The scientists said wolves in the three states still face threats
because
their numbers remain relatively small and because the wolf
populations in
the Yellowstone area, in central Idaho and in northwest
Montana don't
intermingle."
This "news item" recently crossed my desk
accompanied by the following
question, "are these so called scientists
seeking to protect grants and
other cash flows associated with having the
animal on the list?"
Before I answer, think about tax-exempt Foundations
and Trusts and
Conservancies. Think about Forest Service land closures
and restrictions.
Think about Federal bills perking in Washington, DC like
the Northern
Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act that, while being more
appropriate to
Russia or Germany in the 1930's, lie ticking in Congressional
school desks
during a period of national history that resembles the
notorious late 1960's
to late 1970's when unimaginably radical
"environmental" and "animal" laws
were also passed. Think about
ideologue bureaucrats "networking" with
radicals that share their ignorance
of and disdain for the management and
use of natural resources. Think
about wolves and grizzlies that are killing
and will increasingly kill rural
inhabitants on paths, in sleeping bags,
hunting, etc. as well as their dogs
and livestock and formerly abundant big
game animals. Think about the
"science" underpinning and dictating all this
like the Psychological
pronouncement underpinning and formulating abortion.
Are the "230
scientists" in it for the Federal money flow "past, present,
and future" to
borrow from Dickens' 'A Christmas Carol'"? Are the "230
scientists"
all on one form or another of the "public mammary" like agencies
or
Universities or Foundations that contract and/or subcontract public
funding? Are the "230 scientists" interested in the implications of
wolves
for tenure or retirement or public recognition? Do you think
any of the
"230 scientists" brought preconceived notions to the formulation
of their
recommendations like certain psychologists do to abortion? Is
the "weight"
of the words of "230 scientists" some sort of inarguable
position that
should cause everyone else to fold up their tents and go
home?
Two books have just come on the market that should be mandatory
reading for
all Americans. (It occurs to me that if all of us who
believe this about
these two books gave our Federal politicians enough
money, they could pass a
law that would give more tax money to some Federal
agency that could force
all Americans to have copies of the two books and be
familiar with them.
That is no more un-American than forcing horse owners to
keep unwanted
horses or threatening cockfighters with a felony. But I
digress.)
The first book is WOLVES IN RUSSIA by WILL GRAVES. This
book describes (for
the non-scientist patriot) 150 years of the
recently-recorded history of
wolves in Russia from Eastern Europe to the
Pacific. No hidden agendas, no
punches pulled: during war and during
social upheavals; under the Czar and
under Communism and under the current
government; during cold winters and
dry summers; human deaths; livestock
losses; and game animal impacts in all
their unvarnished and unembellished
"glory". Pay special attention to all
the documented diseases that
wolves carry and transmit (anthrax,
foot-in-mouth, brucellosis, rabies,
intestinal parasites) and consider those
that they logically transmit in
various ways like chronic wasting disease
and mad cow disease. Wolves
are mortal dangers to men and stock and pets
and wildlife yet none of this
is ever even mentioned in the reams of
"scientific" data churned out by the
"230 scientists" and their ilk for the
past 30 years For anyone
interested in of affected by or threatened by the
environmental and animal
rights agendas I highly recommend this book. Read
it not just for the
history but compare it to what passes for "science"
today and ask yourself,
how we ever let groups like these "230 scientists"
take over our society
like witch doctors or medicine men in corrupt pagan
societies? You can
obtain Mr. Graves' book by going to
www.wolvesinrussiacomThe
second book is Tom Bethell's "The Politically Incorrect Guide to
Science"
published by Regnery. Mr William Rusher reports that the book
describes how "science is forever used, like everything else, to reinforce
political viewpoints". In a telling assessment Mr. Rusher reports also
that, "scientists are human like the rest of us, with their full complement
of opinions and biases on all sorts of subjects not squarely in their field
of expertise. And not surprisingly, a lot of them are happy to rely on
their reputations as unbiased experts to promote political causes of one
sort or another. In many cases they don't even recognize what they are
doing; they simply confuse what they know with what they want."
"They
simply confuse what they know with what they want", couldn't have said
it
better myself.
Should such information be the basis of law? Of
society? Should it dictate
Tax Exemptions for land conservation
scams? Should it be a basis for
societal accommodations toward the
unborn, the elderly, the infirm, or the
use of human cells? Should it
be the justification for closing public land
to the public? Should it
be the reason we deny the rights of property
owners. Should it be the
rationale for preventing research on animals or
hunting or fishing or
logging or grazing or the proactive management of
renewable natural
resources? Can it justify turning public lands into
tinderboxes that
when they burn up nearby private property Federal
firefighters have the
audacity to tell us "shouldn't be there" or that the
government "must buy"
in the future? Should it provide a rationale for
erasing
Constitutional provisions and turn this nation into a Socialist
Democracy
where one government and the currently powerful run everything and
everybody? I don't think so. It should never be the ONLY
consideration nor
should it stand-alone. Human decisions and political
policies have moral
and social dimensions that, to mention but two, outweigh
science that, while
it must be taken into account, must be considered and
adapted to man and his
informed needs: not the other way around.
What
do you think? That is just as important and in many ways far more
important than "easement salesmen", "psychologists", and "230
scientists".
Jim Beers
19 May 2007
- If you found this
worthwhile, please share it with others. Thanks.
- This article and
other recent articles by Jim Beers can be found
at
https://jimbeers.blogster.com (Jim Beers Common Sense)
-
Jim Beers is available for consulting or to speak. Contact:
jimbeers7@verizon.net- Jim Beers
is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist,
Special
Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow.
He was
stationed in 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
Centreville,
Virginia with his wife of many decades
This information and much more that you need to
know about the ESA, the Klamath Basin, and private property rights can be found
at The Klamath Bucket Brigade's website -
https://www.klamathbucketbrigade.org/
-- please visit today.
----------------
Outgoing mail is
certified Virus Free.
Checked by McAfee VirusScan
Installed September 7,
2003 - Updated May 16, 2007