The Editorial Staff at the NYT certainly show the lack of any credible research and expose themselves as being completely lacking in any knowledge of wildlife management by publishing a piece concerning gray wolves, hunting of those wolves and the processes that have taken place over at least the past 15 years. It honestly appears as though they copied the evangelical tripe of the environmental groups and published it to their own pages believing, as it appears they must, that their readers are complete dimwits.

If I were to pick out the fatal flaws of what the Times staff published, I would have to republish the entire editorial. It reeks of not only lies but pure unsubstantiated and non-scientific drivel that anyone can read on fringe animal rights groups’ web pages. The staff would have done better to have simply stated, “We love wolves and don’t want anybody doing anything to them regardless of the consequences of such actions”, than to expose themselves to their own lazy ignorance.

So, ridiculous is the whole thing that Dr. Valerius Geist, professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Calgary, made the decision to pen a rebuttal piece to it. For me, it was like taking a step back to my days in the eighth grade and having my science teacher attempt to tell me that my effort and information I put into a homework assignment was lazy and lacked anything of a factual basis. Here’s what Geist wrote:

Dear Sir,

The author of this editorial has fallen victim to clever advocacy that is void of science, let alone scholarship. The presentation to the public by a leading newspaper of a complex issue so hopelessly compromised by inaccuracies and lack of understanding, is hardly a public service. Humanity has a very long and tragic history with wolves, as this predator is widespread and often abundant across Asia, Europe and North America. The introduction of wolves in the U.S. West is evolving in a predictable pattern, as one is bound to re-live the history one ignores. And that, me thinks, might be the real story.

Sincerely,

Valerius Geist

To further a rebuttal by Dr. Geist would be the equivalent of “casting pearls before swine”, as the swine continues its daily wallowing in muck, while the real gems of truth and knowledge remain dangling just above their heads and yet the Times staff refuses to take a moment from enjoying their own swill to look up and see what’s there.

The Times editorial says that decisions being used in wolf management in the West are based on outdated information from 1987. This, of course, is a lie. But the Times is contributing to the blocking of advanced science and knowledge by reprinting garbage like this. It is difficult to educate those not willing to learn or better yet, those who have an agenda in which truth is not part of the propagation of the rhetoric to advance that program.

The Times reveals its agenda and lacks good editorial practice by allowing the publication of such inept work.

Tom Remington

Such may be the case with radio talk show host Michael Savage, re. The Savage Nation. If you are not familiar with Savage’s ongoing battle with the United Kingdom, it may be because the media and most bloggers, radio talk show hosts and virtually every person who makes a living exercising their freedom of speech have refused to cover Savage’s story.

Savage has been banned from visiting the U.K. because he was placed on a list with murderers and terrorist because of being accused of saying bad things that might incite “intercommunity violence”. World Net Daily reports it this way.

In a legal complaint against Smith, Savage noted the home secretary’s office said in a press release that the “controversial daily radio host” is “considered to be engaging in unacceptable behavior by seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred which might lead to intercommunity violence.”

Smith was the head of the U.K.’s Home Office who placed Savage on that list. Savage has since been embroiled in a legal battle to clear his name. The new government of the U.K. announced that they will leave Savage on the list.

Much of this is very troubling and should tatter the fabric of every person who embraces liberty – in this instance, freedom of speech. Who cares which side of the aisle Savage might sit on? Why should those of us who adore liberty care if Savage is a libertarian, a republican, a conservative, a liberal, black, white, green or purple? What has happened to Michael Savage in the U.K. shows us the evil that exists in the world and within the boundaries of one of our greatest democratic allies.

Why hasn’t American Media jumped to help Savage? Should it really matter? Savage walks his own walk and as often as he might ruffle your feathers, he speaks his mind. Love him or hate him, he loves liberty, as we all should.

Savage is no murderer! He’s not a terrorist either! The U.K. has cherry-picked fragments of things Savage has said in order to demonize the man and get his name on this famed list. But why? Once again, World Net Daily gives us extremely troubling evidence that perhaps Savage has become a victim of the U.K.’s use of political correctness to protect themselves from appearing bigoted toward Muslims.

Savage has documented his battle over the U.K. ban in his book “Banned in Britain,” which includes official correspondence, released under the U.K.’s freedom of information law, that reveals a decision was made at the highest level of government to use his name to provide “balance” to a “least wanted” list dominated by Muslim extremists.

“We will want to ensure that the names disclosed reflect the broad range of cases and are not all Islamic extremists,” reads a draft recommendation, marked “Restricted,” that was obtained as part of Savage’s libel lawsuit against the government and Smith…..

Can this be true? Did Savage become the target of political correctness in which he was added to a list of banned people in order not to make the list contain only Islamic names? Think about that for a moment. Is this the equivalent of adding a Catholic, a Jew and a Protestant to the list of terrorists who blew up the World Trade Center, in order that this list not include all Muslim extremists? Is this also a matter of the U.K. showing it’s fear of retribution by their own Islamic communities should they put out a list “dominated by Muslim extremists”?

Regardless of how extraordinary all of this has become for Savage, the most perplexing matter of contention, is the lack of action from Savage’s fellow media people who should be climbing the walls to clear this man’s name. This same savage act of barbarism to destroy our inalienable rights can just as easily be cast upon any one of us who use the pen or speak with words.

It matters not whether you like or dislike Savage. The man is unique and speaks from his heart. This certainly doesn’t make him a terrorist who incites violence in other people. Is there no longer responsibility of self, that we simply blame others for what we choose to do?

I could compile quite a list of people who write and talk that I dislike immensely and some I disagree with but it is far from my thoughts that I would seek to shut them up or ban them from coming to my town. Regardless of who the person is, we should never squander our liberties for personal or political reasons.

I am just a little guy in the big scheme of Media but it is my desire that Michael Savage can get this issue resolved. I believe it would have been concluded months ago, had Americans, including our own Secretary of State, Congress and Media voiced outrage toward the United Kingdom for conducting acts so antithetical to the liberties Americans and Brits died to protect.

Tom Remington

The memorandum, which can be downloaded in its entirety with this link, shares data that readily explains how the Endangered Species Act isn’t about saving species. Instead it has been manipulated, which most honest people have come to realize, in order to use taxpayer money to make some environmental groups and individuals quite wealthy.

Looking at the data supplied by Budd-Falen, she claims that as of May 17, 2010 there are a total of 1,374 species in the United States listed as either “threatened” or “endangered”. To get a grip on how this translates into the cost for taxpayers, she also states that it costs, on average, $85,000 per species simply to add to the Endangered Species list. In addition, $515,000 per species to designate critical habitat.

If you add that all up, taxpayers are staring down the barrel of a loaded gun that is costing them $707,610,000. And all this only for listing and designating critical habitat in what is supposed to save 1,374 species of plants and/or animals.

Add to this cost the attorney fees paid out to mostly environmental groups of around $12 million and us taxpayers are forking over some $720 million dollars and with that have “recovered” 21 species. That’s something in the order of $34 million per saved species. Good investment?

None of this accounts for what’s happened to businesses and private lands and land ownership and the costs associated with those.

For some of us who actually care about conservation, saving species and protecting habitat, this leaves us with a question. How much of this money or any money for that matter that these “conservation” and “environmental” groups is used to actually save species and protect habitat? According to Budd-Falen there is no evidence to suggest one dime of their money is used for that purpose. If the majority of these groups are only sucking the coffers dry and doing nothing to save species, doesn’t rational thinking tell us something has to change?

With an extended strong arm of the government and a money-making con job from environmental groups, this seriously limits the ability of state fish and game departments to properly manage their wildlife……doesn’t it? Let me cite one small example of this.

In Maine, many of these same environmental groups successfully petitioned the USFWS to name the Canada lynx a threatened species and along with it designated critical habitat. As a result effective means of trapping large predators were eliminated which resulted in an overgrown population of coyotes. The whitetail deer herd, in much of the same areas as where the lynx critical habitat was designated, has dropped below sustainable levels. Because of ESA manipulation, an Act that needs rewriting and countless, unchecked lawsuits, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife has been partially handcuffed, having been stripped of management tools to do their job. Is preserving species about ruining one or more to save another?

In the email, David Allen asks: “The question begs to be asked, where are we going with our wildlife system in this country and what is the anticipated end result? The issue with the “wolf recovery” program in MT, ID & WY is the tip of the iceberg in this entire issue, however it is a prime example of the results of using the ESA far beyond what it was intended. Those who cherish the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation need to become acutely aware of what & how the Endangered Species Act is being utilized today and where it is heading.”

In order to “anticipate” the “end result”, I think it first imperative to get over some hurdles that far too many refuse to even consider. Attorney Budd-Falen spells it out very clearly and I concur. None of this is about saving species. It’s about making money and promoting an agenda. I think many will agree that making money through these lawsuits is obvious. What they don’t want to admit is that these groups have an agenda that’s not about saving species. What that specific agenda is varies, however the “end result” is the same – stop hunting, fishing and trapping. There’s also no better way to do this than to take people’s land away from them and strip them of their rights.

As Allen pointed out the wolf litigation is but the tip of the iceberg as is the Canada lynx, the spotted owl, the desert tortoise, the delta smelt, etc., etc. If outdoor sportsmen and our state fish and game departments think we can stop this by arguing about one specific species in one specific area of one specific state, we’re woefully wrong.

Until the Endangered Species Act is rewritten and modernized nothing will change. It will be more of the same and the end result will not be pretty. If we employ the old adage that for those who fail to learn history, they will repeat it, we see that the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation is being dismantled piece by piece. This is being done by systematically taking away one tool of management at a time. This management system will then fail. This is when the environmentalists move in declaring the failure and the end result will be the further implementation of their agendas of which I have spoken.

My prediction is not one of encouragement. I believe there are not enough people who care enough or are willing to accept the bigger picture, resulting in more of the same. I don’t need to spell out what more of the same is going to look like in 5, 10, 15 or more years. All too often what it takes to get people involved is when it hits directly home. By then it’s too late.

The only hope, is to figure out a way to convince enough people to fight back against this indoctrination that runs counter to everything that is right.

Tom Remington

I’m sure it began long before our obsession with self-esteem. So consumed we became with making sure our kids’ feelings were never hurt, we lost all reason and understanding and began teaching that exceptionalism wasn’t “fair”. (Oh, there’s the four-letter word that should be banned.)

Was it diversity? We were being indoctrinated that diversity was admirable, that some was good and more was better. Lost in all this was the importance of retaining identity, for without identity how can a child’s self-esteem have a foundation?

I’m afraid it all began a long time ago. Little by little we lost the focus of what made America great.

Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, John Hancock, Samuel Adams, Elbridge Gerry, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison and Edward Rutledge, are only a few of the exceptional people who signed our Declaration of Independence. One trait that made them exceptional was their desire for and understanding of freedom. They didn’t want to be like England or any other. They wanted to be like America.

John Adams at a very young age wrote of his dreams that someday America would be the greatest nation on earth, not to look down on others but to draw them up unto this country’s greatness. Adams’ dream came true. America did become the greatest nation on earth, doing more to help other people than any other nation. It came from liberty, the freedom to excel, the desire to be the best of the best. It was called exceptionalism. It is what made America a magnet that draws others to come here. Why do we want to extinguish the magnetism?

As I sat yesterday and watched the President of Mexico, Felipe Calderone, stand at the stage of the greatest legislative conclave on earth, the symbol of liberty and everything great, and ridicule America while members of that Congress stood in applause for such treasonous, anti-American sentiments, I wondered if the above mentioned exceptional men had been sitting in that audience, what their reaction would have been.

As President Barack Obama stood outside the White House with Calderone, in what certainly appeared to be an affirmation from our President of his hatred toward America, I pictured George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson gathered amongst the bushes of the Rose Garden, standing in utter disbelief.

Tom Remington

It angers me to no end when I hear friends and relatives sitting around bemoaning someone’s wealth. I don’t get it. Is this because of jealousy, resentment, disrespect or what? And of course in these flip conversations comes out the profound that anyone who made money did so by screwing their friends and neighbors. We know this is not true. (Exceptions to everything, so give it a rest.)

Why can’t people be honest? Have you ever sat down and seriously considered how much you and I have benefited from other people’s wealth? We all have and I’m willing to bet some people don’t even realize it.

To seriously give voice that we should limit the money anyone can make might even sound intriguing to some but unless you spend some time thinking about how this would negatively affect us all, you will never fully appreciate the actual benefits we all share.

Thomas Sowell writes, “The moral bankruptcy of the notion that third parties can decide when somebody else has “enough” money is matched by its economic illiteracy.”

Think of the everyday benefits we all share from other people’s wealth. Has anyone you’ve known ever received a scholarship made possible through an endowment? How about a walk in a park made possible by the wealth of someone buying and donating that park? There’s always a chance to spend an afternoon on the town common, listening to a band played on the gazebo that was made possible through generous donations of others’ wealth. Probably instruments in the band came from donations.

Most of us own cell phones and computers. What has happened to the price of those over the years? And why has the price fallen? Those companies we like to dump on made money and as such had money to devise ways of manufacturing products and getting them into our hands in a less expensive way, forcing the prices down. Have we not all benefited from this kind of wealth before?

Or how about something as simple as your job?

The next time you get ready to open your mouth to put down somebody and the money they have made, ask yourself just what your life would be like without it. And then ask yourself what it would be like around here if Obama got his way and began telling you and I and all the great philanthropists of this nation, how much money is enough.

Go out and enjoy that museum of fine art this weekend!

The truth is many of us can and do see only what we want to see. This is partially what defines us. God forbid we should all be so much alike that life would be boring. The black box above can represent anything you would like it to be and probably even some shrink would tell you that what you wrote would be a reflection of your inner being, perhaps even your suppressed fears, or hopes and dreams.

So much has been made of the Tea Party movement. From both sides we have witnessed the influence of the Tea Party. The Republicans, who seem to think they own the movement, got handed a rude awakening as we saw what happened in Utah with Bob Bennett. The Democrats as well, are dropping like flies as Americans in general are fed up with politics as usual.

If you don’t fit the mold of what the local Tea Partiers want, you won’t get their support. Why is this considered bad by some? Isn’t this exactly what American politics was supposed to be? A country governed of and by the people?

That black box takes on odd illusions I think for some. We have always had political organizations that put their support behind the candidate of their choice. But this Tea Party thing is grass roots and scares the living hell out of some people. As a result a person’s black box becomes a living nightmare for them.

Witness an opinion piece posted at Politico by Charles Postel, an assistant professor of history at San Francisco State University, about the Tea Party that he labels the “dark side of conservatism”.

For whatever reasons, in Postel’s black box he focuses on the main stream media and their insistence on calling Tea Partiers, “populists”. In case Postel hadn’t figured it out yet, the MSM is clueless when it comes to the Tea Party and they too are petrified of it. He spends much of his time wanting to paint the Tea Party, as he says, the “dark side of conservatism” by disproving the media’s contention that it is “populist”.

Here is a grocery list of the things Postel sees in his black box as what makes Tea Parties, “dark”.

1. Tea Partiers are conservatives
2. They repeat catchwords of Goldwater and Reagan
3. “echoes of a well-known grass-roots movement of the 1950s and ’60s — the John Birch Society”
4. Sound like the John Birch Society
5. Author views Obama as a moderate
6. Believes all TPers think Obama a communist
7. Tea Partiers have “angrily taken to the streets”
8. Tea Partiers “are boiling mad”
9. They are “punishing politicians”
10. Tea Partiers are “more concerned about possible inflation of the future than with the current ordeal of the unemployed.”
11. Tea Partiers don’t care about unemployment among blacks
12. Tea Partiers are like Ku Klux Klan members who want to protect their Protestant religion and white race from communism and immigration.
13. Sees Tea Partiers as “birthers”, opposed to immigration and against Mulims.
14. Tea Partiers, being “radical rights” have a “soft spot for bigots”.
15. Tea Partiers are “a movement of the haves and well-protected who” that since FDR, “have feared that their freedom will be lost” if government expands its powers and steals from the rich to give to the poor.

That’s a lot of things to see in a black box. The Tea Party is many things but “dark” is not one of them. It is unfortunate that Mr. Postel sees those who cherish the American dream and a return to following the Constitution as being “dark” and all the other nasty things he sees.

Makes you wonder what kind of a childhood he must have had. (snicker)

Photo from fOTOGLIF

But liberty comes with responsibility, the restraint of exploiting our rights over those of others.

Our own Declaration of Independence tells us the truth of liberty is self-evident. In the struggle for independence, these brave people, as penned by Thomas Jefferson, understood that under the tyranny of King George III, some people were created more equal than others and that any liberties were those granted by the King. This stood in stark contrast to the written Word of God.

Jefferson wrote that “We hold these truths to be self-evident“, those truths being as I’ve described above, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

What is all too often lost in the recitation of the above, most common phrase from the Declaration of Independence, is Jefferson’s explanation of how to protect these rights. He further goes on to write that, “Governments are instituted among Men, driving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” He says that when any government “becomes destructive” of these rights, it’s the right of the people to fix it, even to the point of installing a new government, such as was the intent of seeking independence from England.

When our society progresses away from God and good sound morals, the entire foundation of the Declaration and Constitution, gets shaken, can crumble and fall down. And therein lies the ultimate destruction of individual Liberty.

God has blessed us with some of the most incredible beauty that can be found in the outdoors. I was raised in the country and find much peace and happiness in going to the woods, however the only lasting peace and happiness comes from within, that which is occupied by the love of God.

As much as I love to hunt and fish and just be in the outdoors, that Liberty does not trump another man’s Creator-endowed right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. My understanding of rights, shows me to respect the rights of others as much as my own.

I read somewhere a person’s “signature” they used on a message board. It went something like this: “The biggest threat to the outdoor sportsman is the outdoor sportsman”. It was quite ironic, as I recall, that the person using this signature seemed bent on being the dictator of which rights shall be bestowed on his fellow sportsmen, while chastising anyone who dared question his authority.

As the title of this piece reads, liberty is not this man’s or any other man’s to give or to take. To assume such authority it must be assumed that this person consider himself either above the power of the Creator or that they’ve “progressed” to a point that God is no longer or never was any part of their life. Quite unfortunate for them and the rest of us, I’d say.

It is a most arduous burden for some to tolerate the “Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness” of others and perhaps that task remains insurmountable without individual direction from God. Instead of illustrating the exact meaning of self-evident, Creator-endowed Rights in our behavior, we too often choose to dictate which liberties can be exercised.

Let me explain. Some fishermen believe that employing the use of “catch and release” in their favorite pastime, is a good way to preserve and conserve the species for the present into the future. I take no issue with that. If we “illustrate the exact meaning of self-evident, Creator-endowed Rights”, this fisherman who believes in his notion that such a practice is best, should exercise his rights and promote his epiphany in every positive way he can and support it with as much scientific facts as there are available.

When we “choose to dictate which liberties”, it takes on a very different tone. We can never accomplish what is right through negative behavior. Instead of the positive promotion of catch-and-release fishing, the tyrant rather opts to demonize those who choose to catch, keep and eat the fish they caught, even to the point of fighting for laws to prohibit such activity.

If catch-and-release fishing is the answer to all our conservation concerns, then it will stand firmly on its own merits. Dictating rights, steals from others and tells the rest of us that this person knows nothing of which they speak and are only interested in usurping others’ rights.

But it’s not just fishing. This general negative, dictatorial, rights-snatching behavior carries over into every aspect of our lives.

It is troubling to me that the President of a country, whose Declaration of Independence clearly states that it is self-evident, that our Rights are granted by our Creator, proclaims to the world that the United States of America is NOT a Christian nation. Taking God and the Liberty he endowed us all with, out of our lives, our society and our government, is a dangerous direction we should not travel.

I do not have the right to determine who gets rights and who doesn’t. As a matter of fact no man on this earth has that right, although they have taken it. I may not like what someone with opposing views has to say but it is far from me to try to shut them up.

Exercise you God-given Liberties and revel in them. Taking others away does nothing to protect yours and will eventually end yours.

Tom Remington

Let’s face it. We now have Obamacare because we voted for him to be president out of hatred toward George W. Bush. However, electing Barack Hussein Obama only expedited the inevitable. You and I have sat on our hands for so long now, allowing laws to be passed in this land that are contrary to the U.S. Constitution. I know of nobody in Washington that evens considers the Constitution a worthy document.

This may be our last chance to reverse the tide. If we continue to elect representatives who view our Constitution as nothing but old, worthless history, our future is doomed and will be short lived. We can turn this around but it can’t happen on its own.

Photo from fOTOGLIF

By Jim Beers

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 Eagan, Minnesota with his wife of many decades.

Yesterday, I wrote a piece titled Confessions of a Treatyphobe. In it I discussed the abuse of the Treaty Power in our Constitution and in so doing I mentioned how I would be glad to debate why the Migratory Bird Treaties with Canada, Mexico, Japan, and Russia were in need of modification and how they might be changed. The result is that, thus far, I have been removed from at least four Christmas card lists and have made formerly sound communications with two other readers, tenuous at best in the future.

The following is a hastily drawn explanation of why and how US federal authority over migratory birds is in need of change. I say “hastily” because I was on an Oregon radio show last night and I just completed a Missouri radio show this morning and I feel I must respond to any questions in a timely manner or be thought unable to defend what I write.

The US federal authority over named species of migratory birds is based entirely on the Treaties named above. This federal authority and jurisdiction has many flaws at this time. This is not to say that it does not still fulfill many of the original purposes for the original Treaty (i.e. managing and fairly dividing the annual harvest of game birds by hunters between states and the subsistence food source harvest by Native people). It has likewise accounted for the preservation and management of wetlands necessary for water birds of all stripes and for wide-ranging habitat and survival improvements for songbirds and other birds highly valued by birdwatchers and those living near significant insect concentrations.

But consider the following:

- Airplane/migratory bird strikes are far more extensive and frequent than generally known. This includes but is not limited to geese, gulls, blackbirds, starlings, sparrows, etc.

- Cormorants are seriously decimating sport fish, fish hatcheries, fish farms, and private property.

- “Resident” Canada geese (introduced and spread by federal programs just like wolves) spreading disease on golf courses, schoolyards, and parks while causing auto accidents, and chasing lunch-breaking employees and walkers near ponds.

- Hawk and owl predation creating unpublicized negative impacts on songbirds and other birds and animals.

- The federal migratory bird authority justified and was the Congressionally-stated purpose (production, migration, and wintering needs of waterfowl – i.e. geese and ducks that are hunted) for the majority, number and acres of National Wildlife Refuges acquired in the lower 48 states (Alaska’s Native Claims Settlement Act refuges distorts these numbers if included). It was likewise the basic authorization for required federal Duck Stamps that financed much of these acquisitions. Yet today, Refuge water management is slowly being changed to dry land “Native Ecosystems”, waterfowl nesting habitat is being changed into “Invasive Species” (often simply post-1492 AD game birds and sport fish) eradication projects less friendly to waterfowl needs. In other words, federal lands purchased with hunter “fees” and authorized by Congress for Waterfowl are being converted into lands less hospitable to and supportive of waterfowl and hunters.

Let us further consider what could be done about these issues remembering this is being “hastily” done and there are other issues that could appear on the list above and below:

- Authority over airplane/bird safety should be given to Airport authorities.

- Authority and jurisdiction over “resident” Canada geese in the US between 15 March and 1 September should be given to State governments.

- Cormorants, hawks, and owls should be placed under State government jurisdiction and authority.

NOTE: For all of those readers now writhing in pain on the floor moaning about this would be a prelude to Armageddon – The Endangered Species Act was designed and is being implemented as a preventive to stop all those local yokels electing all those narrow state politicians from making all those critters extinct. Local managers, responsive voters, would do far better at protecting air travelers, fish farmers, urban health (human by the way), hunters, fishermen, sport fish and desirable wildlife, songbirds and other associated values of value to those living in those areas.

- Management conversion of federally-owned wetlands and associated uplands to any habitat less supportive of waterfowl management outputs should be replaced with NEW and equally waterfowl-supportive habitat of equal waterfowl productivity and benefits.

NOTE: If the federal government is to fulfill this primary and original justification for Treaties that grant the federal government power and authority that formerly resided in state governments, they should do no less with ALL lands they control.

The foregoing is a thumbnail sketch of what could be done, but that is not why I am taking the time to write this. I am writing this because it might well be a “teachable moment” regarding Treaties.

Let’s pretend I am lauded and cheered about the foregoing proposals and “everyone” wants to implement them: how might this be done?

1. We could just write agreements with these entities to do these things. Sure, just like “delisting” wolves. The state or airport must do A, B, and C or the feds intervene: PLUS, the lawsuits about how this is illegal and not based on “science” and a plot by those wanting to kill everything, etc., etc. would be thicker than a spring blizzard. Just like “state management of wolves”, state authorities under such agreements are little more than paid “Charlie McCarthies” for federal bureaucrats in service of anti-management and use organizations.
2. We could just write “new” federal regulations doing the above. Such regulations would be found to be not possible (illegal) under The Migratory Bird Treaty Act that implements the Treaties with Canada et al. A lawsuit now or in the future would make any such regulations illegal in short order.
3. Why not change (amend) The Migratory Bird Treaty Act? Even if we had a President Sarah Palin, a Senate under Jim Inhofe, and a Secretary of the Interior Michelle Bachmann and could do this, it would likewise be found to conflict with the (interlocking on purpose) Treaties and therefore illegal. Furthermore, what my “dream team” could accomplish, the next President Barbara Boxer, Senate Leader Barney Frank, and Secretary of the Interior Charles “Charlie” Rangel could simply undo. This leaves us with the Treaties…
4. The Treaties need to be “reopened” and Amendment proposed but how is this possible? Set aside for now how environmental/animal rights organizations fight this tooth, lawyer, and nail as a threat to their federal control of an exclusively powerful federal government and as a precedent for further dispersal of the power they worked so hard to consolidate across the board. While the Canadian Treaty doesn’t mention cormorants (that’s a whole other story) and there is no provision in any of the Treaties to give authority to something like an airport authority or even a state, why would any of the 4 nations REMOVE species? Why would any of the 4 Treaty nations encumber their government-owned lands with such a requirement about maintaining waterfowl capacities? Where is the “carrot”? Thus do we hear so often that such and such is “required” by the Treaty or that it is “prohibited” by the Treaty, and then in a generally laughing tone “man you’d have to change ‘the’ or ‘all’ those Treaties, are you ‘nuts’?”

Thus is big government solidified and imposition of ephemeral national values and agendas solidified. Thus are local controls and community cultural identities once lost, seldom regained. Thus are incremental steps toward tyranny and helplessness dressed in good intentions as they help attain bad agendas and create precedents. Thus is my Christmas card response list reduced incrementally.

Jim Beers

19 March 2010