wo recent cases of unnecessary restrictions on
people have resulted when claims of the presence of endangered species were
made. In one case, in Klamath Falls, Oregon, the presence of an endangered
species of sucker resulted in the US Fish & Wildlife Service shutting
off the irrigation gates to the fields of over 1000 local ranchers and
farmers. The reason given was that the fish needed the water levels to be a
certain height, according to scientists. However, after desperate farmers
and politicians fought over opening vs. shutting the irrigation gates, it
was disclosed that the fish didn't need such high water levels after all.
The problem remaining is that a local population of fish was given a higher
priority than the local population of people, many of whose livelihoods
were either threatened or actually destroyed.
The process of priority setting in this case appeared to be one in which
state and national politicians feared more from the potential attacks of
"environmentalists" than any effect on their careers from the
complaints of local constituents in Oregon. Now that Oregon is burning from
wildfires, the whole situation there may be moot.
The former case of government scientists "faking" the presence
of lynx in an area where the species was not actually living, was another
sad example of "environmentalists" trying to close an area to
people, just because their cultural preferences were that people be
excluded from making a living there. When the fraud was exposed, the whole
scheme collapsed, and one wonders how many other areas have been closed to
people on the basis of shoddy and biased science.
Politicians have to face the reality that "environmentalists"
have less power to affect their political security than has been commonly
thought. In a democratic society, elected representatives are supposed to
be responsible for the welfare of their people, their environment, and the
general economy, not just one of the above. Some politicians feel they have
to take "politically correct" positions on certain issues. To
them, this means a position that will keep them safe from the criticism of
"environmentalists" that could endanger their re-election.
Although media organizations have often been sucked into these issues, they
are finally learning that "environmentalists" may not be giving
them reliable information in every case. And media organizations, like
politicians, also have to depend upon the constituency for support.
Those "outdoor writers" such as Jim Beers and John Stossel,
have been courageously covering cases such as the Klamath Falls water
fight, and the lynx fraud, so well that mainstream media have been picking
up on the theme: the old view of environmentalists as always ethical and
ranchers, farmers, loggers and fishermen as motivated only by love of
money, is not a truthful representation. IWMC applauds any media attempts
to get to the bottom of environmental issues. There is often much more to a
"story" than a dispute over land or water use, and we all benefit
from full disclosure. And besides, truth is often much more interesting
than fiction.
