Exemptions, Abortion & Wolves

Two weeks ago, almost to the hour I was sitting in the back of a room in
rural Oregon where rural landowners were being flimflammed about selling
their property rights to one of the Land Trusts.  As I sat there watching
the tenderfoot landowners sniffing around the clever "set" ("set" is a
trapping term for a site where a bait or lure innocently masks a concealed
trap that ultimately spells doom for the unwary animal) constructed by the
Easement salesmen and ladies I was struck by two things.

First, the naiveté of the landowners and the brazen lies of the salesmen
were astounding.

Question: "Will my taxes go down if I sign up for one of these easements?"
Answer: "They SHOULD go down since you will be foregoing certain future
development options."  Observation:  Whether or not land taxes go down is a
function of individual County and State governments.  What is true today may
not be true tomorrow and very likely will not be true when your children or
grandchildren or some potential buyer inquires about the taxes on the
property and its' true worth when they discover they can not build on it or
graze it or harvest timber on it or plant some (yet-to-be-discovered) crop
in high demand or some habitat for certain species or landscaping or install
kennels or on-and-on.

Question: "How do you check up on these easements?"  Answer: "Occasional
visits by our limited staffs but we have so many of these that it will be a
rare occasion.  We rely mainly on people's commitment." Observation: Not a
peep about the use of government satellite imagery to, just as government
agencies do, monitor electronically changes down to an ever-smaller degree
of landscapes, trails, etc.  Also not a hint of how, again just like
government agencies, the periodic "example" of prosecution and draconian
penalties of "violators" is the primary tool to scare all future
easement-holder-landowners into quiet acquiescence and fear of neighbors and
imagined government enforcers behind every tree.  Even Little Red Riding
Hood noticed "what big teeth" grandma had.

Observation: While landowners are certainly free to sign away the basic use
of their property and to forego unimagined future land use options values,
and benefits; this easement scam is based in large measure on an unmentioned
pillar that is unjust, unfair, and in need of the destruction these
"ecosystem warriors" visit so readily on hunting, fishing, grazing, logging,
economic development, and rural family life.  I am speaking about TAX
EXEMPTIONS.

If land units in any county or state: 1.) can no longer be built on; 2.) can
no longer be grazed; 3.) can no longer have timber harvested on it; 4.) can
no longer be planted into new crops in high demand; 5.) can no longer have a
road punched through them; 6.) can no longer produce or ever produce
products the taxes from which support roads and schools, etc., or 7.)
creates an out-of-county or out-of-state or even out-of-country land use
control entity of enormous power and wealth: WHY SHOULD SUCH ENTITIES
RECEIVE EXEMPTION FROM TAXES AT THE COUNTY, STATE, OR FEDERAL LEVEL?

Their (the "Trusts" and "Conservancies") entire purpose is at odds with the
best interests of the communities and families and way of life of the rural
areas in which they are operating.  County and state potential for growth is
stymied.  Rural homes and home sites are necessarily priced out of range for
all but the wealthy.  Rural economies are destroyed and replaced by estates
(like Scotland and Ireland after the "Land Clearances" and "Potato Famine").
Public access for hunting and fishing dwindles as land is increasingly owned
by the rich or by government.  Fish and game species are increasingly
unmanaged and less abundant as management access and management options are
foregone by prohibitions against landscape and habitat modifications and
"Native" (and similar "ecosystem") requirements in the easement precludes
everything from predator control to the fostering of certain species to
benefit others. Naturally renewable and valuable resources like timber and
forage are increasingly unmanaged, wasted, and reduced as non-use results in
the sort of fire-fuel storage areas seen on public lands today.  Wildlife
food plantings or "opening up" certain areas are precluded as game
populations disappear as habitats age and simplify in the name of "freezing"
some imaginary and accidental landscape on particular ownerships.  Future
road changes to meet future community needs are foregone in the ignorance of
today's short-term financial decision.  Other than saving your soul, what
possible thing should anyone presume it makes sense to do "in PERPETUITY"?

Combined with their (The "Trusts" and "Conservancies") sub Rosa
"partnerships" with Federal and State bureaucracies in all manner of land
schemes and regulatory expansions and their unquestioned but murky and
extensive lobbying and "support" of politicians (especially at the Federal
level where for example the former Chief Executive of a multi-billion land
brokerage "front [for Federal bureaucracies] now serves as Secretary of the
Treasury); the outrageousness of granting such organizations TAX EXEMPTIONS
rivals the audacity of EXCLUDING INDIAN TRIBES FROM THE ELECTION LAW AND
CONTRIBUTION PROVISIONS OF THE McCAIN-FEINGOLD ACT.

When "pressed" (who "dares" to do so?) about "why does government grants tax
exemptions to such organizations and thereby encourage their agendas?" the
answer would invariably be "science (the 'best available science' to be
sure) says so".  Whether it is assertions about the "need" for a Native
Ecosystem or the reputed "offsets" to "carbon footprints" or "global
warming"; scientists, speaking for "science" dictate how we should live,
where we should live, and who (almost always an ever-stronger central
government "fronting" for radical causes and organizations) will "order" our
lives and society.  Our state and local and Federal governments have bought
into this dictatorship of "science" for many reasons; some murky, some plain
stupid, and some that are evil and destructive. A partial clarification of
the current deification and power of "scientific" pronouncements lies in
looking behind the curtain of abortion politics and wolf politics
masquerading (like radical environmental tax exemption justifications) as
"science".

Abortion -

Warren Throckmorton, Associate Professor of Psychology and Fellow for
Psychology and Public Policy at Grove City College, has written a thoughtful
and insightful article concerning abortion and psychology.  You can read it
in the Friday 18 May 2007 Washington Times on page A17.

Essentially he notes how the American Psychology Association passed the
following resolution, "that termination of pregnancy be considered a civil
right of the pregnant woman" in 1969. (NOTE: This was 4 years before the Roe
v Wade "decision" and also 5 years after the Wilderness Act was passed and
"wilderness" in all it's manifestations ["Wilderness Areas", "Roadless
Areas", "Critical Habitats", logging purges, grazing destruction, public
land access and management elimination, hunting and fishing constrictions,
etc.] became both public policy AND a religious tenet of "scientific
assertions"  It [1969] was also the year of the passage of the Endangered
Species Conservation Act and five years before passage of The Animal Welfare
Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act and The Endangered Species Act.
The point being we were in the midst at that time of societal anguish over
Vietnam and in the midst of radical societal challenges exploding all around
pushed by extremists of every stripe.  When the dust "settled" ten years
later we had a far more powerful Federal government; far weaker state
governments; and an interlocking Federal - State - Conservation-
Environmental- Animal Rights "Complex" of bureaucrats, activists and
politicians with hidden agendas.  All was based on "science" put forth by
"scientists" who were irrefutable and when caught in lies defended
themselves with being "the best available".  The linkage between all these
radical societal changes during this turbulent period [like today?] becomes
more apparent as we view them dispassionately from a distance and consider
their continuing effects on our society and nation.

So when Roe v Wade was "passed" by the Supreme Court in 1973 (three years
before The Endangered Species Act, The Marine Mammal Protection Act and The
Animal Welfare Act) all four of these "Acts" (I know, Roe was a "decision"
but it was legislation from the bench nonetheless) began their 30 year
expansions into every "nook and cranny" of society while expanding federal
powers and reach.  But Dr. Throckmorton speaks of the burgeoning debate
about "partial-birth" abortion and the currently available psychological
"science" concerning abortion as to how it can contribute to this current
public debate.  Funny thing though; he notes how most, if not all
"psychologists" speaking out or being appointed to a "Task Force" bring a
viewpoint or "perspective" that predisposes them to justify conclusions that
reinforce their PRIVATE NOTIONS.  He states certain "evidence" is
disregarded or buried while other "facts" are emphasized or embellished.  In
other words they are every bit as much ideologues as rednecks in a bar or
soccer moms at a decaffeinated coffee "klatch".

He quotes a Dr. Mac Nair regarding, "provocative questions about the role of
political philosophy in constructing professional policies.  The historic
position of the APA on abortion, the method of the current task force's
formation, and the ideological leanings of half of the members, all create
legitimate concerns about the APA's ability to objectively review the
evidence on abortion and mental health.  On this committee, or indeed on any
task force regarding issues of social controversy, scholars with contrasting
professional, religious and cultural perspectives should be appointed.  Only
in this way will APA's statement on socially divisive issues be taken
seriously across the political spectrum."

Ruminating on this "fact" brings us to wolves.

Wolves -

"May 14, 2007, 11:25AM

230 scientists oppose wolf delisting

© 2007 The Associated Press

JACKSON, Wyo. - More than 230 scientists have signed a letter opposing plans
to remove wolves in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho from Endangered Species Act
protection.

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.wolvesinrussia.com

The 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 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 - http://www.klamathbucketbrigade.org/ -- please visit today.

- 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 |