Posted on 03/23/2002 9:40:33 AM PST by forest
What do wolves, bears, red-legged frogs, whip-snakes, fairy shrimp, spotted owls, the California gnatcatchers, chinook, chum, coho, sockeye and steelhead, all have in common? Their well-being is protected by a religion funded by taxpayers.
Think not? In 1994, Roger Kennedy, director of the National Park Service, declared that "wilderness is a religious concept" that should be a "part of our religious life."
Many environmentalists have now adopted religious themes -- Judeo-Christian and animist -- including humanity's guilt and the need for salvation. For example: Environmentalism would only succeed when it had a religious foundation, wrote Lynn White in a 1967 Science article. And, just a few years ago, Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt claimed that the Endangered Species Act reflects a "plan of God." He said the Bible rejects "mankind's expansion at the expense of Creation," reflecting some environmentalists' increasingly religious and apocalyptic viewpoint. Paul Watson, a founder of Greenpeace, claims: "We, the human species, have become a viral epidemic to the earth" and the "AIDS of the earth."
Many environmental groups have a revolving door relationship with the federal enforcement agencies like EPA and Fish and Wildlife. The agencies want "experienced people" and the environmental groups provide them.
So, it's really no surprise that many millions of tax dollars go out in grants each year to the very environmental groups wanting every little critter and bug in the world protected. In fact, it is quite common in Washington for a department or agency to give funds to private, nonprofit groups, which then turn around and spend the money to advocate and lobby for more funds for the granting agency. That taxpayer funded a merry-go-round is the big joke among eco-wackos. They got us coming and going.
The most egregious agency practicing this sort of scam is the Environmental Protection Agency. Over the past few years, EPA gave tens of millions of dollars to nongovernmental organizations directly involved in very liberal political advocacy. For instance, from 1993 through 1995, the Environmental Defense Fund received over $1.8 million, and the Natural Resources Defense Council -- both environmental advocacy organizations -- got nearly $1 million. In return, both groups have attacked all congressional efforts to reduce EPA funding and fought proposals by Congress to require federal agencies to examine the costs of public regulations.
Environmental groups also used their federal grants to fund lawsuits to increase the protected species rolls -- and hence to further increase the powers of federal regulatory agencies.
Now comes the Bush administration and things are changing somewhat. First, the Fish and Wildlife Service's ability to put new animals on the endangered species list suddenly ground to a halt last year. Instead, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service -- both enforcers of the Endangered Species Act -- are actually now asking federal courts in California to remove millions of acres from the protected category. But there's more going on than just that.
In a suit brought by New Mexico cattlemen and farmers last May, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit invalidated nearly 60 miles of protected streams and riverbeds for the willow flycatcher. That was because the government did not properly consider how businesses and landowners would be affected -- as is required by law. The same type of court action is being considered for 150 other habitats that have been set aside for endangered species.
Farmers near the Upper Klamath Lake, along the California-Oregon border, were harmed by a Department of Interior decision to deny them water to irrigate their crops. Department officials incorrectly said that, due to a drought in the area, the water was needed to save endangered suckerfish and coho salmon. This left farmers pleading with Interior officials to release water -- and when the department refused, the angry farmers opened canal gates themselves. Now a preliminary report from the National Academy of Sciences finds no evidence that low water levels in drought years led to a demise of the fish.
The Interior Department said it was forced to do the dastardly deed based on an incorrect analysis by federal biologists of the conditions of the fish, and its reading of the Endangered Species Act. Because of that incorrect analysis, local farmers lost more than $200 million worth of crops. The new study shows that original study was faulty, but that was too late for some of those farmers.
Other "faulty" environmental studies (and out and out fraud) include the counts of spotted owls and grizzly bears. There were also admissions that employees of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Forest Service and Washington state officials falsified data in some "studies." This just confirms what many rural people believe -- that agencies regularly doctor species and habitat studies to stop farming, logging, ranching and mining.
The era of the eco-wacko is not quite over yet. It will, however, start winding down shortly. They will soon find that the Bush administration is not as likely to pass out all those lucrative grants so readily. Nor will they be able to cause mischief in court as easily when they can't pay lawyers. And, without all that free federal money, most of the eco-wackos will have to look for actual jobs.
Now comes the Bush administration and things are changing somewhat. First, the Fish and Wildlife Service's ability to put new animals on the endangered species list suddenly ground to a halt last year. Instead, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service -- both enforcers of the Endangered Species Act -- are actually now asking federal courts in California to remove millions of acres from the protected category. But there's more going on than just that.
The era of the eco-wacko is not quite over yet. It will, however, start winding down shortly. They will soon find that the Bush administration is not as likely to pass out all those lucrative grants so readily. Nor will they be able to cause mischief in court as easily when they can't pay lawyers. And, without all that free federal money, most of the eco-wackos will have to look for actual jobs.
Love the statement implying that ecofreaks are overzealous religious fanatics. 'Bout time this movement is
identified for what it really is.
Fairy shrimp? = small homosexuals?
Want to really confuse one of these greenies? I saw a t-shirt with this on it: Nuke Gay Baby Whales For Jesus
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.