View Full Version : Conspiracy Theory on Land Use????

07-25-2004, 02:23 PM
I am not a person to believe that we have this kind of thing going on BUT why are we the only ones fighting the battle on many Land issues? This is worth reading. Jim F.


This from a fellow recently, "I don't believe the stuff you say
because you are the only one saying it." Really? It is a valid
point and one that should be addressed. If the outdoor writers and
conservation organizations and Universities and "our" Federal
"conservation" agencies and State agencies don't mention the
illegalities, costs, and corruption behind much of today's
"conservation" programs, why should anyone believe an old retired guy
that is always crying "wolf" (in the literary sense)?

Why is it that Congressional Committees can find no one to oppose
Federal Invasive Species Authority proposals? Such authority will
jeopardize and probably spell doom for pheasants, chukars, Hungarian
partridge, brown trout, Great Lakes salmon, largemouth bass west of
the 100th meridian, and other such critters that grace the walls of
Cabelas and Bass Pro and sportsmen's family rooms and dinner tables
across the country. Where are the Pheasants Forevers and the shotgun
and fishing tackle manufacturers? Where are the guides and
outfitters and rural folks who profit from and enjoy the presence of
these welcome species brought here from far away to enhance our
lives? Where are the State fish and wildlife agencies that manage
and profit from the uses of these species?

Why is it that growing Endangered Species complaints ignore the
impacts of wolves on deer and elk and other game? Why is it that
decreasing permit availability for big game is blamed on weather and
"too many formerly" and habitat change and everything EXCEPT the
growing wolf densities in these areas? Why is it that Universities
and State fish and wildlife agencies (with one or two exceptions)
rubber stamp Federal wolf "experts" forecasts that are patently
untrue about future wolf behavior and future management relief of
serious problems? Where are the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundations and
Deer Hunters organizations as future decreases in big game
availability become realities?

Why is it that the explosion of Federal land acquisition in recent
years is not questioned by State fish and wildlife agencies or
sportsmen's organizations? The increasing Federal acreage and
increasing Federal control of State lands purchased with Federal
funding (even only in part) coupled with increasing inaccessibility;
decreasing fish, wildlife, and forest management; increasing
elimination of the full gamut of human uses; and the decrease in fish
and wildlife numbers, diversity, and habitats seems of no importance
when mention of the old saw about "save the dirt" is brought up.
Like questioning if a tree makes a sound if it falls unheard by any
human ear, are wasted and unmanaged and inaccessible natural
resources of any relevance to man? Parks, Refuges, Forests, and
other public lands are no longer fish and wildlife habitats so much
as they are Federal islands where management and energy development
are forbidden while environmental extremists use them as excuses for
"corridors" and "Wildland" schemes to increase Federal ownership and
exclusion of public uses. As Counties receive less and less
compensation for lost property taxes, opponents of more land
acquisition are vilified in the media and by Federal agencies and
their environmental "partners." Whoops, the mention of partners has
just answered all my questions.

"Partners" the term brings a smile to the face and fond memories of
Saturday afternoons in dark movie theatres watching the bad guys get
rounded up by the good guys. Today the term has much more real and
sinister connotations.

Today the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) "partners" with every
conservation (and environmental and even some animal rights)
organization. The same could be said about the US Forest Service and
the Bureau of Land Management. FWS "partners" with the International
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA) and the American
League of Anglers and Boaters to keep more Pittman-Robertson and
Dingell-Johnson money in Washington for use here rather than in State
agencies as specified in those laws. FWS "partners" with Defenders
of Wildlife (an animal rights organization disguised as pro-wildlife)
to disarm opponents of wolf introductions until it is too late to
contain the wolves anymore. FWS and IAFWA and ALL the old
conservation agencies sponsor numerous common meetings and
"receptions" for each other each year. Ducks Unlimited (DU) and The
Nature Conservancy (TNC) "partner" with FWS to buy, manage, ease, and
otherwise control more acreage each year. Federal agencies like EPA,
FWS, National Park Service, and the National Marine Fisheries Service
and the governments of the District of Columbia and Maryland have
"partnered" with the US Army Corps of Engineers for years to permit
and cover up the deposition of toxic sludge through a National Park
into the Potomac River by Washington DC onto the only spawning
grounds of the long-"Endangered" shortnose sturgeon. This latter is
done while fining, arresting, raiding, and otherwise seriously
harassing citizens for far less "violations" of recent Federal

So, say I work for Bass Pro or Cabelas and understand that we should
oppose Invasive Species proposals. We sponsor receptions for the
conservation agencies and we want to be seen as on the side of
sportsmen. But (DU) supports FWS Invasive Species proposals. We
hire and are proud of former Elk Foundation and retired FWS employees
on our payroll and they counsel avoiding controversy and "working
with" their old counterparts. But FWS wants more budget and
authority and the Elk Foundation "partners" with IAFWA and others who
"support reasonable Invasive Species legislation" (translation
whatever gives money to State agencies.) Some of the conservation
organizations and nearly every State agency get Endangered Species
grant money from FWS. Organizations like DU and TNC raise millions
and buy and ease lands by appearing as positive and white-hatted
doers of good, not knuckle-dragging opponents of a warm fuzzy like
more Federal authority to "save" something like the elusive "native
ecosystem." Thus, do agendas merge, blur, and disappear. Note:
Recently I shopped at Bass Pro in Springfield, Missouri. I tried to
speak to someone about Invasive Species at the corporate office by
making inquiry at their store/museum complex. I struck out, as far as
I can tell because they are just a big outfit that is impervious to
contact by someone just dropping in.

Then there is the interchangeable nature of "partners." The US
Forest Service just hired a long-time Invasive Species advocate from
TNC where she got money and attention for Federal Invasive Species
support. FWS hired an Invasive Species advocate form the National
Beef Cattlemen Association. A top Congressional staff advocate for
environmental programs loses his job due to politics on the Hill and
is immediately picked up as a top FWS manager. The Wildlife
Management Institute hires a former top FWS manager. A lawyer for
IAFWA goes to work for FWS and then goes back to IAFWA. A top FWS
animal rights advocate goes to work for the Fund for Wildlife when
the Administration changes. The point to remember is not that these
are bad people or that what they do is wrong. Remember that these
are considered the best candidates for these jobs but what does such
high recommendation really entail? It entails skill at compromise
and survival in the give and take of Washington politics. While most
folks in the hinterlands are impressed that this is "best" for their
organizations (connections, experience, etc.) I submit that what it
really brings about is a common agenda that, by meeting "most peoples
needs" does not meet the needs of or protect our more narrow
interests from brown trout fisherman to elk hunter. Look to recent
history to see how loggers and ****fighters are marginalized and then
dog hunters, trappers, and dog breeders are singled out for
elimination; one small group at a time.

This common agenda reflects Federal power, Federal money, Federal
solutions, and a minimization of any State role other than as an
extension of Federal mandates. DU is impervious to impacts on
"invasive" brown trout or "invasive" Great Lakes salmon while they
envision Invasive Species funding availability. The Rocky Mountain
Elk Foundation is seduced into silence by University studies that
predict no significant loss of elk to wolves and falsehoods about
improved elk habitat once "invasive" plants are eliminated. IAFWA
ignores FWS shortstopping of money intended for its' members because
of the potential for windfalls for State agencies if the proposed
Federal Get Outdoors Act is passed. Eastern State fish and wildlife
agencies remain quiet about the future potential influx of mountain
lions and wolves as western States try valiantly to resist Federal
hegemony over all their plants and animals. It is far more difficult
and politically dangerous to oppose Endangered Species actions,
Federal land acquisition, or Invasive Species proposals than to bill
and coo about "Native ecosystems", Invasive Species hobgoblins,
predator desirability, or environmental "emergencies." These latter
are nearly all generated and justified by UN bureaucrats interested
in growing their power over the US, international environmental and
animal rights extremists, and University professors interested in
grants and supports for their pet area of study and tenure.
Underlying all of this is the flow of Federal money through FWS and
the future promise of even more largesse to be distributed and shared
by these groups who will also brag to their members about how they
helped bring it all about. "Partners" all.

This growth in "partners" over the past thirty years (since passage
of the Endangered Species Act and other sources of Federal power and
Federal funds) has blended the whole spectrum of agendas into one
agenda of compromise and accommodation. This common Federal-run
agenda is doubly dangerous to those of us who hunt, fish, trap, and
otherwise use natural resources or public lands. The reason is that
it increasingly incorporates the agendas of those organizations
committed to the demise of our right to use animals, natural
resources, or public lands. These groups are also committed to the
elimination of any active management or use of any natural resources
for any reason. This is being accomplished by politically and
financially neutering State governments that are the rightful
opposition to such Federal growth named in our Constitution.

So don't think because "your" organization doesn't mention it, it
isn't real. The old Washington saw about "these organizations are
formed to represent their members in Washington and they all wind up
representing Washington to their members" was never truer than it is
today. Trying to describe this in an understandable fashion is like
trying to write instructions about how to clean up a badly backlashed
casting reel. But clean it up we must and while it shouldn't take
thirty years, it can't be done overnight either.

Jim Beers
24 July 2004

07-25-2004, 11:35 PM
Am I the only one who had to read that three times and it still looks like one big run on sentence??? If the above is true; somebody gots some splainings to do. :rolleyes:

07-25-2004, 11:46 PM
This in some way helps the story out as they introduced wolves back into Idaho and then earlier this week news came out that they had to get rid of some. I copy and pasted the article from another site.
My buddy grew up in McCall Idaho and he remebers the fight people in the town put up like 8 or 10 years ago "not" to put wolves back in the area. They destroyed sheep and elk big time.
Just kind of interesting how the town was right and the "Partners" did not want to listen.

Sheep-killing wolf pack exterminated

MCCALL, Idaho (AP) -- The largest wolf pack in Idaho has been exterminated by federal agents after killing more than 100 sheep in central Idaho.

"Non-lethal methods were tried, but they didn't work and the wolves continued to kill sheep," said Carter Niemeyer, wolf recovery coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. "We won't tolerate wolves that are confirmed to be chronically killing livestock."

Niemeyer said the nine wolves in the Cook pack were killed earlier this week and members of two other packs roaming the McCall area could also be killed because they have been attacking livestock. No decision has been made on those packs yet, however.

Federal officials said Cook pack wolves killed 90 sheep in the McCall area last year and resumed the attacks early this month. The rancher and his hands camped with the sheep and tried unsuccessfully to scare off the wolves with guard dogs, ******* shells, sirens, lights and live fire from shotguns. Biologists from the Nez Perce Tribe also were unable to prevent the wolves from attacking sheep.

It was the second multiple wolf killing in the state this year. Three were shot by federal agents in early March after attacking cattle as far south as the Twin Falls area.

The Cook, Partridge and Hazard packs in the McCall area are among nine of the estimated 37 wolf packs in Idaho blamed for the loss of 118 sheep, 13 calves and six guard dogs last year.

Thirty-five Canadian wolves were released in the central Idaho wilderness in 1995 and 1996 as part of the program to reintroduce wolves in the Northern Rockies. The population has grown to an estimated 400, a large enough number to justify removing them from protection under the Endangered Species Act.

To do that, however, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming must all develop federally acceptable state wolf management plans. While the Idaho and Montana plans have been approved, the government has rejected the Wyoming plan and that state has gone to federal court to override the administrative ruling.

07-26-2004, 12:15 AM
That reminds me of growing up on the farm in upstate; NY. The federal government in partnership with game and fish; introduced "Quarry dogs" into the wilderness to take care of the deer overpopulation. The farmers fought this and lost. The quarry dogs or northeastern version of coyotes; killed infants and livestock at alarming rates. On top of this; pet dogs were allowed to run freely in the country. We all know what dogs do by nature...they run in packs. The pet dogs soon joined up with the quarry dogs and land owners were forced to hire hunters to kill the dogs. It was nothing to be playing in my back yard and to look up to see a pack of wild dogs. It exploded into one big mess and the farmers had predicted it from the start.

The Earth and it's inhabitants have an uncanny way of adapting and rebuilding. For anyone to think they can "fool Mother Nature"; is absurd. These "partnerships", if they exist; are most likely put in place to avoid confrontation and to simplify the job at hand.