Friday, January 23, 2009

Glaring Examples Of Wolf Problems

Comments by Harriet Hageman

If we ever want to return some semblance of common sense and local control to this debate, we are going to have to take a page from the enviros' playbook. We have to recognize that we are not going to win the lawsuits unless and until we are able to educate the general populace (including Judges who read newspapers, see billboards, watch advertising on tv, etc.) on what is going on. The enviros have now reached the point where they are controlling the debate -- the press not only goes to them for their side of the story every time there wildlife/sportsmen/livestock/environmental issue raised, but makes no effort to actually investigate the truth of what they are saying. There are glaring examples throughout the following article:

"Rushing through a flawed plan that has already been rejected by the courts doesn't make any sense," Stone said. "So much for public involvement. The bottom line is that we need to treat wolves as a wildlife resource and not as a pest to be exterminated. The Service should have created a new proposed rule that could do that and still address the needs of our regional stakeholders, but it means putting science back on the table first."

What "science" is she talking about? The science that shows that the FWS could introduce 35 wolves into Wyoming in 1995 and 1996 and have them explode 30-fold+ in 10 years? The science under which these wolves were introduced as "non-essential experimental" from the beginning? The science that shows that certain wildlife herds are being descimated? The science that shows for every "confirmed" livestock kill, we lose between 8-10 head (not counting the impact to breeding programs, the loss of weight, the increased expense of herding, etc.)? Sadly, the "science" was eradicated from this debate long ago, with the enviros making sure that science is ignored throughout the process.

My point is, the press does not do its job. It does not ask the right questions. It does not make an effort to understand either the situation on the ground, or the promises that were made. The problem is, however, that it is the press through which the public obtains its information. So long as the press is controlled by the leftist "green" agenda, the general public will never be informed of what is actually happening. It is for that reason that we have to stop expecting the press to actually investigate and fairly report on any of these issues.
The enviros only had to do a few things 15 years ago -- convince all of us that if the wolves were brought into our States that they would be managed, that they would be limited in number, and that the purpose was to "restore" the wolves to Yellowstone National Park. Once they got their foot in the door, it was over, and the facts will not matter to a Judge Malloy until there is a cost for ignoring them.
After having fought these battles for several years, I have come to the conclusion that we are going to have to move beyond the expectation that the Courts will understand the law and protect our interests. We are also going to have to recognize that the vast majority of the news outlets are corrupt, and will not make any effort to expose the "green" agenda for what it is. We need to return to our grassroots and start direct education programs in or to inform the public about reality, and we need to start from the bottom up. We know that kids are being indoctrinated in grade school to protect the pretty puppy dog wolves. We know that Disney World and Disneyland publish propaganda directed to the youngest members of our society. We know that teachers are presenting "global warming" hysteria in our schools, with little (if any) counterpoints being presented or even discussed.
The enviros started the long road to 2008/2009 in the early 1960's. It has taken 40+ years for them to arrive where they are now -- pushing a "green" agenda that has the potential to crater our economy (just wait for the upcoming "cap and trade" laws), destroy our environment (protecting the environment is a luxury when your citizens are starving -- you need look no further than places like Romania, China, etc.), and undermine our entire Constitution (how can private property rights be protected in the face of protecting "biological diversity" and "wildlife corridors").
If you want to fight this battle, it is going to take money, time, dedication, and a recognition that this is a long-term process. Whenever the enivros publish another picture of a polar bear "stranded" on an ice flow, we need to be able to come back with photographs of a person being carried out of their house having frozen to death for lack of money to pay the heating bill. Every time they show the pretty little pictures of the wolf pups, we need to show photographs of an elk attempting to return to its feet after having its hind-end eaten out while still alive. Every time they include an advertisement in the New York Times claiming that Earthjustice is protecting all of the babies of the world, we need to show starving children who do not have enough food because of the attack on our food production system. We need to approach our schools, and ask to be included in any assemblies in which environmental issues are addressed. We need to work with our teachers to develop educational programs that tell the truth.
We need to be writing more editorials in the newspapers. We need to be speaking at more conferences. We need to be going on radio programs exposing this "green" agenda for what it is -- the failed communist manifesto redux.
We need to hold a summit somewhere in the western United States and we need to create an organization that can take on the Sierra Club, the NRDC, the WWF, and the other enviro organizations head on. We need literally millions of dollars, a PR firm, and a board of directors who can keep this process on track. We need to try to prevent the agencies from writing laws through the regulatory process.
Where do we go from here? Do we let them win this battle, or do we gear up and fight back on their turf? Harriet M. Hageman

No comments: