When the US Department of the Interior and the US Fish and Wildlife Service decided in the mid 90's to use the ESA to forcibly reintroduce and expand the range of wolves and grizzly bears in the northern Rocky Mountain States there were so many reasons why that was a bad idea that something slipped under the radar screen regarding what was mentioned about that debacle. The time to mention that is long gone but mention it we must.

The Director of the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) under President Clinton when these actions took place now works for the Defenders of Wildlife (DOW). When the decision to reintroduce wolves to Yellowstone National Park (as a protected sanctuary from which they would spread throughout the West and yes, even the East) the FWS quietly "partnered" with DOW to silence the outraged opposition to the reintroductions. DOW would "pay for damage" and "compensate ranchers (sic for stock losses)." No one would be harmed and "the ecosystem" would be "balanced" and "natural."

Ranchers grasped at the offer to be compensated for losses from what they believed to be an inevitable action. States and rural communities were exposed as narrow and self-interested if they objected to the predators. Urban supporters clinked wine glasses and scooped brie-based hors d'oeuvres on their crackers as they congratulated themselves on this environmental success. Only a fool would have questioned this magnanimous gesture of "cooperation" and "good will" by this anti-hunting group who was "putting their money where their mouth is." The only problem was that involving the private agenda of a group like DOW was a thinly disguised ploy to advance the demise of ranching, public land access, natural resource management, and natural resource use; all of this under the auspices of "saving endangered species."

There is no way (zip, zero, nada) that DOW payments could keep up with the sure spread of wolves throughout the West. Between the rapid spread throughout the northern Rockies and the introductions in the southern Rockies, the damage to stock and dogs and other economic interests was sure to overwhelm anyone except Uncle Sam (read you and me dear taxpayer.) DOW has hung in there longer than I, at first, expected. They did this by only paying for "verified" damage. Probably the vast majority of damage has gone uncompensated (because the carcass disappeared or other critters fed on it before the "verifiers" arrived) to date, thereby stringing out the charade. Additionally, the wolves are spreading nicely and can now be expected to spread like coyotes, that is to say all over the nation. The only difference is that rescuing a child from a wolf is more difficult than getting a child from a coyote as a Cape Cod mother had to do and it is usually a quicker death from a wolf for your golden retriever.

The truth is that the DOW "payments" were only intended to quiet opposition until the wolves were firmly established. As the wolves spread to Oregon and Nebraska and Tennessee and meet up with their Great Lake cousins, Federal enforcement (at great expense) will assure that they are treated reverently and that when states are allowed to "manage" them (i.e. they are "delisted"), it will be under strict Federal oversight. Oh and then the USDA trappers (animal control agents to the squeamish) will begin all manner of "non-lethal" "control" at great expense to us all for the foreseeable future. Dogs, stock, kids, and pensioners will be at risk and suffer harm but by then we will be told and meekly accept the "fact" that it is "natural." Grizzly bears (in spite of all the pap about "wilderness" and "roads" will spread slower but their arrival in more populated areas will be greeted with all sorts of joy by urban residents in the far-away cities and there will be amazement at all the things they eat and do that were "unknown" only a few years earlier. Rural folks will be told they are "in the bear's (or wolf's) 'habitat'." Elk, foxes, dogs, deer, sheep, cattle, and hunting opportunities will all decrease as the predators spread. But this is not what this piece is about.

Today, as we reach the period when damage compensation will begin to overwhelm DOW and the FWS is shifting into an enforcement mode to protect expanding populations, the DOW is demonstrating how perverse this cooperation with FWS has been for the American people from the get-go and how favored groups can affect our rights and how we are governed.

The environmental radicals and animal rights extremists want to (among other things) stop public land management, public land access, private property use of land, animal management, and animal uses like hunting and fishing. DOW is a first level member of these coalitions with groups like The Natural Resources Defense Council and the Humane Society of the United States.

DOW recently sent a letter to a ranch family in Montana. This family raises sheep near a Wilderness Area and they lose sheep to grizzly bears. DOW now says they have "decided to refine the terms of our Grizzly Bear Compensation Trust." DOW says, "there are some places where it simply does not make sense to encourage sheep grazing." DOW claims that such ranches "as defined by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Guidelines" will have "existing sheep allotments" "monitored, evaluated, and phased out." DOW "will no longer pay compensation for sheep depredation by grizzly bears on (such) public lands."

So DOW through the power and authority (as "partners") of the Federal government laws and bureaucracy not only hoodwinks us about the hidden costs we will all pay for these wolves and bears; they openly use their "partner" role to intimidate ranchers into selling out (cheap) and for the federal government to pick up not only the allotment uses but also the ranch properties that are no longer viable. Families sacrificed for animals and government power is no bargain. The stench of this sort of corruption is nauseating.

Finally, the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund is now "united" with The League of Conservation Voters and Friends of Earth Action to "oust President Bush" according to the 22 April (also the date of the letter to the Montana rancher) Washington Times. According to "Mark Longabaugh, political director for the League of Conservation Voters", presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry is "going to stand up to special interests and polluters and keep our air, water, and lands clean." Evidently, Montana sheep ranches are not intended to be among those to benefit from the political machinations of these environmentalists and their political choices.

So there you have it. Wolves and grizzly bears firmly established and spreading. A bevy of professors are lined up and anxious to get grants to "study" the predators in their "new" environments. State agencies working hard to determine how to get money to do what FWS will "demand" of them. Federal bureaucrats (that look forward to increased staffing and funding for "research" and "control") waxing poetic about the "need" for such predators and how nice they are to have around. A radical environmental/animal rights organization with an ex-FWS Director "partnering" (for the moment) with a Federal agency with awesome police powers to assuage the public about harmful public policy by "paying for damage." A future rife with expectations of spreading and increasing harm to citizens that we are assured won't happen and for which no one will be held responsible. All this is brought to you by politicians who cynically obtained votes, an agency adept at circulating pictures of young employees in uniforms cuddling this and that critter, and a private radical organization that "partners" with bureaucrats while scheming to undermine animal use and "oust" the bureaucrats' boss (the Nations' President) and replace him with another who will better do their bidding.

I always try to conclude with a recommendation or some witty observation but this business defies any reaction except a disgusted shake of the head.

This article and other recent articles by Jim Beers can be found at
http://www.allianceforamerica.org/bb/viewforum.php?f=91