Predator Management (An Urban Fairy Tale)

by JIM BEERS

Imagine the federal government proposing to reduce urban crime by
transferring known criminals to rural areas and small towns. Suppose
further that several University researchers had conducted
federally-subsidized studies "indicating" that rural areas and small towns
would benefit from the presence of these criminals. Benefits such as more
diverse communities and the introduction of new cultures and values could be
had in no other way according to "experts". The money saved by reducing
prisons would be in the billions and "much" of that could be used for
"education" and "welfare" and "bringing our troops home": who could oppose
such a thing? While agreeing that some things like unlocked doors, evening
strolls, and gun availability would necessarily change in rural areas; rural
citizens were assured by bureaucrats and politicians that many benefits that
were probably incomprehensible to most rural residents were sure to follow
along.

As the rural populous was objecting to this "proposal", suppose the federal
government simply rounded up the urban criminals and scattered them around
the rural countryside. Then imagine that the federal government would
arrest and charge with a felony, anyone killing or harming or even harassing
any of these criminals unless it was perfectly clear to federal
investigators after-the-fact that the person who killed the criminal was
himself, or one of his immediate family members, absolutely on the verge of
being killed by one of these criminals and escape was impossible. Federal
regulations would be "published" that described how citizens threatened by
criminals should not look at the criminal or "puff up" and how you should
"roll up in a ball" (leaving your wallet or purse available) or else
anything that happened subsequently would be "your" fault.

When the criminals began killing and maiming watchdogs and hanging around
bus stops and going through yards, rural residents were cautioned to "stay
inside" and only let out pets "on a leash". When livestock began to
disappear or be found dying from horrendous wounds, farmers and ranchers
were told that they had no business leaving animals unattended. As
complaints mounted the federal overseer of this criminal program finally
relented and appointed The Defenders of Criminals to "pay" rural animal
owners for damages, only the owners were unable to "prove" what unseen
criminals had done. No matter, the federal overseer and urban newspapers
touted the payments as proof of no harm from dumping their criminals "out
there". Incidentally, when the overseer lost her job, The Defenders of
Criminals hired her at a very hefty salary to oversee "their" federal
interface. Lawsuits, testimony, "scientific" claims, and sub Rosa
cooperation with associated gun controllers and socialism advocacy causes
was harmonized and coupled to federal budget increases and regulatory
modifications aimed at growing the federal agency and affording total
protection to the criminals.

Other unforeseen "benefits" began to emerge. Lone hunters, campers, and
fishermen began to be attacked. Some were killed and some seriously
injured: so participation in outdoor activities from hiking and wood cutting
to rock collecting and biking dwindled. As this trend became apparent,
other University "experts" and "criminal advocates" applied for and were
given federal grants to examine the reported phenomena. Their conclusions
were that participation was dwindling because of global warming and video
games and the erosion of nuclear families, and that furthermore reported
"attacks" were both unproven and exaggerated and that there was reason to
suspect that anti-criminal rural elements had staged the incidents to stop
the spread of this very successful program. They recommended capturing and
removing individual criminals who, could be conclusively shown to have,
committed three very serious crimes. While this relieved some rural
residents, it soon became apparent that the three time offenders were merely
driven far away but soon returned to where they enjoyed life so much. Since
capital punishment was always vigorously opposed by urban voters and federal
politicians and the criminals were reproducing at alarming rates in their
uncontrolled environment, the relocation effort was soon abandoned.

As the harms to rural communities expanded and complaints became more
vociferous, federal overseers and federal politicians had hearings and
composed "Impact Studies". Urban supporters of the program made up the bulk
of those testifying in the hearings and surprisingly the politicians
listened to them and when rural objectors appeared, the politicians "had" to
vote and thus were "not present" when aggrieved folks testified. The
"Impact Studies" quoted the studies subsidized by federal grants. Meetings
for "public input" were held in urban and suburban areas. Those meetings
were "managed" by professionally trained bureaucrats from the federal
Criminal Relocation Agency. The bureaucrats did a masterful job of ejecting
"troublemakers" and directing media coverage to urban advocates for the
program that swooned and swooned about all the benefits to rural people and
how good they (the urbanites) "felt" about how the program was going.

AND SO BOYS & GIRLS. The program expanded. More and more criminals populated
the countryside and more and more rural people moved to apartments (near
Police Stations in the gun-free cities). AND EVERYONE - CRIMINALS, URBAN AND
SUBURBAN RESIDENTS, BUREAUCRATS, & POLITICIANS - ALL LIVED HAPPILY EVER
AFTER.

NOTE: This isn't really true. It is an allegory. Substitute "endangered"
WOLVES (be they "Red:", "Timber", "Gray", "Mexican" or any other contrived
label); or "endangered" GRIZZLY BEARS; OR "threatened" BLACK BEARS (in LA or
FL), or "endangered" PANTHERS; or unmanaged MOUNTAIN LIONS (i.e. cougars,
catamounts, panthers) in states like CA and IA and many others for
"criminals" and the allegory is complete.

Whether it is on the basis of being federally "classified" or "listed" as
"endangered" or "threatened" or being protected by state classifications
from "native" to "unique" to simply "protected", these very dangerous and
destructive animals are 1. spreading, 2. becoming more bold and dangerous as
they lose any fear of human beings, and 3. causing increasing economic and
health and lifestyle damage. Hmmmm, sounds just like the criminals in our
allegory.

This philosophy about "living with predators" is just like our allegory,
also. Urban voters reward politicians that fulfill their fantasies and
welfare at the expense of others they do not know or have to believe.
Criminal defenders, like wildlife predator defenders, use every trick in the
book to advance their narrow personal agendas.

Dangerous wildlife predators, like criminals will always be with us. That
said they need to be minimized as much as possible and offenders removed
quickly. In the case of criminals that means swift and sure punishment. In
the case of wild predators, that means keeping their numbers and
distribution within acceptable limits where they are to be allowed to exist.
Acceptable (to Communities affected) limits are maintained by harvesting
(i.e. killing) them in sufficient annual numbers to maintain acceptable
populations. Additionally, this requires killing those that are found
causing damage or danger swiftly and surely. This is not understood by or
supported by those who live in urban enclaves, far from the effects, just as
in our allegory wherein the criminals are changed into a "rural" problem
thereby causing urban "swoons". Imagine the reverse for a moment: how much
rural financial support could you gin up for urban public transportation
systems? How much say should rural communities have regarding how much or
what kind of public transportation their urban cousins should have? Whether
within a State or nationally, individual communities should retain the power
to regulate their lives and affairs as guaranteed in the US Constitution..
Oppressing others for whatever reason has no place in a free Republic with
Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

The answer lies in the principles agreed to by Our Founding Fathers over 200
years ago. States did not submit to a Federal government to replace a
monarchy with a central government dictatorship no matter how much it may
please other elements of society. "Our" States created a Federal government
to defend us, conduct foreign relations, and regulate commerce BETWEEN
States. Virginia (or any other State) DID NOT agree to a Federal government
to allow more numerous cities to dump their criminals on the rural
countryside any more than to force rural people to live with dangerous and
destructive "beasts" (to quote the Bible). These are matters for LOCAL
COMMUNITIES AND STATE GOVERNMENTS to determine and regulate. If we had
powerful Sheriffs as we did 200 years ago, this dumping on rural America
would not be possible.

Recovering powerful Local Governments and powerful State Governments is the
first step in recreating a Federal Government that once again defends us
(particularly in this very dangerous world today) and cannot harm us: no
matter how small our economic worth or how insignificant our political
percentage.

Jim Beers
14 April 2008

- If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others.  Thanks.

http://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.

Good Neighbor Committee
P.O. Box 155 - La Salle, CO  80645
info@goodneighborlaw.com

| Good Neighbor Law© 2006 |