STANCHING THE LOSS OF RIGHTS & FREEDOMS
IN THE USA TODAY
A TALK GIVEN AT THE GOOD NEIGHBOR FORUM
CHEYENNE, WYOMING
15 MARCH 2008
by
JIM BEERS
Rights, freedoms, liberties and traditions are being surrendered, taken, and
lost all around us. From parental rights to gun rights, from the right to
"domestic Tranquility" to the property rights of landowners and animal
owners: the rights of American citizens flow, like an undressed wound, from
our society.Whether we think of this loss of rights as causing, or resulting from the
associated loss of freedoms, liberties and traditions in American society:
the fact that they are intimately related cannot be disputed.Some date the beginning of this loss of rights to the Civil War when, they
say, State's Rights were vanquished and Federal Government Power was
victorious. Others look to the period of World War I when Constitutional
Amendments were passed by social reformers that 1.) changed the way US
Senators were elected thereby no longer giving State Governments any power
in Federal lawmaking, and 2.) gave the Federal Government the power to "lay
and collect taxes on income". Still others point to the New Deal that
allowed the federal government to "pull us out of the Depression" by
asserting new powers and growing federal bureaucracies. Whatever the
legitimacy of these views, today I want to examine a more recent phenomenon.I am a retired wildlife biologist. My experience with state and federal
governments, particularly in Washington DC for more than 3 decades, has
given me an insight into the past 35 years of environmental and animal
rights activities. The organizations and politicians responsible for the
laws that increasingly take away our rights are changing America from a
nation of citizens with guaranteed rights into a nation where rights are the
domain of a central government and only dispensed to citizens in ways that
benefit government itself. Laws like The Endangered Species Act, The Marine
Mammal Protection Act, The Animal Welfare Act, The Wilderness Act, and a
host of other federal environmental and animal rights laws are in large
measure responsible for this increasing erosion of the rights of American
citizens.
THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT:
- Has given the federal government the authority to "take" private
property without compensation. While the Constitution prohibits "taking"
without compensation and only allows it for "public use": today that is no
longer the case.- The Act purported to protect "species" but has spawned an orgy of
subspecies, races, populations, and habitats that were unknown before
federal grants were available to Universities to describe them as needing
"protection" so that they could be used as excuses for stopping development
and closing down access and management on public lands as well as private
property.- The Act has evolved into a legal justification for the federal
government to declare what plants and what animals will exist wherever noted
by federal bureaucrats. The disgraceful wolf implants and protection across
America are but an indication of further abuses to come. Federal control of
all public and private lands is now a reality.- Between Spotted Owls, Ivory-billed Woodpeckers, Salmon, Wolves,
Sturgeons, Piping Plovers, Jumping Mice, Wolverines, Lynx and Polar Bears
et al; American citizens from Ranchers to Hunters to Trappers to Loggers to
Fishermen to Rural Residents to Dog Owners to Landowners to Farmers to Rural
Children to Rural Aged to Horse Owners to Energy Users to Public Land Users
to Local Governments to State Governments et al have seen their "rights"
become government tribute to be available only through permits that are
seldom issued.Other federal laws like The Marine Mammal Protection Act, The Animal Welfare
Act, The Wilderness Act et al were also enacted in this period. Today,
these Acts are:- Creating destructive overpopulations of whales and seals et al
that keep depressed commercial fisheries depressed thereby justifying
no-fishing zones while decreasing the availability of fish for consumption
worldwide.- Preventing any real censuses of marine mammals or their
impacts on fisheries or human activities from boaters to rural fishing
communities worldwide.- Forcing millions of dollars worth of human drug testing and
certification on billions of dollars worth of drugs using animals to be
shipped to China and India.- Shifting the emphasis from helping animal owners and animal users to
totally eliminating animal ownership and animal use.- Providing precedents for lawmakers and bureaucrats to
legitimize personal opinions about public land management, private property
and human rights to justify Wilderness declarations, Marine Sanctuary
declarations, Native Ecosystems schemes, Invasive Species claims, Roadless
declarations, and related matters like Global Warming and Wildlands and
Corridors and Scenic declarations. These are all contrived rationales for
which the only solutions offered are more federal takeover of rights and
subsequent growth of federal power.- Like those people noted before as losing rights to The Endangered
Species Act, the list of rights and those harmed by these Acts takes more
mention than I have the time for today.This loss of rights mentioned here is part of a larger picture of eroding
rights. Parental rights have diminished dramatically in my lifetime. Gun
rights have likewise shrunk since the days in which my grandfather kept a
gun near his bed in a Chicago apartment or Watson "took a gun from the
drawer and put it in his pocket as he followed Sherlock Holmes out the door".
Your right to support a federal candidate for office is now very tightly
restricted, except for Native Americans that are inexplicably exempted from
the provisions of that Act.Internationally, cooperative ventures between American lobby groups, US
bureaucrats, UN bureaucrats and UN delegates have denied the use of DDT to
African nations for decades based on claims of thinning bird eggs thereby
causing the death of millions of Africans from malaria and other diseases.
UN control of wildlife trade (at US and European urging) has impeded the
management of Third World wildlife, caused the deaths of thousands of native
people from wild animals, destroyed crops, and ultimately prevented land
development like that which benefited US and European community development:
thereby contributing to keeping the poor and backward nations poor and
backward while devaluing human life relative to animals and "the
environment". Similar UN ventures are underway to have the US sign a Small
Arms Treaty to ostensibly discourage revolutionary movements but in reality
to drive a stake through US 2nd Amendment rights, and the Law of the Sea
Treaty that Mr. Kogan can explain far better than I.The list of and numbers of those people around the world harmed by these
Acts is truly staggering. As a biologist, I must ask, why? When:- Spotted Owls can exist with managed logging.
- Caribou do just fine around energy development.
- There are millions of wolves worldwide: they are not endangered
and do not belong where many people live or livestock or wildlife
populations or pets are subject to harm.- The federal government in the US model has NO BUSINESS being the
primary authority over any wildlife except Migratory Birds, High Seas'
species, and the interstate/import/export of harmful or dangerous species.- All wildlife does better under State authority as the Constitution
established over 200 years ago: history bears this out.- All National Parks outside Washington DC and all National Refuges
and Forests et al should be subject to state jurisdiction like any other
landowner.- Conservation Easement Owners should be subject to local taxes like
any other land controller since they adversely affect land use within
Counties.- Significant expansions of Federal land ownership whether for
Defense or for other purposes should only be allowed from "taking" private
property if NO federally-owned or controlled lands OF ANY TYPE are suitable.- Sustainable harvest and use of wild animals and plants pays for
management, provides valuable information, and attains productive human
purposes. Why are we making this historically proven fact, politically
incorrect?- The effects of US Navy sonar on whales and porpoises (while
seeking to minimize it is an admirable human response) should only be of
concern if the populations of these animals are seriously affected because
of it - but who knows the populations?- Southern California fires like the increasingly catastrophic
western wildfires are NOT the result of winds. They are the result of
extensive fire fuel being ignited. Fuel (and fires) is increasing because
of a lack of fire fuel management (logging, grazing, etc.) and a lack of
habitat management (determining and managing the best plant communities to
minimize fire fuel accumulation) and closure of roads and access to fight
fires and absurd restrictions on water use in these devastating human
emergencies. Citizens may reside wherever they can legally live and the
words of bureaucrats that they "don't belong" somewhere subject to these
government fires is as outrageous as justifying a deadly attack by a
government-introduced-and-protected wolf or grizzly bear as demonstrating
that people "don't belong there" or that the victim "didn't behave properly".- If National Park willow stands along waterways are so important,
the elk that keep them suppressed should have been hunted and kept at
optimum (for Park and habitat purposes) levels under state licenses and Park
requirements for decades. Using willow growth as an example of a reason for
introducing and protecting wolves that eradicate elk is little more than
outrageous anti-hunting propaganda.- If beetle outbreaks in western timber stands are a concern, why
are the infected trees not cut and removed for lumber to minimize fire fuel
accumulation? If beetle outbreaks are a concern, why do we create
Wilderness et al and thereby increase the thick stands of singular species
that serves as incubators and "corridors" and habitat for the offending
beetles and other harmful pests?- Wilderness and Sanctuaries and Roadless Areas destroy biodiversity
and cause mayhem from insect outbreaks to catastrophic fires and
unpredictable animal population fluctuations and disease. Why do we ignore
this and claim the opposite?- Domestic animals BELONG to their OWNERS under US law.
- There is nothing to be ashamed about regarding hunting or trapping
or fishing or eating animals or using their products like fur and leather.- If there is national concern about Piping Plover or Least Tern
populations: let the Federal government offer the state or landowners annual
payments for consent to control predators or close an area for a certain
period of time.- Wolves are dangerous and very destructive animals and should not
occur anywhere that the individual state does not allow them.- Why is federal responsibility for and failure to control the very
harmful effects of exploding and excessive resident Canada goose populations
not mentioned as federal claims of the benevolence of wolves and grizzlies
(and soon buffalo and cougars) are touted by these same "experts"?- It is absurd for the federal government to insist that Nebraska
forego irrigation to ostensibly allow Endangered Pallid Sturgeons to move
farther up the Platte River while the federal government has dumped toxic
wastes weekly on the only spawning grounds of the Endangered Shortnose
Sturgeon in the Potomac River for decades.- Claiming that lynx or wolverines need some federal protection and
certain lands set aside for them is almost as egregious as government
spending millions of dollars secretly and buying easements and closing land
uses and proposing land purchases across the South for a bird that NO ONE
HAS SEEN OR HEARD FOR 60 YEARS (the Ivory-billed Woodpecker).- The American model of conservation, user-pays wildlife management,
sustainable forestry management, grassland and forage management, and rural
lifestyles from hunting and fishing and trapping available to ALL citizens
has proven to be a proud heritage that is the envy of the world while
benefiting American society, rural communities, and the natural resources of
the nation.So, who are we up against and what can we do about it?
"We" are the farmers and ranchers and hunters and all the Americans
mentioned as to "losing our rights".We are "up against":
- Environmental organizations like The Wilderness Society and
Sierra Club.- Animal Rights organizations like The Humane Society of the United
States and PETA.- Anti-hunting groups like Defenders of Wildlife and Greenpeace.
- Anti-trapping and anti-fishing organizations like the Animal Defense
League and Christian Vegetarian Association.- Anti-animal use organizations like The Fund for Animals.
- Children-control groups like the Institute for Humane
Education.- Anti-farm groups like Farm Sanctuary.
- Anti-animal ownership groups like Rescue organizations.
- Anti-animal-use groups like those opposed to laboratory uses and pets.
- Pro-wolf groups that are all over, it seems.
- A hodgepodge of groups such as Jews for Animal Rights and
Pro-Abortion/Eugenics organizations that are constantly changing names and
offices.- Shadowy criminal groups like ALF and ELF that intimidate,
threaten, and destroy under the guise of angry children of the "well-to-do"
or uninformed loners simply trying to "save" things.- Lawyers that are employed by these groups like The Natural
Resources Defense Council and the Center for Biodiversity and others that
are constantly suing and working with Congressional staff to draft new laws
and with bureaucrats to hire members and draft stricter regulations.- All the contractors and "experts" that write Environmental Impact
Statements and Permit Applications and then rewrite them after lawsuits keep
them going on and on.- University professors that glean millions in grants and
research funding for their favored species and their own careers, tenure,
and recognition.- State bureaucracies that get more and more of their funding FROM the
Federal Treasury THROUGH federal agencies with increasing "strings" and
increasing dependence on future largesse from federal handlers.- State politicians that evaluate state employees and themselves on
how quickly they get "every federal penny due 'them'" from the federal
government rather than how well they defend their state and its residents.- "Conservation" organizations ostensibly representing hunters and
fishermen cooperate quietly with organizations and agendas that are
decimating the activities the organization was formed to protect.- Urban and suburban voters that believe propaganda about animals
and the environment as well as who have little appreciation for the US
system of Division of Powers in government and local control that has helped
make this nation great.- Voters that thoughtlessly impose their values and desires
regarding things that do not affect them on others that are adversely affected.- Federal bureaucrats that take advantage of the above agendas to
build their own pay, bonuses, and retirements with no thought to the
national consequences.- All of the retired bureaucrats and "specialty" advocates (history
buffs, birdwatchers, etc.) that make Refuges or Parks or Forests sacrosanct
units that exist for themselves alone, no matter the consequences.- Politicians that cater to all of the above to get and keep elected
offices by granting their wishes with new legislation and activist agencies.Now many of you already know most of this. There are a couple of things
that we hopefully can learn by examining what I have said. In war parlance
this is called a Threat Assessment. We look at our side and their side and
what is happening to come up with a Game Plan. I suggest we focus on
"their" side, what I called "who we are up against" or better yet "radical
groups".- The radical groups I mentioned have many agendas both open and
hidden.- They lobby and bribe politicians, bureaucrats and UN delegates.
- They get support from billionaires looking to buy large rural
estates cheaply as people evacuate the countryside and celebrities looking to embrace a "cause".- They get support from feminists and soccer moms and same-sex
groups in large cities. Why this is so, we can only guess.- They are mainly sympathetic to the liberal side of politics but
they have developed a great deal of power and influence across the entire
political spectrum.- There is very little formal opposition to their agendas: in fact most of those they are destroying often chirp their ideologies as they go
down in vain hopes of not being totally decimated.- They have total sympathy across the entire media for every beached
whale or wandering bear videotaped or described emotionally.- Veterinarian and University scientific ranks are rife with their
sympathizers.- Schoolteachers communicate their values to children today with a fervor far exceeding the presentation of history or mathematics lessons.
- They generate funds constantly and are worth Billions as with The
Nature Conservancy (whose former President is now Secretary of the Treasury)
and those organizations that capitalize on and publicize accounts of old
ladies found with many dogs and cats or lurid stories of cockfights or
trapping.All that said, there are two things I think we should all consider.
1.. These groups all cooperate although they often appear to have major
conflicts to outside observers. For example, "pet" lovers cooperate with
the advocates of wolf introductions in spite of the horrible deaths and
maiming of dogs by wolves.2.. These groups all agree that ultimately they want to ELIMINATE
(fill-in-the-blank: ranching, farming, hunting, trapping, rodeos, fishing,
cockfighting, fur, eating meat, private property, rural residences, rural
communities, animal ownership, animal use, wild land management, animal
management, drug testing utilizing animals, state and local authority,
community standards, civilizing undeveloped Third World nations, etc.).
"We" (those losing our rights) on the other hand are merely interested in
protecting "our" community or "our" deer hunting: in other words they are
always on offense and we are always on defense.An analogy might help here. "We" are like small tribal societies in Europe
after the fall of Rome. Loggers, dog owners, trappers, fishermen, etc. are
each living in our own little world like those small European communities.
When a horde of barbarians suddenly pop up over the horizon we run and hide
but are soon found and wiped out. It never crossed our mind beforehand that
we had a stake in what had happened "over there" to others a little while
ago. We cling to the mistaken belief that the barbarians will move on and
either miss us or just leave us alone if we ignore them or try to act
sympathetic. The thought of banding together with other targeted groups,
while our only hope, is too often dismissed because "they" are "different"
or they once offended us or we simply "don't like them" or we are simply
outnumbered. Need I say how stupid and self-defeating that is? The radical
alliances knock us off one at a time and we find it hard to cooperate
amongst our own kind, much less with other groups facing the same fate.How many of us, horse owner or not, objected when a new federal law was
passed recently banning the slaughter of horses? What is the difference
between my cow and my horse? Who owns the animal? On what basis can others
get federal politicians to stop me from disposing of my horse to someone
that will pay for it and then selling it to others for uses they would make
of it? If it is OK to simply "ban" that, then it is only a matter of time
before cows and sheep and all other domestic animals are similarly
sequestered by government fiat.
How many of us say, "yeah, but what about cockfighting or bull fighting?"
Again, if it is OK to pass federal and state laws banning such use of animal
property, instead of letting it be a personal and local community matter
given your standards and the standards of the community to tolerate it under
regulation or to prohibit it: then it is only a matter of time until all
domestic animals and their ownership and use are federal matters like
freedom of the press in Russia or gun ownership in England or land ownership
in Zimbabwe. That is to say that government will assume all power and we
will each do as we are told or else. Is the death of a fighting chicken any
worse or better than a winged duck chased for a half hour to have its neck
wrung, or a mortally wounded deer that is never found? Does anyone not see
where such things go?If it is OK to treat whales and seals and porpoises as "special" or "smart"
wild animals and preclude all management and use, then it is just fine that
the federal government is using wolves to eliminate big game herds and
hunting. Man has NO "RIGHT" to any animal designated as special or "protected" or "Endangered" by federal law or by urban majorities.If it OK to ignore all the crop destruction and trampling of children by
elephants in Africa and let the deaths of women and children near crocodile
infested waterways go unmentioned in Africa and let hundreds of Indians die
from wolves and tigers and cobras while touting our UN protection of wild
conditions and species: then it must be OK if government wolves kill some children in the US and ranchers go out of business wildlife herds and
hunting and rural communities disappear for the same reasons here in the
United States.When we ignore these developments, we sign our own rights' death warrant.
If we cannot cooperate and form the kind of unions that our opponents have
formed and as those European communities were forced to form when they came
together in larger groups and built castles and formed armies, then the
alternative is watching the lights go out one by one across the country. It
is a self-evident fact that protecting our rights and wildlife while
maintaining a healthy and diverse environment are complimentary and more
achievable societal goods under the US Constitution than under any other
system.Finally, never forget that those responsible for taking away your rights are
committed to your destruction. We each come into this fray as our rights
are being destroyed and we too often fight only to preserve ONLY OUR RIGHTS.
We are always on defense: they are always on offense. How often do you win
a football game when you are ALWAYS on defense? The answer is NEVER.Unless and until we challenge and reveal the falsehoods and agendas of the
very assumptions of these radical movements, we will always be on the
defensive. We must approach them with the same fervor and commitment they
show us. Anything less will simply be delaying our defeat.We must ask ourselves what we mean by "rights". Thomas Jefferson and the
Signers of The Declaration of Independence agreed that it was "self-evident,
that all men" "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights".
Almost 100 years ago in England, GK Chesterton observed "Human rights can
only exist where they are treated as Divine Rights". The point here is not
do you have a right to hunt or a right to trap: the point is that government
is assuming that any and all rights may be revoked by a majority in a
Republic with "guaranteed" rights simply because minorities no longer have
any rights and government benefits. Either we agree that our rights are
"from the Creator" and therefore "unalienable" or we acquiesce to the power
of government and the power or the powerful. There is no other alternative.
Jefferson and The Founding Fathers founded a nation where the rights of
minorities were protected from the majority: not a totalitarian state where
the majority and/or government could oppress minorities at will.
To Reaffirm our Rights:
- We must Reform and Repeal the laws that authorize government
seizure of our rights.- We must Reassert state and local government authority over all but
the items mentioned as federal tasks in the Constitution (Defense,
Interstate Commerce, Foreign Affairs, etc.)- We must Reorient the federal government away from the domain of
state and local jurisdictions.There is a story told about an old man returning to his hometown after The
Revolutionary War. He was asked by a young boy if he had gone away for
years and fought "because of the Stamp Act?" "No" he said, "I never bought
any stamps." The boy then asked if he had fought "because of the Tea Tax?"
He said, "No, I never drank any tea." When the boy persisted and asked,
"Well, why did you do it?" The old man replied, "So we could govern
ourselves."Unless we believe what Thomas Jefferson and GK Chesterton said about the
origin of our Rights and unless we have the simple determination of that old
Revolutionary War veteran, our rights will soon be nothing more than
historical footnotes (if any truth will still be allowed in historical
footnotes).Jim Beers
15 March 2008
Cheyenne, Wyoming
- 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.
Response To Jim Beers Article:
Note: As our readers know, Good Neighbor believes in education. The following correspondance regards, "Cheyenne & Wolves" by Jim Beers, is a terrific example of how a good discussion enlarges education, and moves every concern towards real resolutions. Editor GNL
Roni,
When I get emails written by folks like this guy (Jim Beers) I see red. They are so over the top that I can't stand to even read them. They don't come across as rational at all.
Do wolves cause some havoc to farmers and ranchers. I assume that they do. Are they needed so that places like Estes Park...and elsewhere can cull herds of elk and deer that have over populated areas...absolutely.
Would I want my dog or cat eaten by a wolf...of course not. If I lived on a farm or ranch would I know that that's a possibilty; one of the risks I've taken (just as fast cars down my street are a risk of living in the city)
As you can tell, the tone of the email I got turned me more against folks impacted by wolves than helped your cause.
Jill M (CO)
Roni,
I apologize for being overly exuberant. Funny thing is, I agree with everything this lady says except the "need" for wolves to cull elk in Rocky Mtn. National Park. The elk should have been "culled" many decades ago and then "culled" annually to assure an elk herd in consonance with the carrying capacity of the habitat in that area frequented by the herd. Those concerned about this before and those who are concerned about it now should be informed that not only is the use of licensed hunters and a managed hunt the only reasonable solution to that problem: only a regualted harvest by hunters generates money for management of wildlife as well as being the ONLY method that has a reasonable likelihood of attaining the numbers and distribution of elk desired. For more reasons than I have the time to mark, saying that wolves are the answer to the "elk problem" is like saying that communism is the answer to poverty.
Jim Beers
WHAT! You mean Communism didn't stop poverty????
My feelings about wolves and elk is really about a bigger picture. We eliminate one part of the food chain (in this case the wolves) and there's often a negative impact on the other parts of the food chain (too many elk, deer, caribou, etc.) Bringing in hunters doesn't bring back the balance.
The latest "ah, ha" is that there's going to be an impact from the destruction of sharks.
We (people) look at our individual problems, (or as in the case of sharks, tastebuds and health claims...or wolves and chickens and calves or sheep) and fail to look at the bigger picture (impact on the balance of/in nature). The reverse of that is when we city folks water our lawns to keep them green and don't care about the impact of water useage on farmers and ranchers.
Those are really apple and oranges comparisons, but I think you get the gist of my thoughts.
Jill M (CO)
Good Neighbor Committee
P.O. Box 155 - La Salle, CO 80645
info@goodneighborlaw.com
| Good Neighbor Law© 2006 |