| Second, an "Energy
Bill" (meaning the debate over the needed oil drilling on the Artic Slope
in Alaska) will be taking all of the attention of the two key Chairmen that
must oversee any Endangered Species Act reform. (Remember the Endangered
Species Act has gone unauthorized for over 15 years [a violation of law] while
it continues to get more funding and expand beyond the wildest dreams of its'
authors. This bizarre circumstance is due to the power of the radicals, the
self-interest of bureaucrats, and the lies and deceptions that flood the media
and schools.) Those two Chairmen, Congressman Pombo of California and Senator
Inhofe of Oklahoma, are perhaps the two finest politicians in Washington. Based
on what I have observed over the years, they are concerned (in a practical and
common sense way) about the natural environment of the US, they understand the
role of the bureaucracy, and they are aware of the current and future threat
posed by the Act as it now stands. They and the members of their Committees
(the House Resources Committee and the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee) need all the encouragement and help they can get to take on this
difficult task and see it through.
 Third, this Congress is no longer openly
opposed to reforms. There may not ever again be such a Congress. The longer the
Act grows and establishes precedents and get powerful bureaucrats committed to
it for themselves, the harder it gets to change anything. That is why some in
Washington are stressing "strengthening" the Act rather than
reforming or amending the Act as acceptable jargon. Whether it is wise to use
such verbal judo I leave to others to decide. What I am concerned about is the
current campaigns by US bureaucrats to work with UN bureaucrats to sponsor
international meetings to draft and sign 2 new UN "Conventions" or
Treaties. Clever US bureaucrat ideologues are conniving with UN counterparts to
create international meetings for two such new Conventions. Invasive Species
(or Native Ecosystem) and Small Arms UN Conventions signed off on by the US
would superceded the 2nd Amendment and give the US Federal government power
over the environment that would dwarf what the Endangered Species Act is doing.
If we embark on an Endangered Species Act "strengthening" effort
instead of publicly recognizing the Act (that is based on a UN Convention,
CITES) as a source of immeasurable problems and harm, what argument is there
against giving the Federal government similar power over guns and all aspects
of "the environment" based on similar "Conventions"? If
there are problems we can merely "strengthen" it down the road.
I can't predict the future any more than you
but I can recognize a problem today. It seems that if we let the current
opportunity slip away, there may not be another. Think about what you can do to
let the politicians you know understand that you expect change. Don't worry
about the bureaucrats or the radicals, they are known entities and must be
dealt with accordingly. Changing the law and placing the bureaucracy under
appointees that mean business will take care of that. Of course we must fight
the day-to-day battles but we must not lose sight of the big picture. At
minimum the Act must be changed to return State authority over Endangered and
Threatened Species to State governments. Private property must not be taken
without compensation and restoration of species should be based on their
occurrence in recent years, not the wild imaginings of what met Columbus or
Lewis and Clark. It is up to each of us. 
Jim Beers
29 January 2005
|
Back
