Welcome to Blogster!
1,488,246 Blogster Users  |  364,642 Posts
 
 
 

jimbeers

 

Blog Traffic: 86003

Posts: 275

My Comments: 2

User Comments: 107

Photos: 0

Friends: 2

Following: 0

Followers: 0

Points: 4125

Last Online: 3943 days ago


 
 

Visitors

No Recent Visitors
 

Predator Management (An Urban Fairy Tale)

Added: Monday, April 14th 2008 at 11:02am by jimbeers
 
 
 

 PREDATOR MANAGEMENT (AN URBAN FAIRY TALE)

 

Imagine the federal government proposing to reduce urban crime by transferring known criminals to rural areas and small towns.  Suppose further that several University researchers had conducted federally-subsidized studies “indicating” that rural areas and small towns would benefit from the presence of these criminals.  Benefits such as more diverse communities and the introduction of new cultures and values could be had in no other way according to “experts”.  The money saved by reducing prisons would be in the billions and “much” of that could be used for “education” and “welfare” and “bringing our troops home”: who could oppose such a thing?  While agreeing that some things like unlocked doors,evening strolls, and gun availability would necessarily change in rural areas; rural citizens were assured by bureaucrats and politicians that many benefits that were probably incomprehensible to most rural residents were sure to follow along.

 

As the rural populous was objecting to this “proposal”, suppose the federal government simply rounded up the urban criminals and scattered them around the rural countryside.  Then imagine that the federal government would arrest and charge with a felony, anyone killing or harming or even harassing any of these criminals unless it was perfectly clear to federal investigators after-the-fact that the person who killed the criminal was himself, or one of his immediate family members, absolutely on the verge of being killed by one of these criminals and escape was impossible.  Federal regulations would be “published” that described how citizens threatened by criminals should not look at the criminal or “puff up” and how you should “roll up in a ball” (leaving your wallet or purse available)or else anything that happened subsequently would be “your” fault.

 

When the criminals began killing and maiming watchdogs and hanging around bus stops and going through yards, rural residents were cautioned to “stay inside” and only let out pets “on a leash”.  When livestock began to disappear or be found dying from horrendous wounds, farmers and ranchers were told that they had no business leaving animals unattended.  As complaints mounted the federal overseer of this criminal program finally relented and appointed The Defenders of Criminals to “pay” rural animal owners for damages, only the owners were unable to “prove” what unseen criminals had done.  No matter, the federal overseer and urban newspapers touted the payments as proof of no harm from dumping their criminals “out there”.  Incidentally, when the overseer lost her job, The Defenders of Criminals hired her at a very hefty salary to oversee “their” federal interface.  Lawsuits, testimony, “scientific” claims, and sub Rosa cooperation with associated gun controllers and socialism advocacy causes was harmonized and coupled to federal budget increases and regulatory modifications aimed at growing the federal agency and affording total protection to the criminals.

 

Other unforeseen “benefits” began to emerge.  Lone hunters, campers, and fishermen began to be attacked.  Some were killed and some seriously injured: so participation in outdoor activities from hiking and wood cutting to rock collecting and biking dwindled.  As this trend became apparent, other University “experts” and “criminal advocates” applied for and were given federal grants to examine the reported phenomena.  Their conclusions were that participation was dwindling because of global warming and video games and the erosion of nuclear families, and that furthermore reported “attacks” were both unproven and exaggerated and that there was reason to suspect that anti-criminal rural elements hadstaged the incidents to stop the spread of this very successful program.  They recommended capturing and removing individual criminals who, could be conclusively shown to have, committed three very serious crimes.  While this relieved some rural residents, it soon became apparent that the three time offenders were merely driven far away but soon returned to where they enjoyed life so much.  Since capital punishment was always vigorously opposed by urban voters and federal politicians and the criminals were reproducing at alarming rates in their uncontrolled environment, the relocation effort was soon abandoned.

 

As the harms to rural communities expanded and complaints became more vociferous, federal overseers and federal politicians had hearings and composed “Impact Studies”.  Urban supporters of the program made up the bulk of those testifying in the hearings and surprisingly the politicians listened to them and when rural objectors appeared, the politicians “had” to vote and thus were “not present” when aggrieved folks testified.  The “Impact Studies” quoted the studies subsidized by federal grants.  Meetings for “public input” were held in urban and suburban areas.  Those meetings were “managed” by professionally trained bureaucrats from the federal Criminal Relocation Agency.  The bureaucrats did a masterful job of ejecting “troublemakers” and directing media coverage to urban advocates for the program that swooned and swooned about all the benefits to rural people and how good they (the urbanites) “felt” about how the program was going.

 

AND SO BOYS & GIRLS. The program expanded. More and more criminals populated the countryside and more and more rural people moved to apartments (near Police Stations in the gun-free cities). AND EVERYONE – CRIMINALS, URBAN AND SUBURBAN RESIDENTS, BUREAUCRATS, & POLITICIANS - ALL LIVED HAPPILY EVER AFTER.

 

NOTE:  This isn’t really true.  It is an allegory.  Substitute “endangered” WOLVES (be they “Red:”, “Timber”, “Gray”, “Mexican” or any other contrived label); or “endangered” GRIZZLY BEARS; OR “threatened” BLACK BEARS (in LA or FL), or “endangered” PANTHERS; or unmanaged MOUNTAIN LIONS (i.e. cougars, catamounts, panthers) in states like CA and IA and many others for “criminals” and the allegory is complete.

 

Whether it is on the basis of being federally “classified” or “listed” as “endangered” or “threatened” or being protected by state classifications from “native” to “unique” to simply “protected”, these very dangerous and destructive animals are 1. spreading, 2. becoming more bold and dangerous as they lose any fear of human beings, and 3. causing increasing economic and health and lifestyle damage.  Hmmmm, sounds just like the criminals in our allegory.

 

This philosophy about “living with predators” is just like our allegory, also.  Urban voters reward politicians that fulfill their fantasies and welfare at the expense of others they do not know or have to believe.  Criminal defenders, like wildlife predator defenders, use every trick in the book to advance their narrow personal agendas. 

 

Dangerous wildlife predators, like criminals will always be with us.  That said they need to be minimized as much as possible and offenders removed quickly.  In the case of criminals that means swift and sure punishment.  In the case of wild predators, that means keeping their numbers and distribution within acceptable limits where they are to be allowed to exist.  Acceptable (to Communities affected) limits are maintained by harvesting (i.e. killing) them in sufficient annual numbers to maintain acceptable populations.  Additionally, this requires killing those that are found causing damage or danger swiftly and surely.  This is not understood by or supported by those who live in urban enclaves, far from the effects, just as in our allegory wherein the criminals are changed into a “rural” problem thereby causing urban “swoons”.  Imagine the reverse for a moment: how much rural financial support could you gin up for urban public transportation systems?  How much say should rural communities have regarding how much or what kind of public transportation their urban cousins should have?  Whether within a State or nationally, individual communities should retain the power to regulate their lives and affairs as guaranteed in the US Constitution..  Oppressing others for whatever reason has no place in a free Republic with Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

 

The answer lies in the principles agreed to by Our Founding Fathers over 200 years ago.  States did not submit to a Federal government to replace a monarchy with a central government dictatorship no matter how much it may please other elements of society.  “Our” States created a Federal government to defend us, conduct foreign relations, and regulate commerce BETWEEN States.  Virginia (or any other State) DID NOT agree to a Federal government to allow more numerous cities to dump their criminals on the rural countryside any more than to force rural people to live with dangerous and destructive “beasts” (to quote the Bible).  These are matters for LOCAL COMMUNITIES AND STATEGOVERNMENTS to determine and regulate.  If we had powerful Sheriffs as we did 200 years ago, this dumping on rural America would not be possible. 

 

Recovering powerful Local Governments and powerful State Governments is the first step in recreating a Federal Government that once again defends us (particularly in this very dangerous world today) and cannot harm us: no matter how small our economic worth or how insignificant our political percentage.

 

Jim Beers

14 April 2008

- If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others.  Thanks.

 

- This article and other recent articles by Jim Beers can be found at

 http://jimbeers.blogster.com   (Jim Beers Common Sense)

 

 - Jim Beers is available for consulting or to speak.  Contact:

jimbeers7@verizon.net

 

- Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow.  He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC.  He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands.  He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC.  He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from Statefish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority.  He resides in Centreville, Virginia with his wife of many decades.   

User Comments

This was an excellent article, nice job mate.

Fantastic, Jim.  It's time to get the elephant out of the house. 

excellent. and indiana departmernmt of natural rescources and coyotes could be substituted also, with little difference. they advocate protecting coyotes, eliminating the only viable market for  indiana coyotes , putting indiana trappers out of business,and side with known animal rights groups such as hsus and the "coyote rescue league". the idnr has been infiltrated by animal rights protectionists from the top down.  our governor and legislature need made aware of this and firings  need to start right away.

Post A Comment

This user has disabled anonymous commenting.