The similarities today between something called
Invasive Species and Endangered Species back in the early 70’s is eerie. In
both instances a Republican President is attempting to deal with a war while
Democrats attack every move he makes. Demonstrations by radicals clamor on the
evening news with no reasonable alternatives offered save overthrow of the
Republicans. Environmentalists both in the Federal agencies and in the powerful
environmental lobby groups attack and undercut the President while offering the
possibility of supporting him if only he will support a new program that will
save plants and animals and surely generate the votes needed for reelection.
In the early 1970’s Department of the Interior (where I worked) a Green
Assistant Secretary worked with these environmentalists while overseeing a
well-credentialed Director of the US Fish & Wildlife Service who walked a
fine line as a salesman for Endangered Species while trying unsuccessfully to
maintain a workable wildlife management regime. Today, a Green Secretary of the
Interior similarly courts environmentalists while using the credentials and
reputation of a US Fish & Wildlife Service Director to assure us of the
“need” to Federalize Invasive Species.
This Federal power expansion will undoubtedly mushroom to cover things which,
when I mention them, will cause you to snicker and ask yourself how could anyone
imagine such stuff? Well, you would have said the same thing in 1972 if I had
said that the Endangered Species Act would lead to:
-taking property without compensation;
-the listing of subspecies, races, populations, subpopulations, and distinct
population segments:
-the elimination of logging and ranching over wide areas;
-the forced reintroduction of wolves and grizzly bears for which the
“reintroducers” are not responsible unless someone disturbs them;
-the eradication of needed public works projects to “save” flies and toads;
-the death of citizens due to flooding caused by bushes growing on a dam and
“needed” for an insect;
-the elimination of big game herds for wolf food or the elimination of thousands
of miles of stream sport fisheries for an undesirable trout;
-the perversion of biological classification so that academic specialists can
obtain grants and career enhancements;
-creation of the largest budget and power increase for Federal bureaucrats to
date;
-the litmus test of environmental bona fides for politicians seeking reelection;
-the greatest power source ever devised for environmentalists to stop everything
from energy development to hunting and wildlife management …. I could go on
but space is limited.
Invasive Species is a Federal proposal that will expand and steadily eliminate
the rights of property owners, the authorities of state governments, the
legitimate activities of Americans, and a host of other abuses. It is just like
the Endangered Species Act in this respect and it will be expanded and abused
even quicker because of the experience of the past thirty years gained by
bureaucrats, politicians, academicians, and non-governmental organizations.
Back in the early 70’s I was too dumb to see where all this was going. None of
the people I knew, who did know, ever said a word. They simply clipped coupons
for their own careers and pay. What I intend to do is write a series of articles
on Invasive Species based on the history of the Endangered Species Act. I
propose to discuss Invasive Species in a series of short, direct articles. A
range of subjects will be covered from the history, biology, and politics of
Invasive Species to the Interest Groups, legalities, and both the intended and
unintended consequences that will result. All the usual conflicts (East v. West,
urban v. rural, Feds v. states, academics v. working men & women,
bureaucrats and politicians v. property owners and outdoorsmen,
environmentalists & animal righters v. recreationists and businessmen) are
present and need to be understood.
The Bush Administration is currently “exploring” an Invasive Species
Program. Invasive Species will soon begin affecting all of us from boaters and
outdoorsmen to gardeners and taxpayers. The time to learn about it is now. The
time to do something about it is before it gets passed and underway. I hope to
tell you what you can do and why you should do it.
I do not have a website nor can I find anyone who will publish these articles.
Therefore, I plan to send these articles to those of you who write to me and who
entertain my writings. I ask that if you enjoy these articles, please send them
to friends, associates, and anyone you believe will read it and forward it. The
articles will be numbered in the title and will be written over the next week or
two as I can make time to write them.
Thank you for your interest in the past and I hope these articles will prove
useful to all of us.
Jim Beers
21 February 03
Invasive Species is the name currently applied to
non-native plants and animals that cause problems of one sort or another.
Non-native is the relevant phrase and it refers to those plants and animals that
are relatively new to an area be that a state, nation, or continent. While most
of us take for granted thousands of species of plants and animals that were here
when our grandparents and great grandparents were alive such as Hungarian
partridge, brown trout, English ivy, and day lilies as acceptable members of our
environment; environmental groups, many academics, bureaucrats, and socialists
bent on clearing large swaths of the United States for something called the
Wildlands Project know that non-native really means not present when European
explorers stepped ashore. There have even been legal arguments made that an
Eastern US native fish (largemouth bass) introduced into Western US reservoirs
are “non-native” and should be eliminated. Have no doubt that non-native
means all of these things and that this will be a readily accepted definition in
a court of law by government or environmental litigants when seeking
jurisdiction, land control, or control of human activities.
While advocates for Federalizing Invasive Species matters never mention
non-natives such as pheasants or day lilies as eventual targets for elimination,
there is a list of often-mentioned, non-native species that can and do cause
extensive and serious problems. Zebra mussels that came from
When advocates of Federalizing the management and control of such species speak
or write, many facts are ignored and avoided. For instance, zebra mussels have
cleaned up (clarified) many waterways such as Lake Erie where deeper sunlight
penetration has caused an explosion of submerged plants that shelter fish and
accordingly created a very productive commercial and sport fishery. Hydrilla,
which elicited newspaper forecasts of environmental Armageddon when first
spotted 20 years ago near Washington, DC established large beds in the Potomac
River creating extensive cover for endangered fish, a now-famous bass fishery,
and large flocks of wintering scaup, mallards, and geese viewed from Washington
office windows. Another point not mentioned is the extreme dependence on
pesticides that is necessary for control of many of the plants and insects such
as fire ants. Indeed those who live with many of these pests testify to the fact
that chemical tools for control have long been available but environmental
prohibitions and use permission requirements are set impossibly high. Also, the
current efforts of states like
Certain states like
I will remind the reader that early in the proposal stage for the Endangered
Species Act (1970-72) similar “facts” were publicized and others were
dismissed.
-Bald eagle preservation (while I used to see 30 at a time when I was in the
-Saving sturgeon, a relatively innocuous and little seen fish, was touted while
using the slight variations found in minnow-like darters from insular
-Romantic stories about saving evening wolf howls in Minnesota gained lots of
media attention but no one mentioned the effects on stock, big game animal
populations, pets, and humans that expanding wolf population would have.
Intentions to force wolves back into the West where they had been purposely
exterminated, were vehemently denied for years.
-The listing of subspecies much less races, populations, subpopulations,
population segments, and distinct population segments was never imagined by
anyone but the sponsors.
-Concerns that professors, researchers, and other specialty experts would skew
their findings and eventually their scientific classifications and habitat
declarations in order to get grants and other benefits resulting from publicity
of their specialties went unmentioned. The fact that 30 years later advocates
and politicians would offer “better science” as a solution can only be
termed comical.
-Worries that Federal bureaucrats would List species and never delist unless
forced seemed far-fetched. Promotions, budgets, bonuses, and wide-ranging power
were to become directly proportional to the size of the program.
-Suspicions that environmental groups and politicians would lard the Federal
agencies with employees with activist intentions for regulation writing and
lawsuit cooperation were never mentioned.
-Taking property without compensation, closure of Federal land access,
elimination of businesses and recreational activities in the name of Endangered
Species were also scoffed at and denied.
-Claims of environmental “needs” and ecosystem “viability” were merely
justification rhetoric and not true.
-Worries about loss of sovereignty to UN bureaucracies dedicated to worldwide
control of International Endangered Lists that expand biennially, were dismissed
but were eventually proven to be true.
The relevance of the history of Endangered Species program development to the
Invasive Species’ effort must be understood. Hopefully the upcoming articles
will allow you to develop the perspective to judge for yourself. The next
article will treat the history of management and control programs and the
Constitutional responsibilities applicable to these matters.
This series is not meant to disparage control activities or to discourage more
cooperation between government and landowners, businessmen, and others. It is
meant to avoid the inescapable quagmires that the Endangered Species Act has
created. As subsequent articles treat The Biology, The Pushers, the Politics,
The Real Goals, The Unintended Consequences, and Current Happenings they will
hopefully prepare you to consider What Must Be Done that will conclude the
series.
Jim Beers
23 Feb. 03
The US Constitution (1787)
established a regime of plant and animal jurisdiction and ownership unique in
the world at that time. While limiting the Federal government to specific
authorities and responsibilities, it divided Federal power between the
ubiquitous three Branches. The Bill of Rights or first 10 Amendments (1791)
concluded with Amendment X which states, “The powers not delegated to the
For the first hundred years, the Federal government concerned itself with
protecting high seas fishery interests of Americans, cooperation with neighbors
like
In the late 1800’s western states resigned themselves to the Federal
government retaining large portions of the West. This gave rise to acceptance by
westerners of predator control and grazing allocation by Federal land
administrators. Thus was born an uneasy concept of the Federal government being
“more” than a private landowner and somehow immune to state jurisdiction
over plants and animals.
During the First World War, President Wilson signed and the Senate ratified a
Migratory Bird Treaty with
In 1973 the Endangered Species Act was passed by Congress and signed by the
President. The authority for the Federal government to constantly name species,
subspecies, etc. as Endangered and thereby seize jurisdiction and management
authority from the states is claimed to be a UN Treaty signed by many nations.
Two points: First, I would assert that a UN Treaty is not a Treaty as mentioned
in the Constitution. In our Treaty with
This last point was confirmed and made shockingly apparent to me last week. The
polling question on the History Channel website was, “who should be more
powerful, the state government or the Federal government?” The Constitution
names specific roles for each; not which is more “powerful”. The Civil War
settled the
In the early 1900’s Federal, state, and University researchers studied ways to
minimize or eliminate damage caused by predators (wolves, cougars, coyotes, and
bears) and public employees successfully exterminated wolves while depressing
the numbers and distribution of the others until control reductions 40 years ago
allowed coyotes to explode back into the East and state abrogation of management
responsibility allowed cougars in California to once again kill and maim humans,
pets, and livestock while reducing once robust wild bighorn sheep populations in
the Sierras to Endangered status. Similar elimination of bear management is
allowing depredations of burgeoning bear populations to endanger humans and
cause extensive economic damage once again.
The Federal government also specialized in bird research (as primary managers of
migratory birds). Damage from ducks, geese, blackbirds, and others was reduced
and direct control (i.e. killing) was the final and often best method.
In the 1950’s increased international travel by tourists and Servicemen caused
the Federal government to 1.) begin banning from importation (based on the
legitimate responsibility of regulating foreign commerce) what were called
Injurious Wildlife like mongoose and 2.) begin searching the world for new and
desirable species to release in the
Nearly all the “calendar picture Invasive Species” I mentioned in Part 2
were present in the 1950’s and 60’s. None were on the old Injurious Wildlife
List that I enforced as a US Game Management Agent at the
Before I can explain more about the people and groups pushing the Invasive
Species agenda today we will need to examine The Biology of Invasive Species.
The next article, Part 4, will attempt to do just that. New age concepts such as
Pre-Columbian Ecosystems and Native Ecosystems, while nowhere to be seen now,
will burst forth when legislation is passed giving the Federal government
“jurisdiction” over non-native species (i.e. Invasive Species) that cause
“harm”. The elastic and nebulous terminology (“ecosystem”, “harm”,
et al) propping up this concept will serve as superhighway venues for an
incredible range of mischief for which, like Endangered Species effects today,
there will appear to be no remedy short of what the Founding Fathers began
signing on the 4th of July 1776.
Jim Beers
24 Feb. 03
I am a wildlife biologist
and what I am about to write ignores the hysteria, myths, and self-serving
propaganda of the past thirty years. It is also meant to ignore the public
opinions that have been formed from those myths and stories. The approaching
Invasive Species program, like the Endangered Species program before it,
capitalizes on these myths and misinformation. Understanding these emotional
underpinnings is necessary to making an informed decision.
1.) Native v. Non-Native. Why is it good to eradicate a highly used and
appreciated non-native fishery like the introduced salmon in the
2.) Harmful Species v. Beneficial Species. Beneficial Species (from barley and
hops to brown trout and elk) should be nurtured and maintained regardless of the
length of time they have been here. Likewise, harmful species and these are
often new arrivals, should be controlled and even eradicated where they have
significant adverse impacts. Controls or even eradication should be understood
and take into account the costs, benefits, and other impacts. The resulting
environments or ecosystems may be simpler or may get more diverse. Honest
scientists can tell us the results of controls.
3.) Using (i.e. Managing) v. Saving (i.e. Locking Up) the Environment. The
foregoing paragraphs describe what is called the “Pre-Columbian Ecosystem”
in today’s Federal no-use lingo. This myth has been used extensively to
justify all sorts of Endangered Species Act abuses. These include but are not
limited to taking property without compensation; eliminating logging, ranching,
etc., closing access to public lands; and Federal bureaucrats dictating a wide
range of business, recreational, and citizen activities unimaginable just 40
years ago. The public has come to believe that each and every flock or herd of
animals or each stand of plants is so important that any cost to maintain or
restore them is justified. Notice that the more recent arrivals never make the
“List”. Many accept the false premise that no-use of plants or animals is
superior to using and therefore managing the plants and animals. The biological
truth is that sensible use of plants and animals maintains a maximum diversity
of species and, because it creates “WORTH” for the plants and animals and
their habitats, there are reasons for everyone who benefits to maintain a
healthy and productive environment. Sensible management of plants and animals
generates funding for governments to maintain public natural resources and
likewise for private owners to maintain private natural resources. In a free
republic such as ours this should have never been challenged as it has recently
been by growing Federal power and massive land acquisition and control by
Federal bureaucracies and rich non-government organizations.
If we continue to accept the notions of the recent past that Invasive Species
are inherently “bad”, that there is an “ideal” or “natural” mix of
plants and animals that we must restore or else, that use and management of
natural resources by either government or citizens is bad, and that the answer
to any environmental or animal use matter is Federally imposed restrictions and
power – then Federal Invasive Species proposals will be a slam dunk. If on the
other hand we understand that use and management (including active control) of
natural resources is an attainable good; that the national ecosystem will always
change and our challenge is to manage those changes for our benefit, and perhaps
most important of all that the system of government that has served us so well
for over 200 years must not be abolished for specious reasons, then we can
support programs which make use of existing state authorities and private
landowners.
Just as it is reasonable in an affluent society to have an area or two called
Wilderness to see what non-use means in the midst of a robust and active
society. Just as it is reasonable to not build a road where erosion or other
significant damage will result. So too is it reasonable and biologically sound
to strive for the best environmental balances and biological productivity in our
surroundings while accessing and using all of the renewable plants and animals
that surround us. The proliferation of Wilderness Areas, Roadless Areas,
Critical Habitats, and Pre-Columbian and no-use philosophies in public agencies
are the indicators of what “biological” justifications have justified in
recent years and what will also result from a Federal Invasive Species program.
Just as Endangered Species habitat claims proliferate as “experts” testify
before courts, similar Invasive Species experts will soon enough materialize to
claim “environmental” harm from “non-native” species X complete with a
rational why more land must be controlled, more land bought, more human
activities proscribed, and more resource users put out of business. As with
Endangered Species impacts, landowners will no longer be able to profit from
their land and no one except the government will offer to buy it. As with
Endangered Species a cadre of University researchers will arise to make claims
of what “needs” to be done regarding cheatgrass or day lilies to not only
eradicate them, but to keep them eradicated. Science will bend to assure that
these professors are the ones getting the subsequent grant money. The biology
will be presented in such a way that everyone else can but accept it and any
questions will be either ignored or treated as the ravings of the ignorant.
Pesticides will be no more available than now and the only result 30 years hence
will be similar to the decline of spotted owls and loggers in a declining rural
The next article will be on The Pushers. That is, those who, both behind and in
front of the scenes, are bringing about the Federalization of Invasive Species.
As the old saying goes, you can’t follow the game without a program.
Hopefully, the next article will identify the players for you so that you too
can follow the action.
Jim Beers
25 Feb.03
Who in the world is pushing
a major Federalization of Invasive Species? In order to answer this in a way
that the reader can grasp, I will divide them into groups with a bit of
background on most of them and a little more on some of the main ones out in the
open. I will also avoid acronyms for the non-bureaucrats in the crowd.
A.) The two big Federal Departments, the US Department of Agriculture and the US
Department of the Interior stand to benefit money-wise, personnel-wise, and most
importantly power-wise from further Federalization of Invasive Species. Each has
high-paid staffs working for their Secretary in
B.) The Agencies and their bureaucrats are poised and primed to jump on the
Invasive Species bandwagon. The US Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (in
Agriculture) currently oversees importing, exporting, and interstate shipment of
domestic plants and animals. They will “lead” as Federal power is increased
in this area. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (in Interior) administers import,
export, and interstate shipment of wild plants and animals as well as
administering the Endangered Species Act and all of the National Wildlife
Refuges plus acting as the Federal “experts” on everything to do with plants
and animals under UN auspices or in Federal projects as well as other such
responsibilities. These two agencies will be the major power brokers of
increased Federal authority. They will write regulations, enforcement policies,
and be the primary “partners” for the groups mentioned below. Other agencies
like the National Park Service, the US Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land
Management own millions of acres that will get increased funding, increased
personnel, and increased authority over state governments and private landowners
near Federal holdings. One need only look at the disproportionate effect of
Endangered Species proclamations on loggers, ranchers, and other rural residents
near Federal lands to understand what Invasive Species authority will mean for
them. Indeed the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service have
just published a slick, 75 page, color photo collection of 60 invasive exotic
(exotic means non-native when you go to court) species.
C.) State agencies such as
D.) Quasi-governmental groups abound. The National Institute of Invasive Species
Science is “a growing consortium of partnerships between government and
non-government organizations”. They are an “Information Node” housed in
government space with the US Geological Survey (an Interior agency) in Ft,
Collins,
E.) University professors and researchers know that Federalizing Invasive
Species, just like the invention of Endangered Species, will be a boon for their
business. Testifying, justifying, and recommending things to do with their
“specialty” will result in future grants, more graduate students, increased
scientific stature, more University tenure, and generally better pay.
F.) There is an abundance of Weed Science Societies (NE, W, S, N Central,) under
the national. There is an innocuous-named Aquatic Plant Management Society.
G.) There is the Smithsonian who sees the opportunity for them to provide
“systematics” that will be so “necessary”.
H.) The American Seed Trade Association sees an enormous “need” for their
products as money becomes available. The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association
sees money becoming available to improve public and private grazing lands.
Monsanto and other chemical and pesticide companies see a gold mine developing
as more customers have money to get ever-more restricted control agents. These
groups like all of the above all pop up in every hearing before Congress and on
every “advisory” group. There is one other….
I.) The Nature Conservancy is the tenth largest non-profit charity in the
J.) The environmental outfits like Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, the Natural
Resources Defense Council, The Wildlands Project, Earth Liberation Front, The
National Parks Association, Earthjustice, et al cooperate with the push and
stand ready to testify at the drop of a hat regarding how wording in particular
sections of a new or revised Act should read. They see this as being a companion
tool to intimidate landowners, reduce access and use on public lands, stop more
human recreation or business or lifestyle activities. Likewise the animal rights
crowd like the Humane Society of the United States, Animal Protection Institute,
Animal Welfare Institute, Defenders of Wildlife, People for the Ethical
Treatments of Animals, the Animal Liberation Front, et al see this new Federal
authority to go after non-natives as a Godsend. Just a few non-natives that will
soon enough be targeted for control, licensing, and even elimination are
non-native dogs, cats, birds, game birds, fish and even non-native plants used
for wildlife management. The potential for quickening the restrictions on
hunting, fishing, animal husbandry, and natural resource management is
unlimited.
K.) Also unseen and unheard from are the lawyers. Each of these groups employs
one or more lawyers. Even first year law students realize what a bonanza the
Endangered Species Act has proven to be for lawyers. Invasive Species can be
made to be just as profitable and the lobbyists and Congressmen (most of whom
are lawyers) know this too.
L.) Last but certainly not least are the US Congress and the White House. They
are the ones who will be responsible if this Federalization of Invasive Species
succeeds. It is the political atmosphere around these two institutions at this
time that is driving all these groups to start a push now. An explanation of The
Politics will be the subject of the next article
Oh, one last word. No article about The Pushers would be fair without mentioning
the opponents. There aren’t any. A few property rights groups would say it’s
nuts. Some of those who have been ruined or otherwise harmed by the Endangered
Species Act understand the threat here but they are few and scattered. Once it
gets up and running it will pick off landowners, recreationists, businessmen,
and others one at a time. The guy in
Jim Beers
27 Feb. 03
Invasive Species, like
Endangered Species, cry out for someone to do “something.” Anyone shown the
photos of destructive insects, extensive weed stands, or slithering Brown Tree
Snakes understands “we need to do something.” Most politicians survive by
capitalizing on such things.
As I write this, White House staff members are considering an Invasive Species
initiative. This morning I received a copy of a Request for (Congressional)
Original Cosponsors for a National Aquatic Invasive Species Act and an Aquatic
Invasive Species Research Act. These bills are being sponsored by Senator Levin
(D-MI) and Congressmen Gilchrist (R-MD) and Ehlers (R-MI). The appeal mentions
39 sponsors to date. I recognize four environmental extremist politicians and an
old-line conservation politician in an otherwise urban politician list.
The first question, why, is slowly being explained in these articles. The next
two articles will elaborate on The Real Goals and The Unintended Consequences to
further explain, why. The second question, why now, is very important to
understand. Now is a time of political opportunity. Political opportunity is the
vehicle to obtain legislation and legislation is the golden fleece for every
interest group today be they private, bureaucratic, or academic.
If the Federal government authority is to be expanded, new legislation is
required. If money is to be made available to Federal agencies, new legislation
is needed. If more money is to be made available to Universities and landowners
like the Nature Conservancy, new legislation is needed. If more Federal control
of private property and the activities of landowners, businessmen, and other
citizens is to be created, new legislation is needed.
The White House must be on board any successful new legislation. Right now the
President is advised by a Secretary of the Interior who has just proudly
announced $40 Million in grants for “imperiled species” and who has been too
busy for two years to address the needed reform of the Endangered Species Act.
She is quietly leaving in place the tools that allowed the last Administration
to grow the Federal powers and diminish state authorities regarding plants and
animals. Her counterpart in the Department of Agriculture is not as green in her
policies but she also is reluctant to champion reforms of things like the Animal
Welfare Act. Add to this the attacks on President Bush as a reckless oilman out
to pillage “the environment.” Add to this
Congress likewise is in a novel situation. The Resource Committees of both the
House and Senate are keys to legislation passage. For the first time in recent
memory they are chaired by environmentally sensible fellows. They hail from
States also pose a political opportunity at this time. Several like
Behind all this are the societal fights going on all around us. Urban voters
wanting to stop trapping by rural residents. Easterners wanting to put predators
all over the west. Vegetarians wanting to eliminate the availability of meat
whether raised domestically or taken from the wild. Federalists opposed to
anti-Federalists. Soccer moms opposed to logging and ranching while wanting more
trails and facilities. “Wildlands” supporters wanting to clear large rural
land swaths of rural residents while closing off access entirely. All of these
have “their” politicians and they will all be playing their parts behind the
scenes as all this unfolds.
On the national scene there will be news conferences by the environmental groups
about why we can’t cut taxes because things like Invasive Species won’t be
“addressed.” Federal appointees and bureaucrats will work surreptitiously
with Invasive Species advocates to undercut opponents and publicize things that
help get the program through.
Everyone will deny that Federal jurisdiction over all non-native or exotic
species will result in eventual jihads against a steadily growing list of
non-native species. Actually it will merely take a court case “in the right
court” to establish that fact the first few times and after that it will
merely become automatic. Everyone (including the states) will deny that states
can “handle” the job. Exaggeration will rule by claims from “experts” of
billions lost here and billions lost there accompanied by laughter at any
“non-expert” either questioning them or saying that they are false claims.
Much of this will transpire in Congressional Hearing Rooms before hordes of
reporters anxious to capitalize on environmental horror stories that are enjoyed
on evening television after dinner. Opponents will gradually be as rare as
hen’s teeth. Politics, “ain’t” it grand?
The next article will address The Real Goals of the Invasive Species proposals.
Jim Beers
1 March 03
We need a Federal Invasive Species program to
stop hydrilla and killer bees and fire ants and zebra mussels from ruining our
environment and endangering people and businesses. Sounds reasonable. Ever ask
yourself why the same reasoning doesn’t apply to the effects of forced
reintroductions by the Federal government of wolves and grizzly bears in the
West? The answer lies in the real goals of the groups that generate and obtain
passage of laws like the Endangered Species Act and the intended Invasive
Species Act(s?).
Any new Act will articulate a Federal interest in “controlling” (i.e.
managing) non-native species. It may propose a “Clean List” of allowed
species or it may propose a “Dirty List” of targeted species. There will be
money appropriated for Federal agencies to “gear up” (new offices,
regulation writers, enforcers, etc.) to administer the program; money will be
earmarked for Federal land managing agencies; money will be earmarked for
“research” meaning Federal researchers, Universities, and contractors; and
finally there will be money for certain private lands which will be skewed to
folks like the Nature Conservancy and the remainder used as a carrot for unnamed
other private lands that will discourage opponents by suggesting money they may
get and also be a source of influence-buying for Federal administrators at key
times with key groups.
So what will all this accomplish? Necessary chemicals will still be forbidden
and does anyone think that will ever change unless opposed head-on? Control
methods will remain the same while bureaucrats, academics, environmental groups
and all the usual suspects will profit; but what difference will all that make?
Ask yourself what species have been saved from extinction by the Endangered
Species Act? For all the fuss over that simple goal you must ask yourself what
will result from an amorphous goal of purifying the environment by selective
vilification of certain plants, animals, and their “ecological impacts?”
Here are some “real goals.”
-Federal politicians hope to gain votes and other support from environmentalists
and others who look to benefit from passing Invasive Species legislation.
-Federal bureaucrats will receive more employees, larger budgets and therefore
more opportunities for bonuses, promotions, and expanded powers over private
property to do more of the “important” things they do that they believe are
so vital.
-State bureaucrats see the opportunity for more money to replace the cuts forced
on them by a slow economy. Additionally, they look forward to having some money
to work with mainly urban environmentalists whose agendas often conflict with
the rural supporters of their Agriculture and Fish & Wildlife agencies.
-State politicians want any extra money that allows them to soften
belt-tightening throughout other state programs.
-Chemical companies smell a bonanza in marketing current products on the Federal
tab.
-Seed companies likewise smell a bonanza marketing “native seeds” at $3-400
per lb. To replace the better (erosion control, less maintenance, less snow
holding, etc.) roadside plants used today that sell for a comparative pittance.
-Academics know that millions will be made available annually to “develop”
“biological” controls and “investigate” ecological minutiae regarding
non-natives and native replacements. This will assure the need for paid
testimonies, speeches, more graduate students, and status that assures tenure
and increased pay and emoluments.
-The Nature Conservancy knows it’s friends in US Fish & Wildlife Service
and it’s members on The Hill (i.e. The US House and Senate) will assure that
Nature Conservancy lands are “improved” “the firstist with the mostist”
as the old saying goes.
-Cattlemen anticipate Federal grazing lands and private pastures will benefit
from increased damage control. However, they are sure to be disappointed because
of the next goal.
-Environmentalist and animal rights radicals are quietly watching like a pack of
wolves from the edge of the forest. Just as with the Endangered Species Act,
after passage they will descend on the agencies and the courts. Their former
employees and other sympathizers in the Federal agencies will immediately begin
to work with them “telephonically” to write regulations that lay the
groundwork for expansion. Whether it is clean lists or dirty lists, the Federal
jurisdiction will be worded to allow the “right” judge to declare Federal
authority over non-natives either collectively or as the Federal government
names them (like Endangered Species.) Then the fun begins as they sue to add
this species necessary for waterfowl management, or to stop this water control
project because it spreads species XXX. The suits will be aimed at further
restricting access or uses on public lands. They will aim to stop, disrupt, or
make things too difficult to continue hunting, fishing, trapping, pet ownership,
dog or horse use, circus movements, hiking, bike riding, rural living, logging,
ranching, farming, etc. (this last because new uses of Federal jurisdiction is a
continuously evolving matter.)
-Because of the foregoing point, “environmental lawyers” may also look
forward to salary and career enhancements of significant magnitude.
There are some others like the Advisory Committees that will provide employment
for retired politicians and their friends and relatives but space is limited.
All for what? To allow states to sell their Constitutional responsibilities for
some Federal dollars? For favored “landowners” to get Federal money to make
their property more valuable when they sell it? For bureaucrats and academics to
obtain more security and pay? For Federal land managers to continue the fiction
that state exist around Federal properties rather than that Federal properties
exist within states? For environmentalists and animal rights radicals to further
their agendas? Today, states should continue to meet their Constitutional
responsibilities to manage damage from plants and animals in their states.
Private landowners should be encouraged by state authorities to do what they can
to minimize damages or to cooperate with state programs designed to do so.
Research at state Universities can be developed and shared in concert with other
states with similar issues. Control agents from introduced flies for purple
loosestrife to effective chemicals to suppress fire ants near residences should
be made available under more responsible Federal regulations that serve only as
impediments today. Federalizing all of this won’t change the basics. Throwing
Federal money at it won’t make things better (remember the Endangered Species
Act). Federal responsibilities involve import, export, and interstate commerce
– not vilification and management of whatever species serves someone’s
nefarious purpose.
The worst results of these Federalizing proposals will be covered in the next
part, The Unintended Consequences. The subsequent article, What Must Be Done
will conclude this series. The effects of these proposals, added to previous
jurisdiction assumptions by the Federal government from the Endangered Species
Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act to the Animal Welfare Act, are a steady
diminishment of the system of government that made this country the greatest in
the world. Part 8 will discuss this issue.
Jim Beers
2 March 03
There are certain groups of
people to whom the consequences I am about to describe are truly intended.
Communists, fascists, socialists, monarchists, and folks who just plain hate the
The Federalization and reduction of state authorities for Invasive Species is
exactly like the Federalization of Endangered Species, the Federalization of
Marine Mammals (those not in international or Federal offshore waters), and the
Federalization of Animal Welfare. In each of theses areas, after the initial
media blitz of propaganda tales, Federalization through new Federal laws
resulted. No one was believed who said these things would lead to problems.
Those laws passed quicker than Mexican chili through a Norwegian and we all know
the results. Invasive Species will be no different.
Today the Federal government claims exclusive jurisdiction over any plant or
animal group it names as Endangered or Threatened under the auspices of the
Endangered Species Act. Today the Federal government regulates dog breeding,
circus animals, farmers who raise animals, animal experimenters, “exotic”
animal enclosures, research techniques and standards and many other animal uses
under the Animal Welfare Act. Today the Federal government maintains a tight lid
on any marine mammal management including total protection from any renewable
uses under the auspices of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. These increases in
Federal jurisdictions and the concomitant reduction of state jurisdictions
affect each of us in our everyday lives.
The US Constitution established a government without a King or a Supreme
Parliament. The Founding Fathers knew from firsthand experience and from ample
lessons throughout history that any strong central power was eventually abused
to the detriment of citizens. So in their real wisdom they established a central
(Federal) government that was divided into three co-equal branches. They further
limited the Federal government to the important and essential responsibilities
of defense, foreign relations, and interstate commerce. They then placed all
other governmental responsibilities at the state level. The state level is
closer to the people and therefore more responsive and accountable. Day to day
things like animal welfare, animal management and use, and maintaining the sort
of wild environment desired by the residents of each state is not and should not
be a Federal responsibility. Even Federal lands within a state should be managed
in cooperation with the state except where an over-riding Federal interest or
other landowner interest dictates otherwise. As all of us (citizens, states,
interest groups, bureaucrats, businessmen, and politicians) acquiesce in the
growth of this trend we steadily change our form of government to where the
Chinese, North Koreans, and many Moslem countries are today. That is a
government system where all property and all day-to-day activities are
controlled and dictated by an unaccountable Federal or central government. Not
unaccountable you say? Do you think the current battle over Federal judge
appointments portends anything but the appointment of Federal judges who heel to
powerful politicians or certain ideologies? Do you not think that if an
“urban” President or a socialist President gets elected it will be any
harder to seize the reins of power than Hitler did from the German Reichstag
(Parliament)? When all the power is in one place, the guy who controls that
place controls the power. If this trend continues the future is too awful to
contemplate. While environmental groups, animal rights groups, and many urban
supporters of rural “clearances” for wildlife and wild areas (i.e. Wildlands)
know that what they are doing by Federalizing everything is the only way to
achieve their goals, they too will surely see the sad result come home to roost
on them eventually. The loss of state authorities and the growth of an
unaccountable central power only creates a habitat for a rat and when you do
that you can be sure of one thing, a rat will come. We must all understand what
this Federalizing of every human whim leads to, before it is too late.
Unnoticed too will be an eventual additional justification for even more annual
land purchasing by the Federal government and by state governments using Federal
money as the Invasive Species program matures. State land acquisitions using
Federal funds may as well be Federal lands because when you use Federal funds
you are answerable to all current and futures Federal whims as many states have
discovered. Environmentalists will discover that they can justify stopping all
grazing or logging in this valley or on these soils because exotic species X
seeds are present in the soil or how certain private properties “infect”
Federal properties. Stopping uses will diminish profitability and eventually
make the properties ripe for The Nature Conservancy or any of a half dozen
Federal agencies to buy it out “for the environment”.
Land Uses over greater and greater areas will come under Federal control as
cheatgrass or purple loosestrife are alleged to be “spread” by discing or
grazing.
Transportation of animals and plants will likewise be steadily constricted by
Federal regulations as open transportation or swine in trucks or dog kennels are
claimed as vectors for (fill in the blank).
All of these lesser-unintended consequences are of little import though
eventually. Whenever that point is reached where states realize and accept an
“inferior” role in our government vis a viz the Federal government the
situation for us will be similar to when England controlled Ireland 100 years
ago or like China controls Tibet today. State governments are becoming more and
more like interest group clients of Federal largesse and less and less like
powerful units of government with specific roles and responsibilities. An
all-powerful central government that accumulates all that power for “good”
reasons will behave just like George III or Kim Jong Il. That is to say in
it’s own interest to the detriment of everyone else.
This is why the reform of these other statutes is so important. This is why it
is very important to work to reduce the Federal government in these areas of
growth. This is why squarely facing reducing budgets, reducing personnel, and
reducing authorities at the Federal level is more important today that ever
before.
The next Part (9) will end this series and will suggest What (I believe) Must Be
Done. I thank those of you who have read these articles and I hope this final
one, even though it is tougher to suggest sound ideas than to condemn past ones
or explain recent history, is worthwhile and useful to you.
Jim Beers
2 March 03
There are three things that
come to mind as I consider how to conclude this series with some positive
recommendations. The first suggestion is to let your Federal politicians know
what you feel strongly about. When they think that they may lose reelection
because enough people are watching and informed they will do the right things.
Federal politicians are the key right now because Federal legislation is the
absolutely necessary thing if Invasive Species are to be Federalized like
Endangered Species was 30 years ago. The following is an open letter to my two
Senators, my Congressman, and the Chairmen of the House and the Senates
Committees on Agriculture and on Resources (the four Committees who will handle
Invasive Species proposals.)
Dear Sir:
The Invasive Species proposal(s) being floated today are the result of four
years of intensive organization and concerted effort by bureaucrats,
environmentalists, rich lobby groups, academics, states, businesses, and others
to pass legislation under this rubric. I strongly believe that it will further
diminish the Constitutional authorities of the states over all plants and
animals (except those specifically covered in Treaties like migratory birds)
while expanding the authority of Federal bureaucrats and allied powerful
environmental groups and animal rights groups over private property and the full
range of citizen activities involving both wild and domestic plants and animals.
It will be quickly expanded to cover every “non-native” or “exotic”
plant and animal because of the Endangered Species Act experiences of the past
30 years no matter how it is worded. Preventing passage of such legislation
(along with reform of the Endangered Species Act) is the most pressing
legislative need of the present day, in my opinion.
I ask that you oppose these proposals because they are wrong and harmful in many
ways. I suggest respectfully that you affirm the Constitutional jurisdiction of
state governments over all wild and domestic plants and animals within their
state while affirming the sound concept that damage by plants or animals is of
no different concern or of no Federal moment merely because it is a recently
arrived species as contrasted with one that has been here since the ice age. In
other words non-native or exotic species are every bit as much under the primary
jurisdiction of state governments as the turkeys and white oaks descended from
the ones which were here in 1778 or 1492 for that matter. I suggest that
legislation is needed to do this.
You could simultaneously affirm the strong and powerful commitment of the
Federal government to manage their own Constitutional responsibilities to
regulate import, export, and interstate commerce of all plants and animals so as
to reinforce state management and damage control priorities. You could order a
report by USDA of all state damage management priorities reduced to
recommendations for research and damage management operations that the states
want and recommendations for Federal land management agencies to do on Federal
lands WITHIN EACH STATE TO COMPLY WITH STATE PRIORITIES IN THAT STATE. Some
grant money could eventually be made available to states, at their discretion,
where large Federal landholdings exist or where many states want to work
together on common problems. University money should go through states to meet
the needs of a particular state. This protects property owners and keeps
academics in a support role where research belongs. Not distinguishing exotics
reduces future mischief (going after brown trout, pheasants, day lilies, etc.)
to a minimum and not growing Federal power in this area reduces the desire to
Federalize. So I would propose a hearing or proposed legislation to do something
like the following.
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ACT
Purpose: To assure Federal cooperation with state government activities to
minimize environmental and other damage from wild and domestic plants and
animals in order to assure a healthy and productive national environment.
Background: Recognizing the complimentary legal and management roles of the
state and Federal governments regarding both wild and domestic plants and
animals such that the state governments have jurisdiction over all plants and
animals within their borders with the exception of those specifically named in
Treaties such as the various Migratory Bird Treaties with foreign powers and
further recognizing the specific role of the Federal governments to regulate the
import, export, and interstate commerce involving all plants and animals and
further recognizing the need to both minimize current damage caused by plants
and animals while further reducing the threat of increasing such damage through
interstate commerce, import, or export of plants or animals: it is therefore
seen to be salutary to coordinate all such governmental activities as much as
possible.
Therefore be it resolved that:
1. All Federal land unit managers (right term??) will consult with the
governments of the state wherein they are located and that they will manage and
plan operations on those land units to compliment the plant and animal damage
priorities of that state.
2. The USDA will inventory the plant and animal damage management priorities of
each state and report (by XXX) to Congress on how Federal land management,
import, export, and interstate activities can be coordinated to compliment those
priorities within current budgets.
3. The USDA and USDoI will cooperate and submit a report to Congress (by XXX)
detailing the research needs that reflect state priorities to minimize plant and
animal damage to the environment accompanied by a budget recommendation for a
national research grant program to make research money available to states for
the states, at their discretion, to contract with universities or private
researchers to develop the information necessary to make state plant and animal
damage efforts as effective as possible.
I could go on but this probably says it all. Pre-empting the Invasive Species’
proposals with a positive reinforcement of state and Federal authorities plus a
positive response to damage complaints that recognizes that management of all
plants and animals (including elimination where appropriate) would go a long way
toward minimizing environmental damages and justifying needed reforms of the
Endangered Species Act. The sponsors would be on the side of the angels.
Opponents would have to explain why non-natives are bad (they can’t), why any
Federal authority should supplant existing state Constitutional authority (amend
the Constitution if that is necessary), why giving any Federal money (if any
“has” to be used to save us) directly to states to manage these “Billions
of dollars of damage” does anything other than eliminate Federal controls,
eliminate Federal “overhead” and maximize the money spent “on the
ground”. It also affirms that states don’t exist around Federal properties
but rather that Federal properties exist within states. Opponents would have to
come out in the open to plead for the “poor landowners” like The Nature
Conservancy & the Federal land managing agencies. Let them do just what you
and I would have to do, that is pay for damage control out of our own pockets on
our own land or forego frivolous (and there will be lots of this) mandates that
the Invasive Species proponents are ready to employ. Finally, this doesn’t
jeopardize property owners and it doesn’t give bureaucrats and interest groups
any more power.
Yours truly,
This is not meant to be anything more than my best shot at focusing my
experience and training into a recommendation I think might help at this time.
Proposing Federal legislation is merely the best I can come up with considering
that there is no organized opposition at this time. The best opposition is what
happened to the $40 Billion Conservation and Reinvestment Act when public
awareness reached a critical mass and groups and organizations got together and
stopped it. Unless and until that happens this is the best I can do.
It is worthwhile to keep in mind what happened recently with Campaign Finance
Reform. The very Senators and Congressmen who voted for it recently attended
seminars on what it means to them. Many were stunned that there were so many
criminal liabilities for themselves. As one so eloquently put it, they usually
pass this stuff and leave the details to the agencies to sort out. Well we
don’t need to continue letting the agencies “sort things out” and if
politicians can’t figure out things that affect them as personally as Campaign
Finance Reform, well what chance is there that they will get Invasive Species
right or that they got Endangered Species right?
Second, and perhaps most important of all, each of us needs to mention these
things to friends, relatives, and coworkers. Each of us needs to let our
favorite organizations know how we feel and ask them why they do not support
these things. Only when the Ducks Unlimiteds, National Rifle Associations,
Homeowner Associations, Kennel Clubs, Trapper Associations, Loggers e-Groups,
Ranchers, and all our other societies and fraternal groups mention these things
in magazines, newsletters, and their stated positions will we get the attention
of politicians who will otherwise pass this stuff. There is no substitute for
public awareness and concerted action in a nation like ours.
Finally, each of us should be aware of what goes on at the state level. While no
state, just like no form of government, is perfect’ they are the best
protectors of our freedoms. States are much more amenable to change than a
remote Federal government. When your state abdicates its’ role for Federal
funds or any other reason it is up to you to call those politicians on the
matter. When other states set bad precedents (since I am a wildlife biologist
some examples that come to my mind are Massachusetts and New Jersey effectively
banning the annual harvest of furbearers, or California abdicating management
and harvest of cougars, or other states banning the use of dogs or bait to take
bears, or Maryland passing a law to force hunters to hide game animals which
they take) we should publicize it in newspapers, newsletters, e-mails, and to
everyone we know. Our effect on state legislators in other states while minimal
is eventually large when public ridicule emerges and state residents become more
aware of what their own politicians are doing.
Invasive Species is the issue before us right now and this series has been an
attempt to help us all arrive at the best solution to the problems facing us. It
has always been a constant battle in this country to maintain freedoms while
moving forward in an ever-changing world of problems and factions. This is, I
believe, what Ben Franklin was referring to when he answered a question as he
emerged from a meeting of the Constitutional Convention. He was asked what form
of government Americans were going to get. He answered, a Republic, if you can
keep it.
Jim Beers
3 March 03
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
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