Posted on 02/03/2015 5:06:08 PM PST by Ulmius
I'm writing on a story I heard about the spread of the Burmese python in Florida. This is also my first post on this site.
Despite all our objections against the dangers of blind and excessive "green" regulations by the federal government, conservationism SHOULD NOT be seen as a strictly progressive movement.
In the context of invasive species, these types of pests infest an area the size of Delaware every year in this country (according to the Audubon Society). Pythons roam the Everglades. Chinese privet chokes out vital understory species in the Southern uplands. Zebra mussels crust the surface of a great number of submerged structures and inhibit sewage in parts of the Great Lakes. A single species of beetle from wood shavings in freight crates has devastated the ash population of the American Northeast and Canada. Vivacious tamarisk trees are absorbing massive amounts of groundwater from our Western aquifers.
As much as we rightfully laud ourselves the vigilant watchdogs against illegal immigration on the borders, we seem to ignore completely another type of toxic immigration borne through the vector of commercial by-products, ill-informed ideas on eco-management, and of ill-managed imports such as pets or decorative species that can establish themselves. These agents have a primordial desire to radically reconstruct the ecosystems of our great nation, skewing the beautiful equilibrium of our land irreparably much the same as an influx of illegal unassimilable aliens would radically reconstruct our body politic. What is worse is this problem is very real, unlike the conjectures behind the idea of climate change.
It is our duty to promote the eradication of invasive species as a threat to our natural and agricultural heritage. What has not been fragmented by human settlement (no matter how necessary or responsible) and economic activities is now being infested beyond measure and choked out of its own home. This entire assault, with the exception of a few urgent cases that threaten the immediate economic or aesthetic soundness of their host, is being carried out under our noses and mostly without our knowledge.
I do not propose stifling and elastic federal regulation to fight this blight as most conservationists do; any federal regulations for this issue should only be directive-specific from a topical legislative committee of informed representatives composed of the afflicted states, and they are needed only if they concern INTERSTATE terrestrial systems that are vital to the nation at large and INTERSTATE waterways (as is the federal government's duty to carry out according to the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution) with appropriate supervision from big-government whistleblowers. Otherwise, if we can form grassroots vigilante forces equivalent in their purpose to those valiant groups banded together against illegal immigrants, and equivalently passionate in the re-balance of our ecosystems and for the restoration of the legendary tranquility that permeates the landscape of America, our heritage can be made integral once again. In the event that a more unified body is needed in a local infestation, all one has to do is reach out to the several states' great agricultural agencies (there are plenty) or private agrarian organizations to help them.
I beseech all of my dear readers to arm themselves with knowledge about this threat and how they can stop it. Our rightful soil is begging for some Patriotic gardeners, and we need to take up our plowshares against these other undocumented invaders with the zeal of swords.
I would appreciate anyone's input on my piece very much, thank you for reading.
I see... what have been some of the methods for conservation that conservatives agree with? I am of course painting broad strokes in my post, and I rarely hear about the issue of conservation from pundits except in a negative light due to its association with extensive regulations and ability to be used as an excuse to prosecute citizens (i.e. the Bundy case)
Anything in compliance with Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.
I don't see anything in the Constitution allowing for federal conservation.
/johnny
Taking money away from do nothing federal regulators is a good start. For instance stop giving Chicago money to study the asian carp problem which they then use for their own projects.
We’ve got 3 different czars who are supposedly overseeing the great lakes environment and invasive species yet none of them appear to do much of anything but soak up money and complain about industry.
If you think you’ll find any love for federal regulators around here, you better be carbon neutral because you’re going to get burned down to your boots.
Aww c’mon man, there is nothing that more government can’t fix.
/johnny
Well in Oregon for instance, you can take away the horribly mismanaged federal forests and hand them over to the State (in accordance with the constitution, there are no naval yards, magazines, or forts) and let the state start cleaning up this mess. For example start cleaning up Japanese Bark Beetle infestations, clearing up choking underbrush, selective thinning to increase forest fire survivability. That’s just a few. There’s pictures on the web comparing the Tribal lands that were correctly managed right next to federal lands that burnt to a crisp in the Biscuit fire.
Oregon State University is home to probably the worlds most famous Forestry Departments and they’ve been talking about federal mismanagement for as long as I can remember.
Washington DC doesn’t care a bit about the condition of federal forests in the Western states. There’s simply no lobbyist money in it for them. There IS lots of lobbyist money for them from radical environmentalist groups and get this...huge lumber corporations with gigantic privately owned forests that don’t want competition from logging of any kind on public forests.
Besides wasting resources, of course?
/johnny
Your replies and the others are why I posted my opinion on here; I wanted to see if there were any real-life examples presentable to contradict what I said. The idea of “czars” on environmental issues does sicken me. That is why I am suggesting a grassroots organization to combat this issue filled with passionate members.
However, for interstate issues such as the soundness of the Great Lakes ecosystem from the true economic damage of carp and mussels, what other ways are there to alleviate the infestation other than a multi-state initiative and grassroots campaigns like I call for? That is not a rhetorical question.
Aral sea.
Conservation soviet style.
Socialism always does worse at that whole 'stewardship' thing.
/johnny
For many good reasons, a federal effort is at best, misguided, and at worst, just another liberal ecological disaster.
The worse ecological disasters have their roots in socialism.
Looks like the capitalists cleaned up their act and quit setting rivers on fire.
/johnny
While we are talking about Article I, Section 8, why would the invasive species issue *over an interstate area and causing damage to many economic units across state lines* such as the Great Lakes not be considered as providing for the general Welfare of the United States? That again is an honest question. What is the best way to solve it on a local level?
Same in Michigan. The state forests are much better managed (and utilized) than the national forests which are becoming increasingly off limits.
Screw the feds and lift the great lakes drilling ban. The EPA and virtually every other real environmental study has said that directional drilling under the lakes poses virtually no danger to the lakes as long as the rigs are 1000 feet from the shores and all normal safety procedures are followed.
Liberals are still squealing about the Embridge spill on the Kalamazoo river. What they don’t mention is that their beloved Jenny Granholm had never bothered to appoint the state mandated inspector. Rick Snyder put it under the jurisdiction of the attorney general who entered into a non confrontational inspection partnership with them and Embridge is now going above and beyond their legally required reporting and maininance.
That is a discussion worth having.
Too often, people have blindly assumed that the federal level is the way to go.
In the case of the Great Lakes, Federal involvement has NOT solved the problem. And I don't expect it to.
What is needed is a multi-state compact that doesn't involve the feds.
Someone that can actually get something accomplished.
And they aren't 'economic units', they are sovereign governments.
/johnny
Ok; I will look closer in the Bible for what it says about stewardship, and I will research closer the past bad disasters, like the Aral Sea, Three Mile Island, and so on, to see how leftist policies could have aggravated them. Thanks everyone for your replies so far, I’m knowing better where to look for the nightmares of federal regulation.
Under socialism, no-one is responsible, and no-one loses when disaster occurs. It just 'happens', like the food disasters under Stalin.
When a man owns part of something, he cares, even if he doesn't want to.
I would also suggest that you might want to read Adam Smith.
But be careful, you might get infected, and become a conservative, and do the right thing for the wrong reasons.
/johnny
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.