(Columbus) - A Senate committee today approved a bill to make Michigan the 40^th state to allow dove hunting.  A Senate floor vote is imminent.  Sportsmen are urged to contact their senators in support of the bill today.

          The Senate Judiciary Committee passed House Bill 5029 by a vote of 4 to 3. The bill authorizes the Michigan Department of Natural Resources to establish a dove season.  The bill was amended to allow the creation of a $2 dove stamp with fees being split equally between game and non-game funds.

<snip>

Source: http://www.ussportsmen.org/interactive/features/Read.cfm?ID=1284

This modest proposal is intended to benefit fish and wildlife and their habitats around the world. Coincidentally, it should strengthen the authority of other nations to manage their own natural resources for the benefit of their own citizens and, by example, reaffirm the wisdom of managing natural resources at the lowest level of government. This latter matter, governance at the lowest level of day-to-day things is what we are seeing disappear to our Federal government and the UN. Perhaps the place to start reversing this trend and reestablishing the balance and system laid down by our Founding Fathers is by helping those nations whose resources we use, to restore and manage those resources for THEIR benefit as well as ours.

If you agree, please share this with a friend and bring it to the attention of lawmakers. Thanks.

Jim Beers

A POSITIVE PROPOSAL TO AFFIRM ANIMAL OWNERSHIP

AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT



By James M. Beers

Given at the National Animal Interest Alliance Conference

Washington, DC

28 March 2004





It is a proven maxim in sports that you cannot win a game if you only play defense. I suggest that playing defense is what we have been doing for 30 years. By “we” I mean pet owners, hunters, natural resource managers, and renewable resource users from loggers to trappers, and animal users from rodeo riders to taxidermists. We have allowed politicians, bureaucrats, academicians, and a broad spectrum of allied environmental and animal rights non-government organizations (NGO’s) to force us into countering numerous and consecutive challenges designed to control us, our environment, and our interface with animals. This has caused us to work constantly to preserve access to our public lands, active management of our renewable natural resources, and our property rights (both public and private) in plants and animals. It has diverted us from increasing and utilizing our knowledge, experience, and ability (greater than any other period in the history of the world) to create and maintain a diverse environment as we utilize and enjoy the plants and animals that compose it.



The United States’ model of government has been largely responsible for our progress and relative strength for over 200 years. Our unique division of government powers and the delegation of specific governmental responsibilities plus our affirmation of private property rights and citizen rights to publicly held properties are major reasons for our success. It is a fact that recent legislation such as the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the Animal Welfare Act has taken Constitutional responsibilities assigned to State governments and transferred them steadily to the Federal government. These Acts have diminished private property rights, dramatically decreased citizen access to public property, and diminished the management of natural resources for renewable returns. The substitution of Federal authority for a wide range of specific authorities and jurisdictions placed at the State level by our Constitution is the basic tool of those who would deny a wide range of traditions and rights from dog breeding and pet ownership to hunting and animal husbandry.



The above mentioned reconfiguring of State/Federal jurisdictions and the concomitant reduction of property rights in resources, animals, and the environment has been mimicked by the United Nations (UN.) At the international level, treaties like the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and forums like the International Whaling Commission account for a similar transfer of the sovereign authority of independent nations. The authority of individual nations to manage their plants and animals for the benefit of their citizenry lies more and more with UN representatives, UN bureaucrats, and appointed commissions. These latter, like their US Federal counterparts overshadowing State authorities, substitute their new authorities for the former authorities of independent and sovereign nations. Like States in the United States, UN member nations (particularly in the 3rd World,) have increasingly witnessed the management and disposition of their renewable natural resources become subject to this “higher” level of government. These “higher” levels of government represent a swirl of agendas, few of which relate to or respond to the needs and desires of the citizens of those individual nations whose resources they manage.



The most successful and purposeful restorations of fish and wildlife in the world have occurred in the United States. These restorations, in the midst of unprecedented economic expansions and strong human population increases, are due not to increased Federal authorities or increased Federal land acquisition, or increased Federal spending. These restorations have occurred over the past 70 years thanks in large measure to State governments exercising their Constitutional authorities over their own wild and domestic plants and animals. These spectacular management success stories (deer, turkeys, elk, Great Lakes fisheries, otter restorations, and on and on) result from our “lowest” level of government (i.e. the States) meeting the needs of and being responsive to their residents as opposed some contrived national agenda or international notions. Because the US Federal government is more remote, and therefore less responsive to citizens, they were not given such authorities historically under our Constitution. No small credit for the success of these State-led restorations of fish and wildlife and plants can be assigned to the money made steadily available for over 70 years for these purposes. The Federal government has played a major support role in assuring the flow of a significant portion of the funding used by the States for these restorations.



Beginning in the 1930’s the Federal government collected an excise tax on arms, ammunition, and certain hunting equipment. The collection and use of these funds was the idea of hunters seeing declining wildlife populations and habitat. They devised a voluntary user-pays scheme to finance the restoration and management of all wildlife and to assure that hunting seasons remained a feature of future American generations and traditions. Today, over $800 million per year go for these purposes. The funds are allocated to each State’s conservation agencies for approved, cost-shared projects based on the population, land area, and hunting and fishing license revenues of each State. Not only did these funds make possible the biological successes previously noted; they affirmed State jurisdictions and authorities over the renewable management programs for natural resources within their State. The advent of Acts like the Endangered Species Act has steadily shifted this balance of authority to the Federal government with ill effects.



I propose that a similar effort by the government of the US today, on behalf of the international fish and wildlife users in the United States would benefit those nations whose living natural resources we utilize. I also believe it would generate unforeseen and wide-ranging benefits to national and international wildlife resources and to developing nations. Here’s how it could work.



1.) Congress would fund a one-year Report (with recommendations) that outlines what American groups import how much at what value and what kinds of fish, wildlife and plants from which foreign nations. Live specimens, products, and parts would all be included. This information is already collected today on required importation forms at each port-of-entry. Major organizations representing American importers (tropical fish, birds, trophies, etc.) would be asked to participate in and comment on the Report. It is to be expected that, like American hunter’s 70 years ago, they would support to the restoration and management of habitats and animals of these foreign nations while comprehending the benefit to themselves in the court of public opinion. This Report would be the basis for Congress to pass implementing legislation.

2.) The Report would define how to compute the value to be reported in the future on the importation forms in such a way that a fair and nationally agreed-to value statement could form an equitable basis from which to establish the excise tax to be collected.

3.) The Report would detail the recommendations of these importers to a recommended excise tax amount (4-to11%?) as well as the disposition of available funds in countries of origin. Estimates of expected revenues should help Congress decide the best level of excise tax based on importer recommendations and funds generated for various countries. As with the all-inclusive excise taxes collected on arms and ammunition, the cost impact is borne equally by American users of these resources. This increases values and costs equally thereby not generating an advantage to any particular person or faction.

4.) The Report would recommend a financial system to collect the excise tax and place them in an account specifically earmarked for the country of origin. Those nations providing fish, wildlife, plants, and their products and parts would be invited to sign cooperating agreements to gain access to these funds. Excise taxes collected from nations not participating in the program could be made available to those nations that do participate on some equitable basis.

5.) These earmarked funds would be made available (annually?) to each participating country of origin for approved wildlife restoration projects. Defining allowable uses of the funds is a particularly important and sensitive area. In recent years in the US, groups committed to eradicating all resource uses and resource management attempted to gain control of these funds to force States to become surrogates to enact radical agendas. Similarly, Federal bureaucrats who share these radical agendas or who have become increasingly superior in demeanor to State resource managers have tried to step in years after States have used the funds to acquire lands and impose “new” requirements such as forbidding dog field trials on such lands. Avoiding the temptation for Federal or UN bureaucrats or anti-management NGO’s to influence the use these funds in order to manipulate these nations in new ways is a challenge that, if not achieved in implementing legislation, would make the failure to authorize this effort the best option. Wildlife restoration projects eligible for funding should be defined carefully. Positive projects to encourage education of wildlife managers, operation and maintenance of wildlife areas, amelioration of wildlife harm or damages, wildlife studies, and other such proactive management proposals are what should be allowed. Advancing the restoration and preservation of wildlife as those nations develop their economies and the welfare of their citizens is what must be achieved if wildlife and wild places are to found far into the future. This is what has been achieved in the US and is possible for these nations today if effective and consistent management programs are implemented.

6.) Funds would be applied for (after a standard agreement is signed between the US and each benefiting nation) on a standard format. Cost sharing (5-to15%?) would be best in order to assure the nation recognizes a stake in and responsibility for the proposed use of the funds. There are funds owed to the US by many nations that can only be paid in the currency of those nations. Cost sharing for wildlife projects may be an admirable use of these funds.

7.) Enforcement of the use of the funds (a serious concern with certain nations as it was with certain States 70 years ago) is a relatively simple matter. Routine audits (or more often anonymous information) that reveal diversion of funds generate a request from the US to rectify the misuse of funds or face the cessation of any future funding. Generally the threat of ceasing future funding is more than adequate to assure correction of abuses and better performance in the future. The disposition of future excise tax revenues from cooperating nations that do not rectify misuses could be added to excise taxes collected from nations without an agreement and added to the cooperating nations’ accounts on an equitable pro-rated basis. Wild acreage, species present and human population could be used to pro-rate such funds to the accounts of other cooperating nations.

8.) Administration of these funds by a US Federal agency, like the administration of such funds to the States, should be financed by a strictly defined amount of money and personnel with definite parameters of administration. The money to finance administration would probably best be withdrawn on a pro-rated basis from all collected excise taxes. All this is necessary to avoid the significant abuses of such funding perpetrated by Federal bureaucrats during the 1990’s from funds intended for the States. This means that the program pays for itself, here in the US. An amount one-half to two-thirds of the amount currently utilized to administer the State’s excise tax allocation would be adequate to administer this self-funded program.



This proposal would create value for renewable management of valuable natural resources and form a basis and incentive for preservation of wild places as nations develop their societies. It would also strengthen a sense of national responsibility in developing nations to manage their own natural resources as they expand their economies and human populations. This approach is based on a proven US model under similar circumstances.



Previous discussions of this subject with various individuals and groups have led me to expect both opposition and support.



Opposition can be expected from environmental and animal rights groups whose influence over Federal and UN bureaucracies and politicians would be jeopardized by strengthening developing nations’ abilities to manage their own resources for their own citizens. Likewise, the environmental and animal rights NGO’s would have reduced influence over poorer nations that would have alternative sources of income to manage their national resources for their own needs. Federal and UN bureaucrats will be expected to oppose this proposal because it would reduce their justification for more money and people to “administer” these nations’ resources. Developed nations’ international representatives from Europe and the US to Canada, Australia, and New Zealand would be likely to resist a strengthening of the sovereign ability of other nations to manage their own resources for themselves. This is because it would directly reduce their influence over the natural resources of these nations and the nations themselves that is being exercised through UN mandates and requirements. These requirements and mandates are largely conceived and implemented by coalitions of certain delegates from these developed nations and environmental and animal rights lobbyists skillfully manipulating these international forums and authorities.



I suspect that University academics that have played a prominent role in justifying the agendas of environmental and animal rights organizations over the past 30 years would both support and oppose this effort. Currently prominent academics benefiting from grants and influence under existing acts would be opposed for many of the reasons mentioned above. Others academics would certainly emerge to lend support to this proposal. These latter would be professors and institutions that see opportunities to educate foreign wildlife managers and develop scientific recommendations for the effective use of scarce funding for active management and use of natural resources (a phenomenon being currently diminished to our detriment in the US.) Similar bifurcation would be expected from American conservation NGO’s that are comfortable with the status quo and who will likely be slow to detect benefit to themselves. This will be resolved when members understand what is at stake and demand support from their organization.



A wide band of supporters is to be expected. Wildlife importers and users of foreign wildlife and plants should see the benefit of being able to say (as hunters and fishermen have for 70 years) that they voluntarily tax themselves to replace the natural resources they use by assuring sound and renewable management programs for those resources. Animal owners and natural resource users in the US should understand that strengthening national rights to manage natural resources affirms the property rights of nations against usurpation by higher and less accountable government levels. This proposal will indirectly affirm such rights in the US, where higher and more remote levels of government are usurping States’ rights and property rights. Private property owners have a stake in reversing the migration of natural resource management jurisdiction to ever higher and less accountable government levels where mischief against and schemes to undermine property rights are rampant. Public property users from recreational users to hunters and loggers should rally to support this effort to reverse the upward migration of legal authorities to central controls run by remote bureaucrats unknown to users and the citizenry. Reversing this trend internationally can only serve as a model of effectiveness and impetus for reestablishing these same authorities in the more responsive State governments. All US citizens who understand that our system of keeping day-to-day authorities at the lowest level of government and not allowing the development of strong centralized powers should see the wisdom and benefit of this proposal. It should go far toward helping us to appreciate the benefits of historical Constitutional jurisdictions in this country while allowing developing nations to benefit from the unique vision of our Founding Fathers as we have done for over 200 years.



Finally, I have been asked to mention how I believe we can get “better science” for environmental decisions.



It is my considered opinion that “better science” is the current camouflage net or fig leaf to cover the scandalous environmental and animal laws, court decisions, and bureaucratic abuses of the past 30 years. “Science” tells us forcibly reintroduced predators don’t decrease game species while reintroduced wolves decimate elk and deer herds. These same government “scientists” justify Federal controls of unmanaged mountain lions in California to save Listed bighorn sheep (only in California) because “depredation by mountain lions” is causing sheep numbers to plummet. There are hundreds of such examples of purposeful “science” contradictions, let alone “better science,” being utilized as propaganda for agendas from increasing Federal authorities and making state governments irrelevant to eliminating hunting, logging, and public land use and management. I believe that the role of “science” in government decision-making needs to be more critically evaluated and given less weight in most instances.



Science and those who labor in its’ fields are facts and fact-gatherers. The facts with which they are familiar should be given to the public and elected representatives to allow them to weigh those facts with other facts such as the general welfare of citizens, current national and international situations, economic considerations, legal systems, and other such things as may be relevant. Science should not dictate or declare that only Pre- Columbian species belong here or that Invasive Species (non-natives) are inherently bad and do not belong there. Science should not justify locking up public energy resources under public lands in the midst of national need. Science should not twist and contort facts to justify Listings of spurious groupings of plants and animals in order to implement agendas to stop beneficial human endeavors or deny diverse groups of citizens their traditional and cultural rights as well as their Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. Rather, science should be offering factual descriptions, practical alternatives, and applied solutions to permit decision-makers from politicians and judges to fair-minded bureaucrats to preserve and strengthen our society and precious way of life.



It is, perhaps, naive of me to oppose “better science.” As long as science justifies budget and power increases for bureaucracies, science will be manipulated. As long as science backs up the environmental “concerns” of politicians vying for votes, science will be slanted. As long as specific philosophies are what we reward with grants and prestige, some scientists will succumb. As long as environmental and animal rights’ agendas generate money and tenure for cooperative scientists, propaganda for radical agendas will receive a patina of scientific justification.



The proposal put forth in this presentation, collection of excise taxes from imported fish, wildlife, and plants for allocation to countries of origin for restoration and management of natural resources, may be a partial answer to the question of obtaining “better science.” I can think of no better answer than establishing positive public monetary incentives to return the active management of natural resources to national and international priority. For too long, our willingness to play only defense in our confrontation with hostile agendas has resulted in a steady retreat from active resource management to a wasteful and biologically damaging “no-management, no-use, lock-it-up and throw the key away” approach to environmental management. The biological and citizen rights impacts of these agendas have been devastating to not only trees and animals but to the very fabric of our society. Our government structure, like the sovereign authority of developing nations, is being dramatically changed for the worse. The answer to these issues may lie partially with a return to positive management, responsive government, and a reliance on the tried and true lessons of American history.





James M. Beers

21 March 2004



This proposal and other recent articles by Jim Beers can be found at

http://www.allianceforamerica.org/bb/viewforum.php?f=91



Jim Beers is available for consulting or to speak. Contact:

JimBeers7@earthlink.net

Source:http://www.allianceforamerica.org/bb/viewtopic.php?t=1694&sid=f9830bbd8c19b8191a13fc9799d90073