Don't Cry Wolf, Cry about Private Property and 5th Amendment Rights

Pollock Pines/Quartz Valley, Calif. — With the recent news of the gray wolf “moving” to California, it is time to weigh in on another government-engineered debacle: Government intention versus the private property owner and his/her 5th Amendment rights.

Yes, we have all heard this tired dialogue before, but this time it is uniquely different and very ominous. Where the habitat of the spotted owl was forests, the wolf habitat is essentially infinite. In the article published Dec. 30, California Department of Fish & Game (CDF&G) Director Bonham aired his thoughts. And someone commented, “While the wolves in California will be under federal protection, state regulators said they have no wolf management plan and no intention to actively re-introduce the animals to the state.”

Well don’t believe a word of it, for it is another example of mollifying vague language to keep our attention off all the unintended consequences of “government knows best.”

 

Although CDF&G may have no intention of re-introducing wolves, they do have ubiquitous authority to regulate anything that walks, flies, slithers and sucks in California.

They have certainly made a mess of reintroducing wild pigs and turkeys as multimillion-dollar lawsuits paid by California taxpayers can attest to. But believe me, they have a “plan.” They are bound to the regulation(s) imposed by the Federal ESA (Endangered Species Act of 1973) as well as Cal EPA and all that it entails. ESA is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and written by the EPA.

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) was not ill-conceived in the beginning, but because misuse by land developers, greedy conservation interests and the Department of Interior itself, by it’s Orwellian reverse speak, it has evolved into the most misused, unjust and unconstitutional abrogation of our civil liberties in U.S. history.

Make no mistake. The wolf, grizzly, bald eagle, spotted owl, Chinook salmon and most other species listed by the FWS are not and never were “endangered.” It is a first order deception spawned by odd biological principle and perpetuated to control land. And it comes in two parts.

First, most “listed” species are determined based on their populations of the last 100 years (a completely arbitrary number). Example: The bald eagle, although well-known in North America and California for over 100 years, California never was its population center. California was an “extrapolated” habitat. And although its numbers were dwindling here over the last few decades, it has always been prolific in Alaska, its native habitat. The EPA somehow would like you to believe they were almost gone from the planet and then miraculously saved by their regulations.

If another Chinook salmon never came up the Klamath again, it would certainly not be endangered. Its native habitat is the Columbia River and rivers of the Pacific Northwest above Oregon. Same applies to the grizzly AKA the brown bear. Its primary population center is also Alaska where it thrives and belongs. And so it goes.

Secondly, in order to gain control of the land through “legal” means, where the powers of Eminent Domain could not be applied, the EPA was developed to specifically enforce sound environmental measures but also to focus on and control habitats of these ‘endangered’ creatures large and small. The EPA, a new agency in 1971, was developed primarily as a response to Rachel Carson’s book “Silent Spring.” And a worthy endeavor it was.

For those few species that truly are endangered, meaning in their native habitat and at a minimum viable population, we must be very careful. For who are we in our educated ignorance to decide the fate of a species, possibly for eternity. But keep in mind, the natural process of “speciation and extirpation,” the evolving of new species and extinction of others, should not be confused with man’s impact to the environment.

ESA, a noble concept at the time, but where has it lead us to today? Has it actually saved any species? A few perhaps like the el Segundo butterfly, but at what cost to our unalienable rights? Yes, man can, and has, exploited the forests and waterways as the early railroads and the gold rush laid bare for all to see. But today, the taking of legally deeded water and land, coercion via tax incentives to give up the best parts of someone’s land and heritage, the angst, the thousands of bankruptcies and many suicides are all for what? Sadly, the great expectation of Rachel Carson's vision has somehow morphed into an enormous runaway train dragging our rights and economy with it.

And more importantly, has ESA actually fostered any heart-felt motivation to help these “endangered” species? Certainly not in the vast reaches of non-urban society where the impact is felt. In fact quite the contrary. The 3 S’s – Shoot, Shovel and Shut up – have become the unspoken law of the land. Why did our forefathers rid themselves of the wolf and grizzly bear, was it common sense?

How many human maulings and fatalities caused by the grizzly’s re-introduction to the Yellowstone must there be? Is this what the EPA meant by “restoring the natural balance”? The re-introduction of dangerous and economically untenable species like the grizzly and wolf is simply more government gone wild … they should be held responsible both civilly and criminally. Just like the rest of us would be if we brought a grizzly to a community dumpster, or a wolf to someone else’s flock of sheep where they eventually end up anyway, period.

Lastly, there is no question. ESA by itself has destroyed countless thousands of jobs throughout the northwest and crippled many rural communities from the devastated Tulelake farmers to our once prosperous logging industry. It is not Tule Lake suckers nor spotted owls, but ESA that is the culprit of our condition. In the EPA’s design of the ‘balance of nature’ equation, somehow the human species got left out. It is as simple as that.