 144, the Noxious Weed Control
Act of 2003 that specifically targets nonnative species. US Congressman is
sponsoring H.R. 119 the Harmful Invasive Weed Control Act that likewise targets
weeds “of foreign origin.” The Senator and the Congressman are
pledging to make Federal money available to ranchers (who vote for them) for
controls on private lands. In addition to these local considerations,
these proposed laws intend to establish a Federal law that will give a legal
basis to what President Clinton directed in his Executive Order.
Everything is aimed at a Listing mechanism where Federal Invasive Species
authority, like Endangered Species authority, will expand one “listed” plant
and animal after another. Regulations and lawsuits will expand the human
activities and property interests will quickly expand Federal reach based on the
lessons learned from similar Endangered Species authority expansion. Much
to the disappointment of environmentalists however, Executive Orders don’t
have quite the heft of the Declarations of Kings, so a law must be passed.
In order for the Endangered Species Act to claim Federal hegemony over
“listed” plants and animals, a law BASED ON A TREATY was necessary.
Similarly, Invasive Species Federalization supporters must establish a legal
basis to seize state authority for a Federal “List” that they can add to and
use to further bureaucratic and environmental agendas at the expense of our
rights and liberties. That is why UN staff attend Federal agency briefings
while promising UN progress on a Treaty like CITES which is claimed to authorize
the Endangered Species Act’s more pernicious aspects.
Author’s Note: It is my firm conviction that a UN Treaty is not a Treaty
as mentioned in the US Constitution. A “real” Treaty is one where each
signatory pledges to do certain things or the Treaty becomes void. UN
“treaties” are agreements between signatories who are shielded from
noncompliance by other signatories by a UN Administration that claims to
administer the “treaty.” For this reason I believe the UN CITES treaty
does not justify the seizure of state authority over “listed” Endangered
Species by the Federal government. However, we must recognize that this
questionable seizure of state authority has survived 30 years while expanding
Federal powers in spite of not being reauthorized for almost 20 years. So
only a fool or radical should fail to see where the proposals for Federal
Invasive Species legal authority are intended to lead us.
There is another important dimension to this drive for Federal Invasive Species
authority that needs mentioning. Who defends the Constitutional
authorities of the states? The Governors are silent. State legislators are
silent. The state fish and wildlife agencies’ national lobby group
supports Federal authority transfer. One supposes they are hopeful of
Federal funds or too busy to notice as they hide out in neighboring states or
work on new taxes to cover the expenses they created during recent affluent
years. In fact if the state fish and wildlife or agriculture agencies
don’t explain what is happening or state residents don’t protest, then the
politicians can be forgiven their ignorance.
There is no one in Washington who looks out for state authorities.
Bureaucrats lust for state powers for themselves. National
environmental/animal rights radicals work to Federalize everything from raising
dogs to circuses and private property rights in order to control and manipulate
those things for their own purposes. Congressmen and Senators vie for
votes to get reelected. Each promises more of everything. “More”
of everything is what keeps politicians in place term after term. There is
no way that defending state rights gets anyone reelected. It is getting
more money, more help, more than the voters pay in taxes (something for nothing)
that generates the votes necessary for reelection. It was not always so.
If radicals had tried to get an Endangered Species Act, or an Animal Welfare
Act, or a Marine Mammal Protection Act, or an Invasive Species Act passed before
1913, they would have hit a brick wall in the US Senate. Why?
Because before that date US Senators were elected by state legislators, not a
popular vote like Congressmen and state politicians. The Founding Fathers
wisely meant for the US Senate to not only equalize each states’
representation (2 each) but also to not be beholden to “bringing home the
bacon to various constituents” like other politicians. US Senators were
supposed to represent the state because the state legislature elected them, the
legislature was where they usually came from and where they would probably
return one day. Senators elected by state legislatures would very likely
be far less regal in manner and activities than the powerful and unapproachable
Senators we know today. They would have also had a very different view of
Federalizing everything than today’s Senator’s catering to ranchers or
environmentalists or animal rights activists who give money and help elect them
just like any other politician. The 17th Amendment, passed in 1913 changed
all that, and not for the better.
So the next time you complain about Federal mandates, unresponsive Washington
bureaucracies, or the inordinate power of national radical groups look at the
17th Amendment and ask yourself why it should not be changed. The stakes
are large and if all this Federalization is not checked soon, the difference
between us and some socialist European nation or indeed some banana republic
will be merely one of geographic location. If we cannot come up with some
strong defenders of state rights, everything of any importance will soon be
governed by a supreme central government that has been anathema to this country
since it’s Founding.
Jim Beers
19 May 2003
Invasive Species Update #10 - May 22, 2003
There are two encouraging items to share concerning the campaigns to establish
Federal Invasive Species authority.
First, I recently used the fact that Exotic Game ranchers were an example of a
group who was not heard from and who was sure to be harmed by any new Federal
Invasive Species authority. I was wrong and what I found out is worth
repeating. Charly Seale, Executive Director of the Exotic Wildlife Association
and Marida Favia del Core Borromeo, Director of EWA have contacted me and told
me of all they are doing. They have met with their Federal Representatives
and Senators. They have informed their membership and spoken with friends
to encourage them to oppose any Federal Invasive Species authority. They
even asked me what more they could do. I was embarrassed that I had
mentioned them as I did but absolutely delighted to see that even though there
is little indication of such support on the surface here in Washington, there is
grassroots opposition moving across this great land.
For your information, I made two suggestions. First, I suggested asking
state politicians to introduce (and get passed) a resolution saying that your
state is opposed to any assumption of Federal authority over any plants or
animals currently under the jurisdiction of your state. Such a resolution
could mention legitimate Federal responsibilities such as import, export, and
interstate aspects. It could also be worded to accommodate any Federal
agricultural or other subsidy or grant that does not involve any jeopardy to
state authorities.
Second, I suggested calling or writing Senator Craig (R-ID), Congressman Hefley
(R-CO), Congressman Pombo (R-CA) and Chairman of the House Resources Committee,
and Senator Inhofe (R-OK) Chairman of the Senate Environment & Public Works
Committee. They should be told that you (your organization?) oppose S. 144
the Noxious Weed Control Act of 2003, H.R. 119 the Harmful Invasive Weed Control
Act, and any new legislation that jeopardizes existing state authorities over
any plants or animals. I further suggested that they either do the same or
send copies to the President and the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior
as well as their state representatives, Senators, and Governor. Nothing
gets politicians and bureaucrats more attentive than seeing that other decision
makers are being confronted with serious citizen concerns based on real
knowledge.
I offered any help I could provide to any state politicians or the EWA. I
make the same offer to you. If you consider these things worth trying, let
me know if I can help and I will do my best. The sooner we get things like
this underway and also begin to get our organizations back to representing us to
Washington instead of the other way around, the better. National
Cattlemen’s Beef Association, the National Rifle Association, the Wildlife
Management Institute, Ducks Unlimited, National Trappers Association, and the
Sport Fishing Institute are examples of organizations who are either acquiescing
to Federal Invasive Species authority or silent. Others like The Nature
Conservancy, Wildlife Federation, Wilderness Society, and the Natural Resources
Defense Council either stand to benefit from Federal Invasive Species largesse
or are fronting for more radical environmental and animal rights groups waiting
to file Invasive Species lawsuits for all sorts of mischief and harm. We
need to TELL our organization, just like our politicians and state employees
that we oppose Federal Invasive Species authority. Then we need to ASK
them to vote, lobby, and publish articles that support solutions to any plant
and animal problems utilizing the state and Federal responsibilities laid out in
our Constitution.
State employees are a special concern. The state fish and wildlife
agencies are your front line in these matters. They implement state
policies and inform state politicians of threats to state responsibilities.
As long as they slant their reports to state government officials strictly in
terms of getting more money, it is impossible for state government officials to
understand what the threat is and what must be done to prevent it. The
fact that the state agencies’ Washington lobby group, the International
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies gave a tepid endorsement of Federal
Invasive Species authority at recent Congressional Hearings is a disgrace to
anyone familiar with and supportive of Constitutional responsibilities.
State employees and state administrators need to know that you oppose Federal
Invasive Species authority and that you are speaking with their political bosses
to insure that their agency opposes any new Federal authority over plants and
animals at the expense of state authority.
I have just begun reading a book that you may find worthwhile. INVASION
BIOLOGY Critique of a Pseudoscience by David I. Theodoropoulos (2003 Avvar Books
15245 Broadway Street, Blythe, California 9225) is an excellent examination of
all the fallacies and hidden agendas swirling in the Invasive Species propaganda
that seems to be everywhere. Anyone looking for a more in-depth analysis
of ecosystem change and management will not be disappointed.
Finally, on Wednesday 21 May 2003 I was interviewed by the Alabama Forest
Owners Association about Invasive Species. I spoke for about 3.5 minutes
in answer to two questions. 1.) Why am I concerned about Federal Invasive
Species legislation, and 2.) What do I recommend we do about Invasive Species.
I was # 7 of 8 persons interviewed on various topics of interest to Alabama
Forest Landowners.
You can
listen to the interview on their website, Capital Ideas Live at
www.alabamaforestowners.com/CILive/CI030521.htm
If you have any questions about the interview, I will be glad to answer
them and if you enjoy the site, be sure and let the Alabama Forest
Owners know about it.
Jim Beers
Invasive Species Update #11 - June 17, 2003
I
testified this morning before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee,
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife & Water. There were a dozen
witnesses in favor of the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2003 (S.525)
and I was the lone witness opposing the bill.
This bill defines “Invasive Species” so broadly that it includes any plant
or animal that “degrades” the “aesthetic” environment or is somewhere it
wasn’t “historically.” This would include (as only a few examples)
brown trout, inland and west coast striped bass, most rainbow trout, muskies and
walleyes south of the Mason Dixon line, largemouth bass in the west, lake trout
out west, salmon and alewives and brown trout in the Great lakes etc.
The Federal government would really take over management of the aquatic habitats
of “estuaries and inland waters and wetlands.” This of course would,
just like the Endangered Species Act, transfer management authority from the
state to the Federal government.
The definitions of “harm” are so broad that the environmental/animal rights
lawyers will have a field day adding plants and animals* to the Invasive Species
List. *This law states (as the Endangered Species Act did not) that any
group of plants or animals from species to subspecies to races to populations,
varieties, population fragments, stands, flocks, herds, whatever that is
“harmful” can be fodder for bureaucrats and others to do to property owners,
fishermen, etc. what the Endangered Species Act has been increasingly doing
across this nation.
Under the “need” to control ballast water discharge (the technology needs at
least 10 years of research according to the General Accounting Office) this bill
would regulate ALL plant and animal imports since the word “aquatic”
mysteriously disappears in this section. Essentially the Director of the
US Fish and Wildlife Service would wield the power of the President’s Cabinet
Secretaries and effectively stop all importation of plants and animals. If
anyone came near reaching the impossible hurdles proposed for permission to
import, an environmental or animal rights law clerk could tie it up in the
courts long enough for the applicants to expire. Thus assuring no
importation or export could or would be possible.
Last but not least the proposed penalties would make the Gulag Archipelago seem
like child’s play. Two sections call for a Class C felony (10-25 years)
for knowing violation. Think about that! It gets even better, one of
those Class C felony penalties is for violating the REGULATIONS written under
the Law. Now you can’t even begin writing regulations until a law is
passed and signed by the President. Further, no one has the foggiest idea
of what the regulations would even look like, much less how the agencies like
the US Fish and Wildlife Service will tweak and stretch them over time like they
have the Endangered Species Act regulations.
Everyone from the sponsor (Senator Levin of Michigan, a state that would get the
lion’s share of dollars) to all the Federal agencies (5) to the Vermont
Invasive Species Coordinator and The Nature Conservancy all gushed about one
invasive species horror story after another and how only more Federal authority
and Federal spending could save our environment. All the exaggerations and
denial of any benefits for species after species was pretty disgusting.
When asked what “historic range” means, no one could answer but one agency
said they would try to answer later in writing. When asked about rainbow
trout, the bureaucrats saw that Senators like rainbows so they were assured that
there is a Federal definition (at an unspecified location) that would exclude
them from any invasive list. (The bill language would clearly include
them.) When asked about “escaped farm salmon” in the Pacific, the
bureaucrats could tell a Senator was concerned so certainly the bill would
include them as “invasive.”
Where were the fishing organizations? They must be in favor. Where
were the state fish and wildlife agencies? Their only representative could
have been a Federal or hopefully-Federal-one-day bureaucrat. Where were
the boaters, trappers, duck hunters and other aquatic habitat users? Where
were the public land aquatic habitat users from hikers to horseback riders and
others? Where were the fish and aquarium hobbyists and importers?
Where were the florists whose aquatic plants will be severely limited?
Where were landscapers and ranchers and loggers? Just as with the
Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act, those to be harmed the
most, are oblivious and paying dues to people who represent these things as
“trains” that “can’t be stopped.” Once again their organizations
represent Washington to their people instead of their people to Washington.
The spouse of one of the top Federal bureaucrats pushing Invasive Species even
represents one of these groups in Washington.
Mention this or give a copy of it to your friends that fish or have any
connection with aquatic habitats and tell them to tell their Senator and
Representative that they oppose the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act and
any new Federal authority over Invasive Species. Also tell US Senator
Crapo (ID) the Chairman. Tell Subcommittee members like Senators Warner
(VA), Allard (CO), Murkowski (AK), Jeffords(VT), and Inhofe (OK) who is the
Committee Chairman and the most powerful Senator over this matter.
Below is my testimony on the bill. Further explanations will follow but
for now, getting this testimony out is my priority.
STATEMENT OF JAMES M. BEERS – SCIENCE ADVISOR
AMERICAN LAND RIGHTS ASSOCIATION
BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND WATER
CONCERNING S. 525 THE NATIONAL AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES ACT OF 2003
Thank you Mr. Chairman for inviting me to testify at your hearing today.
I represent the American Land Rights Association, an organization of small
property owners in all 50 states.
I worked for the US Fish and Wildlife Service for 30 years in four states and
Washington, DC as a wildlife biologist, special agent, and refuge manager.
I have enforced Injurious Wildlife regulations and investigated Endangered
Species cases both here and in Europe. I have worked on Invasive Species
control programs for nutria and purple loosestrife. I have attended UN
Wildlife Conferences and represented state wildlife agencies fighting a
threatened European fur embargo. I currently write and speak extensively
about both Endangered and Invasive Species.
The National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2003, S. 525 is based on erroneous
assumptions. Briefly, it is wrong:
1. To characterize all recently arrived plants and animals as having only
exaggerated bad effects and “reducing biodiversity” (Sec. 2 Findings 1-10).
This striped bass is an “Invasive Species” in numerous lakes, rivers and
reservoirs across the nation as well as in west coast estuaries. This
rainbow trout is another “Invasive Species” in lakes, rivers, and reservoirs
throughout the United States. Fishing license money, State fishery management
staffs, charter boat revenues, boat and boating equipment sales, fishing tackle
sales, tourist revenues, annual Sport Fish Restoration dollars in the millions,
taxidermy business, as well as millions of hours of family recreation and many
fine meals will all be reduced under this legislation. These fish are
typical of many desirable “Invasive” plants and animals that increase
“biodiversity” while benefiting us all.
2. To infer a Federal concern for plants and animals “outside the
historic range of the species of which the organism is a member” (Sec.1003
[15]). This applies directly to these two fish that have been widely and
purposely introduced for the many direct and indirect benefits to citizens and
aquatic habitats that they create. What does “historic range” mean?
When Asians arrived 10,000 years ago? When Columbus arrived? When
the Constitution was signed? Camels, horses, and elephants once thrived
here, are they native or “Invasive Species”?
3. To define Federal aquatic authority as including “estuarine” and
“inland waters and wetlands” (Sec. 1003 [2]). These waters are nearly
all under State jurisdiction. Given the current court case involving the
decade-long dumping of toxic sludge by the US Army Corps of Engineers through a
National Park under an EPA permit reviewed by the National Marine Fisheries
Service and the US Fish and Wildlife Service on the spawning grounds of
Endangered shortnose sturgeon in the Potomac River as it passes Washington, DC,
it does not appear prudent to expand Federal authority in this manner.
4. To infer Federal jurisdiction over “invasive species” and
“non-indigenous species” that “may cause harm” (Sec. 1003 (17)) so
broadly defined as to permit any biological competition or increase in
biodiversity to be declared harmful. These two fish for instance eat other
fish and compete with yet others for space and food.
5. To claim authority over “any fundamental category of taxonomic
classification…below a genus or subgenus” (Sec. 1003 (28)). This
enshrines the unwritten Endangered Species Act principle that authorizes all
manner of Federal intervention to the smallest flock, school, or stand of any
species. This has caused increasing friction with property owners and many
others as the level of Federal concern descended below that of species to races,
varieties, distinct populations, and even beyond.
Using the need for the Federal government to regulate ballast water, a penumbra
of Federal authorities and tasks are being created to mimic the Endangered
Species Act. That Act has caused havoc with much more than property rights
and has gone unauthorized for fifteen years while it’s reach and annual
appropriations continue to grow.
The authority to manage, control, and eradicate plants and animals is one of
those “powers” “reserved to the States” in the 10th Amendment. The
Federal government is responsible for the management of the import, export,
interstate, and foreign aspects of these matters. It is proper that the
Federal government assures clean ballast water discharges, manages imports and
exports, and cooperates with State governments in the management, control, and
eradication of harmful plants and animals regardless of their origins or arrival
dates.
The American Land Rights Association joins with all citizens concerned about the
loss of not only land property rights but also the rights of fish owners,
aquarium hobbyists, florists, gardeners, landscapers, boaters, horseback riders,
pet owners, hikers, trappers, duck hunters, fishermen and scores of others whose
property rights, outdoor activities, property rights held in trust by State
governments, and public land access are directly threatened by this proposed
expansion of Federal authority and diminishment of State authority over aquatic
habitats. The task being proposed (encouragement of “native species”)
is not desirable, not beneficial, not achievable, not measurable, never-ending,
and a public expense beyond comprehension.
Please consider a revised bill that controls ballast water discharge, controls
harmful aquatic plants and animals on the Federal estate, and cooperates with
the States to fulfill the fish, wildlife, and plant responsibilities assigned
them in the Constitution. Otherwise, S. 525 will, like the Endangered
Species Act, radically modify our basic freedoms while enriching only Federal
bureaucracies, Universities, and the agendas of environmental and animal rights
organizations.
One last observation: The bill’s proposed “whitelist approach” (Sec.
1105 et al) for controlling imports is fraught with pitfalls. It is
causing problems in Australia and had it been in effect here 200 years ago we
would not have brown trout, tulips, Holsteins, or even house cats here today.
Definitions like “organism in trade” (Sec 1003 (21)) which does not
even mention “aquatic” appear designed to stop all trade in plants and
animals. Including “aesthetic degradation” (Sec. 1003 (34)) as an
“undesirable impact” likewise seems designed to maximize serious mischief.
The authority given an agency Director (Sec. 1105 (d) (2)) exceeds authorities
formerly reserved only for Secretaries. Assigning penalties of a Class C
felony (10-25 years) (Sec 1105 (k) (2) (b)) especially for violating
“regulations” (Sec.1101 (g) (2) THAT HAVE NOT EVEN BEEN DRAFTED suggests
agendas one can only speculate about.
Five minutes is not enough time for me to explain this, but I would offer to
point out there is a better approach that does not impair the trade and freedoms
we cherish while minimizing future, harmful UN controls which are likely with
Invasive Species as they have been with Endangered Species under CITES.
Further explanation of these issues may be found on the American Land Rights
Association website www.landrights.org
Thank you and I am ready to answer any questions you might have.
James Beers, Centreville, Virginia