From: Jim Beers [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 11:48 AM
To: Jim Beers
Subject: Wolves, Woodpeckers, & Whales
WOLVES, WOODPECKERS, & WHALES
>From The Idaho Statesman -
Article published Nov 18, 2005
Despite new rules, F&G won't kill wolves anytime soon Agency lacks solid evidence linking animals to dead elk
JEROME - Idaho Department of Fish and Game is not likely to begin killing wolves anytime soon under new endangered species act rules, staff biologists and director Steve Huffaker told commissioners at their regular meeting Thursday.
Commissioners and Huffaker said the public and the Idaho Legislature might have "unrealistic expectations" about what the department can do under the federal 10J rule.Section 11 (h) of the ESA and Title 7 of the U.S. Code both have provisions for defense of agriculture and game herds from predators..
F&G director Steve Huffaker pointed out that for 15 years, Minnesota's fish and game agency has tried unsuccessfully to make a case that wolves are hurting its white-tailed deer herds.
"They haven't been able to demonstrate cause-and-effect relationships between deer and wolves," Huffaker said. "Establishing cause-and-effect relationships in a complicated ecosystem is a very difficult thing to do."
"We're not going to make a political decision, we're going to make a good, science-based decision," he said. "I don't want anyone to think we're not going to be objective, but I'm not naive enough to think there won't be different interpretations."
And thus do the good people of Idaho join the untold millions that believed the government carnival barkers outside the Endangered Species tent only to go in and be shuffled past a jiggling mannequin and out the back of the tent. The old lawyer joke says it best. "How can you tell when a bureaucrat is lying? His lips are moving."
It has been vastly amusing to this old bureaucrat over the past decade as lie after lie were told by government bureaucrats and their environmental/animal rights radical 'partners' about wolves. Things no one would believe about free-ranging Pit Bulls or Rottweillers or Dobermans, or even Labrador Retrievers are accepted with smiles about those "wonderful" wild wolves weighing 175 lbs. or more. "They only kill what they eat." "They only kill the old and sickly." "Livestock losses will be compensated by the Defenders of Wildlife." "Everything BUT wolves is responsible for the decline in elk and other big game where wolves are ascendant." "Wolves NEVER attack people." "Wolves always." "Wolves never." "Wolves are endangered." "Wolves are bringing back willows near streams by controlling browsing animals like elk." "Wolves are GOOD for the environment." The government agencies and radical groups that introduced the wolves are "not responsible" when those wolves kill stock or pets or game animals or even children. And the biggest lie of all, "don't worry, when the wolves are 'recovered' management will be turned over to the states with 'approved plans'." Gag me with a spoon!
An "approved plan" was, is, and will always be a leash on the state government that the Federal bureaucrats, their radical 'partners', and/or a (think Ninth Circuit) judge can yank them off their feet with at any time.
Like a young dog being trained to "come" or "heel", a swift and firm yank on the line does wonders for future behavior. No matter how natural the dog's future behavior appears, never forget it is the will of the master imposed effectively on the lesser being.
The silly nonsense in the above article about how the state must "demonstrate cause-and-effect relationships between wolves and (fill in the blank)" must have been written by a lawyer dressed up like a biologist (radicals are good at that). First, the Federal bureaucrat will say your "data" is inconclusive. Then the bureaucrat will shake his head and say that "NEPA requirements" must be met.
---NOTE: On the same day as the above wolf article appeared, the following appeared:
Bush admin advises task force to go easy on NEPA
Tasha Eichenseher, E&E Daily reporter
The House task force evaluating the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) should avoid recommending sweeping changes to the law, according to James Connaughton, chairman of the White House's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).---
If you still persist, the radicals will publish and whine that you will "kill all the wolves in (fill in the blank)". They will get lots of contributions from their urban precincts and their lawyers will "threaten" a lawsuit and the Federal bureaucrats will assure them (as if it wasn't all a set-up and they had just "done lunch together last week) that they will "get more data" and rewrite the regulations. And if you still persist you will need to hire your own lawyer and you will turn to your state politicians and bureaucrats.
Your state bureaucrats will tell you there is nothing they can do. The "approved plan" requires Federal concurrence and besides they get a big chunk of their operating funds from the same Federal agency and they are on the verge of getting lots more Federal funding through the same Federal agency. The state politicians will chirp in that the state fish and wildlife agency (and nearly all other state agencies) are VERY dependent on Federal funding and besides the state Fish and Wildlife Commission (or Board) recommends against jeopardizing Federal excise taxes for hunting and fishing by antagonizing the US Fish and Wildlife Service. After a couple of phone calls or meetings with your state fish and wildlife employees you will note the shock collar they wear around their neck. It is really controlled by their nearest US Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Office although they tell the Governor that the state legislature controls it and they tell the state legislature that the Governor controls it.
Then there is your "data". Obtaining it from state fish and wildlife employees will not survive "peer review" by "scientists" that are both members of radical organizations and in the government pay . University professors who are "fair" and not tithing to the Fund for Animals or already on the government grant cycle are not only hard to find, they are even harder to get to help you because it will antagonize all their radical colleagues and the University administrators whose nose for political correctness exceeds that of a southern jail bloodhound.
If you still persist, a lawsuit to a "favorable" judge can always be counted on to get a "stay" or an "order" that shoots you out of the saddle. If you still have any money left (unlikely by now) you appeal and then "they" (the radicals and their "secret partners" in 'your' bureaucracy) appeal and by then the elk are gone, your kids are all couch potatoes in your apartment and your idea of recreation is watching cricket matches from Bombay on your big screen TV.
How do I know this? Easy. Let's just note 2 examples. The first one from 35 years ago when all this environmental/animal rights socialism was taking off and the other from the pages of our current newspapers.
In 1972 the Marine Mammal Protection Act "preempted" (that means dissolved) all state authority and jurisdiction over any marine mammals. This was considered "revolutionary" at the time, believe it or not. ALL the new Federal authority over marine mammals was clearly directed toward ELIMINATING all management and use of ALL marine mammals. While this was certainly the case, the sponsors and supporters vehemently denied it. They pointed to the sections of the new law that said when marine mammal species attain "Optimum Sustainable Populations" (that is "OSP" to those of us "in the know") seals and whales and porpoises and sea lions and sea otters and polar bears et al could be managed and used (hunted, made into products, etc.) and controlled (seals depress commercial rock lobsters off Africa and salmon along the west coast and cod in the North Atlantic, sea otters have decimated abalone fisheries, killer whales are decimating sea otters in the Aleutians, whales seriously depress commercial fisheries worldwide, to name but a few problems today). Yes, yes, when "OSP" is attained, management would be returned to states, management plans would be drawn up, commercial and recreational uses would begin, controls would be implemented etc., etc.
Well here we are almost four decades later and the number of marine mammal species being managed, hunted, controlled, or used is zero. It is still all but impossible to even bring home a polar bear hide legally taken in Canada or Russia. "OSP", like the "cause and effect relationships between deer and wolves" is NOT reducible to "sound science" or "peer-reviewed data". They are OPINIONS and therefore not amenable to a court decision or a government regulation. They are political chicanery unfettered by a Constitution or any other restraint. They are the battleground between hunters, trappers, ranchers, loggers, pet owners, and rural residents faced with an army of radicals, extremists, and socialists bent on vacating and then controlling rural America. The winners are the ones with the most money and, in so many of these cases, the most urban do-gooders in need of a feel-good cause that does not affect their style of living. Which brings us to woodpeckers.
Two years ago the Federal bureaucrats and their University and other radical partners embarked on a "secret" conservation gambit. The got millions from Congress, bought and eased thousands of Arkansas acres, and began a public program to control 5.5 MILLION acres of southern forests to "save" the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. This bird had been extinct for 60+ years but based on a grainy 4-second video shot of a distant non-descript bird and the "confirmed sightings" of enthusiasts, the program was a success. More money (to agencies and radical outfits); more lands under their control; more control of a heretofore (compared to the West) uncontrolled part of the nation; and tons of warm-fuzzy publicity for posturing politicians, boastful bureaucrats, and revolutionary radicals were all generated.
Only thing is: there aren't and weren't any Ivory-billed Woodpeckers (just like there weren't lynx leaving hair on government scent posts a couple of years ago either). This small fact goes unmentioned as the Discovery Channel and others tout the whole sordid affair and the "perps" (the correct term) all go on to fame and fortune. To prove my point, the following article came out on the same day as the wolf article quoted above:
Congress Helps Self to $3,100 Pay Raise
By DAVID ESPO
The Associated Press
Friday, November 18, 2005; 11:44 PM
"WASHINGTON -- The Republican-controlled Congress helped itself to a $3,100 pay raise on Friday, then postponed work on bills to curb spending on social programs and cut taxes in favor of a two-week vacation."
For those of you unfamiliar with Washington chicanery, the top political appointees and ALL the top agency bureaucrat's salaries are tied together with these "Congressional Pay Raises". In other words when our esteemed Federal politicians vote themselves a raise, ALL THE TOP BUREAUCRATS get a comparable raise to go with their up to $50,000 annual bonuses! Wolves, woodpeckers, and whales are but a small part of their "successes".
So say slowly after me: "I believe that states will get management authority over wolves; I believe when marine mammals reach OSP they will once again be managed sensibly; and (last but not least) I believe Ivory-billed Woodpeckers and the tooth fairy exist and need our help". Very good! Now your homework is to memorize this and be ready at a moment's notice to say it immediately if anyone ever suggests that more Federal controls are not the answer to any environmental issue.
There is probably more disheartening news going unreported on that Black Friday, 18 November 2005. Too much bad news being reported at one time tends to bring those being harmed together and that does nothing but cause trouble for those in charge. Fortunately our news media protects us from that danger most of the time.
20 November 2005
If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others. Thanks.
This article and other recent articles by Jim Beers can be found at
Jim Beers is available for consulting or to speak. Contact: