WILDLIFE WORD FOLLIES

By Jim Beers


From Chapter 6 of Through the Looking Glass:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means
just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many
different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - - that's
all."
From the Fox News just this morning:
Three commentators reported as the #1 item that President Obama told
Congressional Republicans that "they shouldn't watch Rush Limbaugh" because
that will delay passage of this (latest) "emergency" funding bailout (of
plus or minus a Trillion dollars for whomever and whoever is deserving such
as $300 Million for "contraception services").
Actually, the quoted words on the TV screen of the President's comments at
the meeting of BOTH Republican and Democrat Congressmen was "WE CAN'T LET
PEOPLE LISTEN TO RUSH LIMBAUGH" BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.
These "words", when spoken by the President to assembled elected Congressmen
(Representatives and Senators) of both parties, mean "WE need to stop
'letting?' people (i.e. you and me) listen to Rush Limbaugh". That means
for you "people 'out there'" that the President wants legislation and/or
regulations that will prevent American citizens from hearing whatever Rush
Limbaugh has to say.
Two points bear mention: First, these words and this rationale belong in
dictatorships like Zimbabwe, Russia and North Korea not the United States of
America. They should be extremely repugnant to all Americans. Second, When
and if Rush is banished or incarcerated or whatever; do not doubt for a New
York nanosecond that not just other outspoken radio hosts will be next but
the precedent is set for any dissenter or malcontent or questioner of our
"rulers" to be silenced and (?). Look at Roe v. Wade, look at the
Endangered Species Act, look at the Wilderness Act, look at all the
socialist legislation of the past four decades and examine why they were
passed and all the denials of what they wouldn't do and then look at what
they have become. Look at how dog owners turned their backs on how urban
majorities denied rural communities the right to conduct cockfights as they
would and how duck hunters ignored the devastation of introduced wolves on
elk or how fishermen ignored the impacts of anti-trapping laws, each
disdaining any stake in the others freedom. Then you can see how once Rush
goes, the dominoes will fall a few at a time in a steady stream and the
supporters of each will deny anything in common with the victim du jour
(freedom? rights? traditions? culture?) except their common and impending
extinction for reasons they can't quite figure out.
But alas, our subject is wildlife and words, not simply word-mongering.
Like Alice and television political observers, we need to ask all the
wildlife "experts" that are dictating more and more of our daily lives and
enabling the agenda of those that would make us all subjects of an autocracy
seated in Washington; "what exactly do they mean?" Today's news is full of
such examples but three current ones are all I will mention in deference to
those who like "shorter" articles.
First, there is the snow pack and blizzards that have gripped the Upper
Midwest this winter (no, this is not about the word-mongering involved in
global warming; that would take more pages than any sane person could
endure). The Minnesota papers and gas station gossip are all concerned with
the high winter losses of pheasants and other game birds due to the lack of
winter cover (trees, brush, cattails, etc.) and the difficulty the birds are
having to find waste grain and other high energy food in the deep snow. As
Minnesota and the Dakotas wrestle with this matter, enter the Iowa
Department of Natural Resources and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. These
two august government agencies own nearly all the non-private (i.e. vast
majority) game bird winter cover in the state of Iowa. They are currently
BURNING all the winter cover since the fires can't spread over deep snow.
Why, you might ask? "To restore native plants" is their answer. Now
"native" plants are of little to no use either for food or cover for
pheasants or Hungarian partridge. The state agency is supposed to represent
hunting interests and the federal agency was founded to foster wildlife in
consonance with American communities and traditions. Simultaneously,
"hunter organizations" like Pheasants Forever and others are either absent
or mildly supportive of this "Final Solution" for Iowa pheasants. But not
to worry, the federal employees are garnering favor with the environmental
and animal rights radicals descending on Washington like crows heading for a
winter roost with the Obama Administration and the "hunter" organization
employees will be in line for an "appointment" with the new Administration
based on a "good WORD" from the anti-hunting folks that are using the
impossible to achieve and indefinable WORDS "restoring native ecosystems" to
grow government and further oppress American citizens.
Second, an august "biologist" employed by another questionable "hunter
organization", Ducks Unlimited has pronounced that mallard duck wintering
areas in Arkansas (mostly seasonally flooded woodlands, rice fields, corn
fields, and other agricultural fields) should be made up of more areas of
"native plants". This is a specious bit of flim-flammery with words. Like
burning pheasant winter cover to save the pheasants (shades of Vietnam) this
bit of "biology" is merely a justification for more government land control
and purchase. Like the "biology" spawned by the millions of tax dollars
being wasted on finding and saving the Ivory-billed Woodpecker that has been
extinct for 60+ years (and which coincidentally spawned more hate mail in my
inbox than any other topic I have commented on); this "biology" takes the
"hunter" orientation mistakenly credited to DU and reorients it to less
mallard-friendly, mallard-supportive and less mallard-healthy winter
habitat. The answer to why can be seen in the last sentence of the previous
paragraph, simply substitute DU for Iowa DNR and USFWS and there you have
it. Ah, the magic of words!
Third, there is the recent forced landing of a commercial airliner in the
Hudson River in the midst of some of the densest human populations in the
USA. What if, the pilot wasn't so cool and competent? What if, the plane
had torn into high-rises and streets? What if? Why aren't wild birds,
especially big ones like geese excluded from large areas around airports and
air-lanes in dense urban settings? The federal government began and
nurtured this entire year-around, resident Canada goose population problem
40 years ago and now it makes it difficult for states to manage goose
numbers (year around numbers are in the millions nationwide) and
distributions by using hunters. Additionally it looks down its' nose at the
animal damage control folks now (they used to be in the US Fish and Wildlife
Service before that agency sought to be more environmental/animal-rights
friendly) and only offer difficult and very expensive alternatives paid for
by taxes instead of generating tax revenue from managed hunters. But to the
"WORD" aspect of this issue; news reports tell us that New York Senator
Schumer has "earmarked" untold numbers of federal tax dollars to "humane"
and "animal rights" groups to "control geese" in and around New York City
using "humane" methods such as immunocontraception (does that make them
eligible for the latest "bailout" money that the President wants for
"contraception"??) and transferring geese (to where, Wilderness? Shelters?
China?). Just as with all the vapid word nonsense about "non-lethal
control" of deer and coyotes and raccoons et al, the (good?) Senator and
the environmental/animal rights community of New York City and the state and
federal agencies all hide behind the smooth WORDS that mean "just what I
(they) choose it (them) to mean". That is to say, WORDS are merely
propaganda for hidden agendas and the personal benefit of politicians,
bureaucrats, and radicals.
Who'd have "thunk" that Humpty Dumpty could be quoted as such a wise wizard
however, that is exactly what he is when he says, "The question is which is
to be master - that's all". These word "twistings" are exactly what that
old propagandist Goebbels did so well. We look with scorn on those Germans
that were swayed by such lies but yet we are proving just as gullible. We
must ask ourselves what is the truth and then answer the question, who is to
be "master": the politicians, the bureaucrats, the radicals or the rest of
us. Need I answer for you? Jim Beers 24 January 2009