Friday, November 18, 2016

An Answer to Federal Environmental/Animal Rights Oppression

By Jim Beers 17 November 2016

For anyone that has been harmed by:
  • Federal land management
  • Federal land non-management
  • Wilderness
  • Endangered Species
  • Scenic/Historic “Declarations”
  • Federal usurpation of State authorities and jurisdictions
  • US Fish & Wildlife Service/US Forest Service/National Park Service regulations, programs and actions under federal authorizing laws such as Refuge Administration Act, Forest Service Organic Administration Act, National Park Service Act, etc.
  • Animal Welfare Act
And a host of similar federal laws that I am sure others can name consider what they all have in common.

They are all congressionally crafted and Presidentially-signed federal laws that created NEW federal authorities and jurisdictions. What Washington lawmakers create; they can limit. What States and their residents have lost; they can reclaim. These NEW authorities and jurisdictions either usurped existing state authorities and jurisdictions or created previously non-existent authorities and jurisdictions. In either case, federal lawmakers created new federal authorities and jurisdictions that have proven to be immune to state governments, local governments or individual citizens’ pleas for relief from their growing oppressions. In addition to these oppressions of and losses to, especially rural communities and rural businesses; federal bureaucracies, federal spending and federal costs have quadrupled from 1960’s levels and tax receipts (federal, state and local) have dwindled precipitously from destroyed rural businesses and reduced rural activities.

Congress and Presidents created the laws underpinning the destruction and then subsequently refused to address the growing problems they have created. Since they created them and refuse to amend, much less repeal, them; and noting the hysteria among certain urban segments of society when their less numerous rural brethren seek relief from them: I offer the following solution.

The Republican President-elect and the recently-converted US Senate Majority Leader and US House of Representatives Speaker all agree they want to 1.reduce the federal debt; 2.reduce federal regulations; and 3.grow the economy. Rural America is crying for help that would contribute significantly to all three of these things and this is how.

Congress and the President could pass a simple and open-ended federal Act that would simply state,

“Any federal program, activity or action, excepting law enforcement involving interstate implications, authorized under any of the following laws must be annually approved by the state government wherein any such federal activity by any federal employee or contractor is proposed or taking place.

(For instance, add or delete as you think right):
  • Endangered Species Act
  • Animal Welfare Act
  • Refuge Administration Act US Forest Service Organic Administration Act
  • National Park Service Act
  • Land and Water Conservation Fund Act
  • Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act
  • Wilderness Act
Note that none of these examples are based on a TREATY, they are each based on a Congressionally-crafted authority that Congress could limit or repeal with a simple vote and the signature of a cooperating President as we have for at least the next two years in Washington: a Washington, by the way, that trumpets a desire to reduce regulations and grow the economy. Such an open-ended (Laws could be added or deleted with a simple amendment) law would cover not only jurisdiction over wolves, grizzlies, suckers, smelt, etc.; it would cover management and non-management of federal lands from year to year. State governments (closer to, and more responsible to, rural Americans forced to live with these increasingly destructive federal activities) by denying all or portions of such federal activities in their state will reduce federal spending and federal regulatory/programmatic activities harming state residents, state communities and state economies thereby growing their economies as Washington says it wants.

Governors and state legislatures could make their approval processes as onerous or quick as they desire. Sure the Californias and New Yorks would rubber stamp any federal program but a lot more of the Wyomings, Oklahomas and South Carolinas (think the Red/Blue map) would tell the federal bureaucrats to either shape up what they do in THEIR STATE or take a hike. The result would be an increase of economic activity and tax revenue in many rural economies that would not only grow the national economy in a measurable degree; it would reinvigorate local economies: the concomitant reduction in federal spending and federal employment would provide the other thing the new Washington triumvirate (President/Majority Leader and Speaker) seeks – reduced regulations and reduced federal spending with increased tax revenue to reduce the national debt.
That knocking rural America hears from mid-town Manhattan right now is Opportunity: that warm glow on your face is a hot iron, and the time to strike is now. Talk to your federal Representatives and Senators now because they are all worried about 2018 and 2020. If this simple request to relieve rural America and State governments from federal oppression is openly opposed by the current federal politicians of either or both parties; who knows what the political landscape will look like 2 or 4 years down the road? If it gets passed, rural America could well be back on the road to recovery: if it is proposed and defeated, there could be a big turnover of anti-rural politicians in the next election – either way rural America might well be far better off.

If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others. Thanks.

Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC. 

He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands. He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC. He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority. He resides in Eagan, Minnesota with his wife of many decades.

Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting. You can receive future articles by sending a request with your e-mail address to: If you no longer wish to receive these articles notify:

1 comment:

  1. A question. What about the parts of these various federal laws that have produced a positive effect for land owners and the general public?

    I recognize that there are serious problems with the ESA. Just one example, instead of providing an incentive to land owners who have property that includes endangered species habitat, the ESA is set to punish those who do not take appropriate action to "protect" the endangered species. Now, IF the ESA were designed to provide an incentive to owners of land that included endangered species habitat, then those individuals would be inclined to do what worked for the rare species. In terms of maintaining habitat for rare species, whether plants, birds or animals, it makes sense as the balance of nature is important for the survival of not only critters, but also the survival of humans. [Example: bees are important pollinators of our food supply.]