I recently wrote some colleagues that”:
“Bad laws” not only “ensure bad results”: they are like the bushel baskets full of oysters (and salt water) that some East Coast bay man totes in the bed of his pickup from boat to market 5 days a week. Pretty soon the bed and then the truck shows evidence of rusty corrosion but by then it is too late. The rust spreads, the value of the truck plummets to nothing, and he just keeps driving it until it falls apart.
These bad laws are like that salt water dripping from those baskets and we are noticing more and more corrosion while we try to tell ourselves that it isn’t too bad and we should get more years from the truck. But we are just fooling ourselves. Rural America (and urban America as well but no one dares mention it) is the truck and we not only no longer care for it but we abuse it (and the people that live there and use it) because we accept lies from government on behalf of the rich and powerful about what a good thing it is to protect large, deadly and destructive predators that eradicate game animals, ranchers, and rural communities on behalf of pagan claptrap about biology and more hidden agendas than termites in an African termite mound.
A colleague responded that:
“No need to explain why something needs to be done about this ever-increasing problem, the next line of questions, when, how…and by whom?”
——————————————————————————————————————-
My response-
THE problem is (unjust, un-Constitutional, tyrannical, etc.) absolute power given to central government bureaucrats in federal legislation like the ESA, Animal Welfare Act and similar Acts “enforced”, administered and regulated by US Fish & Wildlife Service, National Park Service, EPA, US Forest Service and BLM. In a word, it is Political.
Regarding wolves; federal bureaucracies, and especially USFWS, have stolen money from state wildlife agencies, introduced and protected wolves and with few exceptions converted the State Wildlife Agencies and environmental scientists, Universities and “science” into little more than paid subcontractors for federal agendas. Federal politicians and bureaucrats are rewarded with money, votes (mostly urban) and fame for doing what rich individuals and rich and radical environmental organizations want for a host of hidden agendas from eliminating hunting and private property in vast swaths of America to reducing the human population and stripping most of the human benefits created in the past century.
Both federal Legislatures and the Presidency benefit from happy environmental radicals and the “Deep State”, “Swamp”, (whatever you want to call it) that manages ESA, wolves, grizz, etc. for them. Federal judges are nominated and ratified by those folks and this accounts for the increasing national divide in courtrooms reflected in whether “your” judge emerged under Democrat or Republican reigns.
The naked truth is that, like abortion, the Democrat Party is 100% behind this environmentalism and anyone deviating from that absolute support is marginalized and either silenced or removed. The Republican Party has many members that talk a good game about “doing something” about these matters depending on the temper of those that elect them, but it is only talk. Given the declining rural voting numbers, electing and expecting a good person to be able to fight to limit the power of the bureaucracy in these matters is wistful, to say the least.
All through this the federal bureaucracy gets increasing budgets, more higher-grade positions (and retirements), bigger bonuses, and a publicly unchallengeable authority no matter the basis or outcomes.
The current Administration boasts it is “de-regulating” and it is but “de-regulating” is only a temporary fix because it only reflects the authority of the current President and his appointees. What they do can (and will) be undone done in a New York nanosecond by the next President who, if the last fifty years tell us anything, will be a “Deep State” or ”Swamp” enabler to his or her bones as will their successor for a long time. The Mueller Probe alone tells us that but don’t forget the IRS, FBI and DOJ’s recent history as political weapons that appear to only be growing bolder and stronger about controlling us on behalf of our rulers. Consider getting political support for things like wolves and grizzlies in this climate. A Yukon trapper just killed a grizzly near his cabin and then discovered his 10-month-old baby and its mother ripped apart where they had tried to flee the same grizzly. Do we hear even one peep from rural Americans in the Lower 48 about the insanity of spreading and protecting grizzly bears by the federal government in the Lower 48? From any of “our” NGO’s or state governments?
The current Administration tells us they are “purging” environmental radical bureaucrats. I watched the current federal natural resource bureaucrats pop up out of the mud in the 1980’s and 90’s, often in high positions immediately. Using the new race and sex preferences that financially benefitted cooperating top managers quite handsomely; common sense and scientifically educated bureaucrats were steadily replaced by extremist activists with actual animus toward the agencies and their historic missions FOR THE BENEFIT OF PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY THOSE LIVING WITH AND/OR UTILIZING THOSE RESOURCES. Not only 20+years of such “purging” and hiring (I was terminated in 2000) but more importantly how they each replicated each other when hiring, promoting and awarding bonuses like wolves and grizzlies being imposed into settled landscapes has created a federal (and most state) radical workforce that if not reduced by 75% each year and then kept below 25% of current levels while Universities and science are reformed, will defy any controls by whatever it takes.
Unless we amend this top-down, federal mandate approach to wildlife management, all the “de-regulation” and personnel changes will be temporary at best. So, one might ask, “what can we do”? We must change the authority and jurisdictions that has been given to federal bureaucrats and replace it with a restoration of state authority over wildlife in the State excepting those species covered by ratified Treaties. Federal concerns about “endangered” species (not sub sp., races, populations, etc.) should be proposed to the State with rationale, objective and federal funding for however long proposed. State acceptance should allow amendments and require both legislative and Governor acceptance. This is where rural residents of the state need to restructure the state ratification of such proposals to give rural residents increased ratification weight in the approval process.
So how do we get there in the present political “climate”?
I live in a very liberal, Democrat state. The only Republican elected last month was a dogcatcher in some rural norther County and has since been forced to flee when Antifa arrived in town. (That is a joke.)
About 4 hours ago I put out my flag and picked up my Saturday edition of the Minneapolis Star Tribune in the driveway. When I opened it, the front page had an article, “Students get charged up about climate change”. Here are some excerpts:
- “When it comes to confronting climate change” “Some adults get struck on certain things” and “No is not acceptable.”
- “Youthful advocates are leading rallies, gathering petitions and taking daring climate resolutions to City Halls and County Boardrooms”.
- “But they’ve also studied their own backyards – from the urban core to the suburbs and small towns.”
- “So iMatter (sic note the little ‘you’ in the name of one of this little-known enviro front organization) studies the energy behind other movements, including the fight for civil rights and same sex marriage.”
- “Emotions make movements.”
- “Young people can personalize this, can reach people at an emotional level.”
- “Cities can make a big difference.” “You get an enough grass roots action happening… it can force the state and federal government to move.”
- “The city (sic Grand Marais, an expensive, elite enclave on the North Shore of Lake Superior) has even hired a climate change Coordinator, a position funded by a McKnight Foundation Grant.”
- “It’s a very individualistic place”, said Craig Feist, 17, of Finlayson, about 100 miles north of the Twin Cities. “People have their land, and they consider that their domain and do kind of whatever they want to do on it.”
Now I could call this a Socialist/Communist approach to brainwashing young minds and setting the stage for a government takeover because it is the reverse of Mao Tse Tung’s Cultural Revolution wherein the rural peasants occupied and purged the cities and the elites. It is a rare glimpse into how these liberal bastions gain, keep and control political power. Here we have the privileged elites using their children to lay the groundwork for purging the countryside and those yokels that oppose any of their agendas. However, I ask you to consider how “our side” in this environmental confrontation has behaved and can be expected to continue to behave:
- Do we energize young rural students to dismiss adults with whom they disagree?
- Do we send kids into the cities to explain what wolves and grizzlies and many other GI (Government Issue) animals are doing to our communities?
- Do we send kids forth to defend property rights to property-less urbanites?
- Do we condemn urbanites for being herd-animals (versus “individualistic”)?
- Do we presume to brag that we have “studied” our home places and therefore have the right to lecture and abjure urban know-nothings?
- Do we send forth youthful missionaries to cities to explain why it is so important to “Keep and Bear Arms”?
- Would we rightly expect rural youth to be listened to in almost any city if they extolled such things publicly without fearing of violent reactions?
Until we can put the environmental genie of unjust federal power back in the bottle I cannot imagine how anything really changes. We are forced to maneuver outside the walls of government about controlling wolves; limiting future areas to be infested; how controls will be effected; who will do the controlling; how long will controls be effected; and how will it all be paid for? Traps are nasty and inhumane. Snares are icky and unacceptable non-target species. Planes are illegal and uncontrollable over property. Can controls be forced in private properties or government landholdings? When can control be exercised? When killing livestock or pets? When in a yard? When appearing sick? Who is responsible for rabid wolves or human infection outbreaks like tapeworms, etc.? Can wolf population target levels be based on big game numbers, livestock depredations, human attacks or imagined threats like hanging around school bus stops? Can hides be sold for trophies or home decorations? Can any County or State say, “We don’t want any wolves here and we want to be able to kill any wolf here year-around”?
It is only realistic to see a hodgepodge of temporary and conflicting results emerging and being challenged (until the next President is elected).
Jim Beers
8 December 2018
If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others. Thanks.
Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC. He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands. He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC. He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority. He resides in Eagan, Minnesota with his wife of many decades.
You can receive future articles by sending a request with your e-mail address to: jimbeers7@comcast.net
If you no longer wish to receive these articles notify: jimbeers7@comcast.net
