Posted on 10/29/2013 5:30:51 AM PDT by Kaslin
Environmentalists have galvanized behind a movement to resurrect wolf populations in rural America. Public support, particularly from urban regions, appears to favor the idea of returning this iconic symbol of the wilderness to America’s rural landscapes. Unfortunately there is a lack of public awareness to the real life consequences for those living with wolves. The result is a misguided Federal wolf introduction program that disregards protests from states where wolves are forced on communities that don’t want them.
In Catron County, New Mexico, aggressive Mexican gray wolves are terrorizing residents. Here wolves are killing pets in front yards in broad daylight, and forcing parents to stand guard when children play outside. The threat has become so ominous the local school district has decided to place wolf shelters (kid cages) at school bus stops to protect school children from wolves while they wait for the bus or parents. These wolf proof cages, constructed from plywood and wire, are designed to prevent wolves from taking a child. The absurdity of this scenario is mind-numbing. What kind of society accepts the idea of children in cages while wolves are free to roam where they choose?
This situation exemplifies the problem with the Endangered Species Act (ESA). It has drifted far from its original intent and become a useful tool for extreme environmentalists to push their agendas, often placing the interests of wild animals above the interests of real people.
The ESA allowed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to release captive Mexican gray wolves in New Mexico and Arizona in 1998 as a “nonessential experimental population.” The experiment isn’t going so well. 15 years after its inception the wolf population in these states is growing and so are conflicts between wolves, livestock, local residents, and federal government agencies in charge of the program. Now, despite growing resistance from local communities, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed an expansion of the Mexican gray wolf program.
Those forced to live with wolves on a daily basis have found there is little they can do about the harmful consequences imposed on them by their government. They find themselves having to deal with two predators—one from the wild and the other from Washington, D.C.
According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, willfully harassing, harming, or killing a species listed on the ESA can lead to fines up to $100,000 and one year in jail.
The local sheriff in Truth or Consequences is Joe Baca, a no-nonsense law enforcement officer who doesn’t take kindly to outside influences dictating terms for how public safety matters are dealt with. I recently met with Sheriff Baca to learn the truth about wolf threats to humans and the consequences of government programs that force wolves on civilized areas.
“My number one priority is public safety,” Baca told me, “I don’t work for the Federal government. I work for the residents of this county. The truth is that one of these days we are going to have a wolf incident with a human tragedy. In my opinion our citizens are more important than any endangered species. There is no way I am going to allow any Federal agent to come into my county and arrest someone for protecting their livestock or their family by killing a wolf.”
Local resident Crystal Diamond has experienced several run-ins with wolves, including two close encounters when she was alone with her young children. She expressed her growing frustration with this government induced wolf problem — “As mothers raising our children in wolf country, we have the additional responsibility of protecting our children from a threat that is imposed by our own government and funded by our own tax dollars.”
Many rural communities in New Mexico and Arizona view the Federal government’s artificial wolf introduction program as a predatory action against state’s rights to manage wildlife, and local government authority to protect private property and public safety. When it comes to the ESA, the Federal government has often misused the law to usurp state’s authority and override local concerns by imposing restrictions on land use and wildlife stewardship.
Conflicts over the ESA primarily revolve around competing sets of values. Rarely is the debate over whether a species is threatened with extinction. The truth is that most of the species listed as endangered, including the gray wolf, are not in any danger of extinction. These so-called endangered species are simply not deemed at acceptable levels in a geographic location.
Those who believe ecosystems must to return to an original pre-human settled state, use the ESA to protect species from harm by forcing mankind to modify behaviors. The result is slowed and stalled infrastructure projects, higher costs of goods, restrictions on development, and limitations on private property rights. But the preeminent problem is contrasting values that juxtapose those who believe in mankind’s superiority to animals with those that place animals and humans on a level of equal value, or in some cases, give higher value to an animal, bird or fish.
There are around 1,500 species listed as endangered or threatened by the ESA. Only 27 have been deemed recovered and delisted. While the Mexican gray wolf program may be expanded, its more common cousin, the gray wolf, is now under consideration for delisting, in part because as the numbers grow, so does the difficulty of managing this predator.
Wolves are a unique predator. There were very valid reasons why they were driven from the lower 48 states through government wolf eradication projects in the early 1900‘s. There is no other apex, top-of-the-food-chain predator in North America so destructive to livestock, wildlife, pets, and ultimately economies, as the wolf. After a long absence of wolf populations in the lower 48 states, public opinion of the wolf changed. It has become a non-threatening symbol of environmental idealism. But with the return of the wolf, and their destructive behavior, rural America is quickly learning why wolves were removed from settled areas.
Wolves reintroduction programs began in earnest in the mid-1990‘s when Canadian wolves were planted in Yellowstone Park. Here their killing capability is on full display. As pack hunters, wolves have a huge advantage over their prey. The northern Yellowstone elk herd numbered around 20,000 in 1995 despite predators such grizzly bears and mountain lions. Today the same herd is less than 4,000 — an 80% reduction. Moose populations have also suffered enormous losses to wolves in the Yellowstone area.
States like Montana and Idaho have felt the economic impact of having large numbers of game animals killed by wolves. With fewer hunters and less permits issued, annual funding revenues for state Fish and Game departments have decreased. Less hunters mean less money, and taxes collected, in small communities that depend on this industry.
The problem with wolves is that there is no such thing as just a few wolves. Wolves breed at extraordinarily high rates and as their numbers grow, their territory naturally expands. One year three females in the Yellowstone Druid pack had a total litter of 21 pups – 20 of them survived. It doesn’t take long for the population to explode, and that is precisely what has happened. There are now hundreds of wolves roaming Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming.
The ESA brought wolves into Yellowstone, but didn’t consider the economic impact on neighboring states. Nor did it take into account the jeopardy to small business owners in the livestock industry who have been forced into the unfortunate reality of feeding wolves with their livestock.
Wolves are killing machines with a naturally ingrained instinct to chase. At times this inclination can lead to sport killing. Sheep are often the victims of these rampages and offer a convenient training opportunity for young wolves to learn the art of the kill. This past summer Montana rancher Bill Hoppe had 18 sheep killed by a collared wolf from Yellowstone Park — none of the dead sheep were eaten. The Siddoway Sheep Company in Eastern Idaho had 176 sheep killed in a wolf induced stampede. Only two sheep were partially eaten. Over the course of two month’s the Siddoways lost 250 sheep, several dogs, and a horse to wolf attacks.
Serious problems with wolves are not limited to their capacity to kill. They are known carriers of disease that can cause severe problems and even death in both animals and humans. In Alaska 300 people have contracted the deadly hydatid disease from encountering wolf scat and tracking it into homes. This disease has been identified in over 60% of wolves in Montana and Idaho. Wolves spread anthrax, brucellosis and other diseases throughout wildlife and livestock populations, causing infertility, miscarriage and death.
Some large predators, such as wolves, are simply incompatible with civilization. The grizzly bear is a case in point. California, where I currently live, has a grizzly bear on the state seal and flag. At one time as many as 10,000 grizzlies roamed the state. But grizzly bears have not been in California since 1922. There’s just no way to mix such an aggressive predator with populated areas. Wolves are an even more difficult predator to manage.
Gray wolf populations now far exceed the recovery goals established by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. With the gray wolf now under consideration for removal from the endangered list, wolf management would return to where it belongs — in the hands of states instead of the Federal government. Management of wildlife, including endangered species, should be the responsibility of states rather than bureaucrats in far-off places like Washington, D.C.
Since artificial wolf introduction programs began, wolf proponents have used every possible means at their disposal to keep wolves from being delisted from the endangered list. It took an act of Congress in 2011 to delist wolves in Montana and Idaho. Legislation was attached to a must-pass budget bill, resulting in legislation being used for the first time to remove ESA protection of a species.
Last week the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced an extension for public comment on gray wolf delisting and expansion of the Mexican gray wolf program. The deadline for public comment submissions is December 17, 2013. Four public hearings will also take place; Denver, Colorado (Nov. 19), Albuquerque, New Mexico (Nov. 20), Sacramento, California (Nov. 22), and Pinetop, Arizona (Dec. 3).
The pro-wolf lobby is powerful and well-funded. Extreme environmentalists such as Defenders of Wildlife, Wild Earth Guardians, Sierra Club, and the Center for Biological Diversity are aggressively lobbying to keep wolves on the endangered list. Unfortunately, rural communities most impacted by wolves, don’t have such well-funded organizations fighting on their behalf.
The truth is wolves are not compatible with people living in populated areas including most of the settled territory of the lower 48 states. Wolves need to be managed in a way that does not subject children to cages at school bus stops, drive small business owners in the livestock industry to ruin, burden taxpayers with expensive wolf management programs and lost tax revenues, and force local communities to suffer consequences of Federal government actions.
Allowing the Endangered Species Act to place the interests of animals, birds, fish and plants above the interests of mankind is a recipe for disaster. We have a clear choice; either we control predators in the wild, and in government — or they will control us.
The Endangered Species Act (you know, the subject of this thread), Title 16, Section 1531 of the United States Code does not cite the Constitution for its source of unconstitutional authority; it cites a list of treaties. Why have a section detailing legislative authority outside the Constitution if the legislation at issue was otherwise constitutional? Hmmm?
I distinctly recall a conversation I had with a woman at an IT conference in San Francisco. When she learned I was from Idaho the topic got around to wolves and I mentioned that we have several local packs and that I'd seen tracks on a recent hike, and that's why I carried a pistol. Her reply? Total hatred on her face and she hissed, "Then you shouldn't be living there." End of conversation.
Now, I got to thinking, "Hey, here's someone who loves wolves very much," but since then I've reconsidered. It isn't that they love wildlife at all, it's that they hate us. Not all humans, especially themselves. Us.
Victims of wolf pack attacks might have done better if they were able to avoid being attacked simultaneously, or from behind.
Historically, those who succeeded in finding a tree survived more often and with less injuries.
LOL! Dats dem govmn’t fed pigs...fat, dumb and never happy
Your placement had better be really good. Hit a wolf in the lungs and it keeps right on going.
A buddy of mine bought some of them whistles at the auto store and installed them right there in the parking lot.
He only lives 5 mile from the store, but he hit 3 deer afore he got HOME!!
Upon investigation, it turned out he installed them BACKWARD!
YES!!!!
LOLOLOL!
You might doubt your ability to kill a bunch of wolves but I know mine and I would not have any trouble.
Treadwell was not armed and didn't want to kill a thing, I an accomplished hunter with thousands of kills behind me. I would have no trouble pulling the trigger time and time again on a pack most likely it would be rather fun.
There is a reason your ancestors worshipped the sun and exterminated wolves....
The third doesn’t work so well with a wolf that is collared.
See post 59 on this thread.
Again, you’re assigning evil motives to Hamilton when there are reasonable, non-evil explanations for what he proposed in regard to treaties. Those kinds of thought processes are typical for conspiracy theorists. No insult intended, but you appear to assume the worst rather than accept the simpler, more likely explanation.
You also claim I’m delusional, but my opinion (that treaties don’t amend the US Constitution) is not unusual. Plus the article I linked to had quotes from Supreme Court decisions that quite clearly said treaties do not supersede the Constitution. I dare say my point of view is well supported, even if there’s a remote chance that what you propose is true, that Hamilton and others conspired (that’s why I called it a conspiracy theory) to subvert the amendment process.
In regards to the fact that treaties were listed as justification for the Endangered Species Act, that could simply mean that’s why the law was written. In other words, the treaties prompted the law to be written, but that doesn’t mean the law was automatically constitutional. All law would still need to pass constitutional muster, but that’s what we’re disagreeing about.
It’s not like the government doesn’t pass all sorts of extra-constitutional laws all the time. It does! In most cases, they don’t even bother to claim what part of the Constitution justifies a given law. The Democrats in particular think they can pass pretty much whatever they want. They certainly don’t need a treaty to justify trampling the US Constitution.
Like I wrote, we can agree to disagree. I mean you no disrespect. I just disagree with your opinion that treaties are higher than the Constitution. If what you say is true, then government could pass a treaty banning any or all of the provision of the Bill of Rights. It could theoretically pass a treaty saying the president is elected by a simple vote of the Senate! Sorry, but that’s ridiculous.
Again, apparently his lying about it doesn't count for you.
Those kinds of thought processes are typical for conspiracy theorists. No insult intended, but you appear to assume the worst rather than accept the simpler, more likely explanation.
You ignore the evidence, saying that there is none, and then cover it with an insult offering that none is intended.
You are dishonest.
You also claim I’m delusional, but my opinion (that treaties don’t amend the US Constitution) is not unusual.
The metric for your delusion has nothing to do with that. It is this borderline idolatry conferred upon the Founders. Your brainwashing is therefore fully apparent.
The founders were men, just like any other men, with strengths, weaknesses, and mistaken loyalties (particularly to Freemasonry). They were inarguably well educated. Even so, Madison was had by this crew, and he even admitted as much later in life as he watched the steady progress of usurpation of power progress through the Congress.
In regards to the fact that treaties were listed as justification for the Endangered Species Act, that could simply mean that’s why the law was written.
Nonsense. You are inventing things, which is a sign of desperation. The section is entitled "Authority." Spin that.
In other words, the treaties prompted the law to be written, but that doesn’t mean the law was automatically constitutional.
Then it would have been "Rationale," or "Justification," and not "Authority." You see, it is you who has to avoid plain meaning here.
It’s not like the government doesn’t pass all sorts of extra-constitutional laws all the time. It does! In most cases, they don’t even bother to claim what part of the Constitution justifies a given law.
They went to the trouble of doing it on this one. That should tell you something. You are hand-waving it away with, 'they ignore it all the time.' In this extremely important, no, crucial case, they took the trouble to cite treaty "authority" because they knew damned well that no treaty the United States has ever ratified has been thrown out on Constitutional grounds.
Yet the scope of powers those treaties invoke is so far beyond the powers enumerated in the Constitution that they are laughable. That's evidence. You ignore it.
I just disagree with your opinion that treaties are higher than the Constitution. If what you say is true, then government could pass a treaty banning any or all of the provision of the Bill of Rights.
Then you need a basis for that 'disagreement' you have not cited. Nor have I seen a single example out of you in support of your argument. Just what the hell do you think the ESA has done to the "just compensation" requirements of the Fifth Amendment?
The ESA and all the other Nixonian environmental laws were passed amid the collapse of the Brettonwoods Agreement. The government had to sequester collateral or the lenders (especially de Gaulle) would not lend without additional collateral (the gold in Ft. Knox was already LONG over collateralized). The government promised the entire mineral estate of the United States as collateral. The ESA is means to sequester that estate. Since that time, there has not been one major hard rock mining operation authorized in the American West. But you'll ignore that too, seeing as you can't get past the plain meaning of the need for a section citing treaties as "Authority."
The goal of my work is to fracture that Federal estate with a host of products and new land uses, effectively privatizing it beyond their greedy fingers.
It could theoretically pass a treaty saying the president is elected by a simple vote of the Senate! Sorry, but that’s ridiculous.
That is a moronic argument. There is a huge difference between the exercise of a usurpation of power not enumerated or described in the Constitution and the modification of a statutory procedure that is codified therein.
Carry_Okie: “There is a huge difference between the exercise of a usurpation of power not enumerated or described in the Constitution and the modification of a statutory procedure that is codified therein.”
I agree, except the 10th Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Any powers not specifically enumerated or described in the US Constitution belong to the States or to the people. There is no wiggle room for treaties that attempt to add extra-constitutional powers, just like there’s no room for all the other times they write laws that violate the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. The fact that they do so doesn’t mean they have the moral and legal authority to do so, and they get away with it because the ones breaking the supreme law of the land are the very ones charged with enforcing it!
Carry_Okie, I’m not idolizing the Founders. They were men driven by the same motives as all men. They weren’t perfect, but by the same token, they weren’t all cads either. Hamilton, in Federalist 75, explains his thoughts regarding treaties. Why do you insist in ascribing evil motives to the man when he provides rational explanations for his point of view?
I read and admire your well thought out posts all the time. You make some good points, and you could be right. There are certainly plenty of reasoned people on both sides of this treaty issue. We’re not likely to change each other’s minds, but I enjoyed the discussion. FReegards!
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.