Just wanted to amplify what Jim Beers is saying below.  (See article below) Thanks Norm for forwarding this great article.  As the son of a Forester, I hate to say Jim Beers is right on.  We are not in Kansas anymore.  The Department of Agriculture and Department of Interior, that Dad was so proud of long ago have been turned into political & environmental cannibals of freedom and liberty.  We used to tip our hats entering and leaving the National Forest. 
 
I just got through rereading some of the "Dear John" retirement letters to Dad when he retired in 1970 on the Gallatin National Forest out of Bozeman, MT.  Here is one comment from a Forester friend regarding the pending changes he saw in 1955, over 50 years ago.
 
"Changes both in personnel and technique have taken place since I retired at the end of 1955.  There are not many with whom I was acquainted still working for the Forest Service.  Now it looks as though we can expect great changes in the not too far future, especially with the prospects of changes in departmental organization and changes in public land laws." 
 
About 10 years ago, a friend in the Forest Service out of Kalispell, MT told me that the Forest Service was not the same anymore.  I can now better understand that comment after the last three years of witnessing the accelerated takings of private property by big government and eastern environmental extreme groups.  It is interesting to note that much of the political and financial power in America reaches out from New York and Washington DC.
 
I heard there are over 70 some environmental groups in Missoula, MT, home of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Northern Region office. This explains why, see link below. 

"The Northern Region area encompasses 25 million acres and is spread over 5 states. Included are 12 national forests located within the perimeter of northeastern Washington, northern Idaho, and Montana; and the national grasslands in North Dakota and northwestern South Dakota. " http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/

 
The Gallatin National Forest out of Bozeman, MT now has dozens of groups that challenge everything the Forest Service does.  I remember Dad was having to deal with multiple use problems of the forest in the 1960's in the Gallatin forest, i.e. motorcyclists, horseback riders, back backers, hunters, campers, kids, families, wild animals, you name it.  I do not remember him mentioning environmental extreme groups then.  He retired in 1970 just in the nick of time.
 
I was up in the Lolo National Forest above Superior Mt with an engineering friend and the local forester  They were assessing the damage after the big fire in 2000 in the  Bitterroot area.  The fire was so hot it glazed the ground to near glass.  The timber that survived was charred but usable if harvested within two years.  The forester told us some eastern environmental group was suing the Forest Service to stop any harvest.  As far as I know all the burned timber was never taken out and rotten on the ground.  What a waste of resources, revenue and jobs.  The lumber mill in Superior, MT had been closed down for some years already and the town's economy collapsed.  Montana people hate the environmental movement, as you can imagine.
 
All three branches of the state and federal government has been turned into a despotic leviathan by the extreme groups who use them for power and money.   Everybody looses their freedoms and liberties and even their lives for this nonsense.  Government has become a piece of clay for any group who has the money and power to shape it into the cannibal of choice. 
 
 
Jack Venrick
Son of the Lone Ranger
Long long ago
In a land far away
When Common Sense
Ruled the day

5 Federal Agencies

THE WRONG MODEL

The Federal government assumed a new role 100 years ago as a result of the above concerns. It would no longer make un-owned land available for purchase and it would begin purchasing and managing certain private properties in the United States. These lands would be Parks and Refuges and National Forests and Grasslands that would 1.) preserve historic areas and landmarks for all Americans; 2.) provide for the needs of birds that migrated to and from other countries; 3.) manage remote forests and grasslands to provide timber, grazing, and public uses like hunting and fishing and camping in sustainable amounts while supporting rural communities and national interests; and 4.) inventorying all the mineral deposits in the nation to prevent their depletion.

Who could have really argued with any of this? Egrets were being killed in Florida in large numbers for New York-designer Ladies’ hats. Rough clearcuts of woodlands without any thought to erosion or reforestation on steep slopes were photographed by the more sophisticated cameras and published in urban papers. Both public and private lands were grazed without benefit of our sophisticated knowledge of the impacts of certain amounts of grazing at certain times and in certain rotations tailored to various climates and plant species. Civil War Battlefields and western geographic landmarks were being developed and closed to public access. Every one (even including that maven of capitalism Andrew Carnegie) worried openly about the pending depletion of minerals and ores. Who but the Federal government could do anything to stem this tide washing over the country? Does any of this sound like “Global Warming” or “Population Bomb” or “Global Cooling” or “Desertification” or “Acid Rain” rhetoric? If it doesn’t, it should.

Today, what American could imagine life without these stalwart Federal agencies? I’ll bet that large numbers of schoolchildren and many of their teachers believe that such agencies and Federal functions have always existed. It probably seems unimaginable to question their operations or their missions but that is precisely what must be done.

Forget for a moment and set aside any beliefs you may have about whether there was any other reasonable alternative to our forefathers 100 years ago. Set aside the subsequent (90 years ago) Constitutional changes that 1.) made US Senators no longer representatives of their state but national “Lords” representative of national causes and 2.) authorized the Federal government to tax incomes thereby providing a limitless source of income to the burgeoning Federal bureaucracy. Disregard too the national social experiments that began 80 years ago and continue to this day from Prohibition and the New Deal to The Great Society and the recent Environmental/Animal Rights Movement. Even though all of these things have contributed to the current state of affairs with these 5 Federal agencies, they are water under the bridge. Let’s look at these agencies today and ask ourselves, why they exist and what is the alternative?

I highly recommend reading Bjorn Lomborg’s Skeptical Environmentalist, particularly Chapter 12, titled “Non-Energy resources”. Although almost anyone you talk to today assumes that we are “running out of minerals”, nothing could be farther from the truth. This myth (like overpopulation and climate change fears, etc.) goes back into antiquity. The truth is “The prices of nearly all (mineral) resources have been declining over the last century, and despite an astounding increase in production of a large number of important raw materials they today have more years of consumption left than they did previously.” Why do we have more resources? Because we continuously find new deposits, we get better at extracting resources and using them effectively, we recycle, we substitute, and lastly the demand has not grown exponentially as forecasted by the experts. As one example, “since the US Geological Survey in 1957 estimated the world resource (of iron) at 25 Billion Tons, we have used 35 Billion Tons, and now the reserve base estimate is at some 300 Billion Tons.”

The point here is not to ridicule the US Geological Survey but to question whether such a Federal function organized to “Survey” the nation is relevant or needed today. The market (i.e. private enterprise) finds and substitutes and develops these resources while the “Survey” helps to conceal from the public the oil resources of the North Slope of Alaska and fights for more and more budget and power from Congress each year to do what? Surely a much smaller and radically redesigned US Geology Office with an advisory (to the government AND the public) is all that is needed to stay connected to the public’s business as it pertains to “geology”.

Although the US Forest Service and the US Bureau of Land Management are in different Departments (Agriculture and Interior) they have become Federal land-owner behemoth twins. They control millions of acres all over the nation but primarily in the West. They bear no resemblance to the original agencies formed to “preserve” and “manage” certain forests and grasslands of this nation. I mention them together (bureaucrats are shuddering at this) because they have both “evolved” radically over the past 35 years in the same sad direction. Today they discourage grazing and logging. They close down roads and limit access to public lands. They pay less and less “taxes” (i.e. the initially promised “revenue-sharing” and “payment-in-lieu-of-taxes”) to local governments. They are used as tools to restrict hunting and trapping by employing more restrictive requirements (no dogs, no trapping, etc.). They no longer reduce the build-up of fire material as they opine for “native ecosystems” and declare jihads on “Invasive Species” while ignoring the harmful plants and animals jeopardizing hunting, ranching, fishing, logging, etc. They cite immeasurable tasks (ecosystems, cooperation, etc.) while proposing measurements far into the future (acres of this, numbers of that) that are neither realistic nor anything anyone will be held accountable for if for no other reason than that there will be a new President when they supposedly “come due”. The US Forest Service “Strategic Plan” claims first a role to “care for the Nation’s forest and grassland ecosystems”. It’s “Management Principles” list first, “Managing the natural resources of the Nation’s forests and grasslands”. They both babble endlessly about all their “problems” (complex expectations, urban populations, citizen “demand” for recreation, and development) while whining (the correct term) about how they will strive to “Sustain the Nation’s Resources”.

Consider for a moment how they operate today. They are National Overseers. Their Plans and Principles could very easily have been copied from the Socialist Plans published in Berlin in the 1930’s or the Ten-Year Plans ground out in Peking or Moscow 50 years ago. That is not dramatic overstatement. These Plans and operations have all the characteristics of centrally-planned documents for an all-powerful government that assumes absolute power over individuals, property, and all other subservient levels of government. While the dictatorships I cited used arrest, torture, and destruction to assure compliance, these agencies use Federal funding as bribery of state bureaucrats and politicians and “partnerships” with radical groups that provide votes and political support in return for power-sharing. These two agencies and the land they control should either be 1.) reoriented to sustainable use of all the resources they contain in order to support local communities and fund management as much as possible while providing recreation consistent with those goals or, 2.) leased or sold to private enterprise or individuals with provisions for public use and resource utilization. These two, like the next two are only going to become bigger problems unless and until they are reformed.

The National Park Service began with a “stop hunting” (of big game animals in Yellowstone) mind-set and mandate. They not only have never gotten over it, it has spread to every Park and every employee. They have become the Federal missionaries of the Environmental/Animal Rights agenda. Parks don’t allow hunting or trapping or fishing unless specifically forced to. They don’t harvest trees or allow grazing of grasslands where it doesn’t conflict with preserving the Park purpose. Parks close state and county highways with impunity. They set their own (Federally enforced) speed limits and rules on state and county highways in Parks. They claim “viewshed” rights on what can be seen from the Park. They always need “more” surrounding land and are probably the worst Federal “neighbor” a person or community or county or state can have. If you suggest to a Park employee that the Park (purchased from private landowners in nearly every instance) is part of a state or community they will look at you like you are nuts. They are conduits for funds to their private lobby groups (“Historic”, “Preservation”, “Heritage”, “Societies”, etc.) that (like The Nature Conservancy) frustrate private development and obfuscate rural life as future Federal acquisitions await funding from politicians running for reelection. They are vehicles for the most egregious Federal growth proposals: none being greater or more immeasurable than the infamous “Invasive Species” scam.

Only one week ago (19 March 2007) the House of Representatives passed (216-10, with every Democrat and 174 Republicans supporting it and only 10 Republicans opposing it) the National Park System “Natural Resource Protection Act”. This will authorize the National Park Service to enter into agreements (i.e. bribe with Federal funds) with everybody from “private non-profit organizations” and “private landowners” to “State local or tribal governments”, “other public entities”, and “educational institutions”. (Anyone left out should raise their hand!) The three things the “agreements” will provide for are 1.) “the preservation, conservation, and restoration of coastal and riparian systems, watersheds, and wetlands” (note that they don’t have to be “in” the Park), 2.) preventing, controlling, or eradicating invasive exotic species that are within… or adjacent to a Unit of the National Park System”, and 3.) “restoration of natural resources, including native wildlife habitat or ecosystems”. NOTE: “Invasive exotic is merely a new word of art to avoid the controversy and rightful objections to any Federal action based on “native”, non-native”, or “invasive” claims. It is the sort of word obfuscation that confuses the public and maintains the “high-priest” status of professors and bureaucrats manipulating it. Also read the #3 carefully. Is it “native wildlife”? or “native habitat for wildlife”? or “native ecosystem”? or whatever in “Hades” that last one might be meant to convey. Nevertheless it is immeasurable and unlimited and will go on forever with an annual need for “more” and by golly everyone will vote for all those Democrats and the 174 Republicans because they are all such caring and sensitive boys and girls.

The National Park Service should declare a religious tax-exempt status and be done with it. The Park Units should go in with the Forests and BLM lands and be managed for sustainable resource use and recreation consistent with the purpose for which the Park was established. There is NO reason why hunting, fishing, trapping, logging, or leased grazing in Parks cannot be conducted where feasible. Parks can generate revenue and support local communities while providing public benefit and preserving national landmarks and historic sites. In fact that would be the American way, especially now that we have 100 years of history and the current sad state of political manipulation and Federal power abuse to cite.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service needs the least explanation of the need for reform than any of the other 4. Aside from controlling millions of acres, they are as susceptible to land management non-management as any of the others. Although millions of acres of refuges were purchased for “waterfowl nesting, migration, and wintering habitat” the last Administration tried to change that all overnight into “Native Ecosystems”. That will happen again, sooner than you think. What can I say about “taking private property without compensation” or the closure of west coast logging and elimination of southern old-growth forests or the cynical use of deadly predators (wolves and grizzly bears) to vacate rural communities and countryside or the bribery of Universities to support the absence of management for marine mammals or the outrageous use of a bird extinct for 60 years to stop a dredging project and a runway construction project. This agency is a past master at doing all this and more while publicizing pictures of young female employees in uniform holding wolf pups or writing down some “scientific observation” on a clipboard in front of a mountain landscape. They are one of the most valuable political props for politicians “running” for reelection as Refuge ribbon-cuttings and standing next to a guy with a big glove holding an eagle gets more votes in the city than shaking hands commuter trains for a week. Whether it is exotic wildlife owners being driven out of business in Texas or Platte River water users being forced to reduce their water use or developers being shut down (by the same “regulators” that knowingly allowed the US Army Corps of Engineers to pollute the Potomac River by dumping tons of deadly pollution through a National Park into the River and onto the spawning ground of the ENDANGERED shortnose sturgeon for over 20 years) the chorus of calls for reform could not be greater.

The National Refuges should be combined with the National Parks and National Forests and Grasslands and managed for uses and revenues consistent with the purpose stated in the legislation that established them. All the Law Enforcement personnel and operations should likewise be combined and brought to a level consistent with the need to manage those lands. The remaining geologists and research “scientists” working for all five agencies should be in one unit and share resources as they bridge the area between the research conducted outside the agencies and the needs of agencies themselves.

Doing this would reduce the shenanigans (budget-wise, politically, with the UN, with the NGO’s, with the University professors, etc.) by putting these 5 together and reducing their budget and personnel. I know this goes against the tide of “we need to be separate”, we are so big now”, “we are so complex”, “they shouldn’t be telling ‘us’ what to do”, etc., etc. Oversight would be easier to force on the Federal politicians that have been utilizing all these agencies rather than keeping them in line. It would also return a big share of the national life to the citizens of this country. An agency beholden to local communities (as opposed national and international radical groups) is less likely to be forcing wolves on people, closing roads, and starting fires that they then turn around to say that the fire “proves” that people shouldn’t live and work and raise families “there” (so government should buy it. Combining and reducing them would squeeze out all the propaganda and lobbying thinly disguised as “environmental education” and “ecosystem this and that” as well as the mischief about roads and viewsheds and the “need” for more (which should be strictly a political decision, not a method of collusion for the mutual benefit of bureaucrats and politicians). If this combination of 5 Federal agencies has more than 1/3 of the personnel that the 5 have today, it would be overstaffed.

These agencies are THE WRONG MODEL for America. They represent an antiquated model appropriate to a nation at a loss as to where unfettered growth was leading (would that they only knew the good and the bad of where such growth has led). This model today is appropriate to governments heading to socialism or world government or to dictatorships.

Maybe those ten Republicans (that voted NO on that feel-good Park Agreements trash) are the place to start. That means electing 208 more Federal politicians in the House of Representatives next year that understand this and will stand up and be counted. Ten down and 208 to go: as they are prone to say in North Dakota “Uf-da”.

Jim Beers
24 March 2007
- If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others. Thanks.

- 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 |