Canadian News Briefs

Associated Press

OTTAWA - One of the largest animal rights organizations in the world says the Nunavut government's recent decision to increase polar bear hunting quotas by nearly one-third is based on anecdotal evidence and may endanger bear populations.

Humane Society International is also asking U.S. officials to reconsider regulations that allow American sport hunters to bring trophy bear pelts back from Canada - a move that could cripple Nunavut's guided hunt industry.

"I believe it is absolutely required that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service review their approvals," marine biologist Naomi Rose said Friday from Washington, D.C.

In January, Nunavut increased the number of polar bear hunting tags it will issue to 518 from 403. The decision was taken after population estimates of bears in the eastern part of the territory suggested their numbers have been slowly rising.

Residents of Baffin Island hamlets such as Clyde River were reporting increased numbers of bears in and around the community. There have also been reports of bears destroying facilities and equipment.

Surveys suggested there were about 2,100 polar bears in 1997. Territorial officials now estimate that population at around 2,400. Local hunters believe it's as high as 2,600.

But Rose said those estimates aren't adequately backed up.

"As far as I can see, there's been no research, only observation," she said.

SCIENTISTS AND GENERALS

According to a top manager of the Sierra Club, since “Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000,” and President Bush has now, “won outright, with a clear but narrow majority”; “we can expect efforts to limit the Endangered Species Act and to undo the National Environmental Policy Act”. Even scarier (to them) is the prediction that, “Science will continue to take a backseat to politics”.

How many times in the past few years have we heard that “scientists say”, “scientists predict”, “science requires”, “scientists demand”, “the science needs more peer review”, “scientific studies indicate”, and “more science is needed”? One US Fish and Wildlife Service employee recently quit because “politics were dictating the science”. “Science” is used to justify everything from the harmful effects of unmanaged wolves and mountain lions to the Kyoto Treaty that would greatly harm the United States and the “need” for a UN Treaty on Native Ecosystems as a goal of national governments. Such justifications are the basis for laws and Treaties that diminish US private property rights, US States’ Rights, rural lifestyles, and the management and use of natural resources. From these things flows the growth of the US Federal government and it’s expanding hegemony over State and local governments in every aspect of American life.

The Sierra Club is certainly not alone in it’s angst over a slowdown in Federal growth or it’s fear of recently passed laws being undone. All of the environmental organizations from The Wilderness Society and The Nature Conservancy to the Audubon Society and Ducks Unlimited have profited from tax breaks, grants, subsidies, and powerful laws that allow the Federal government to “take” property without compensation as well as their premiere role as Federal “partners” in all manner of Federal schemes. The animal rights organizations likewise see this as a period of threat to their growth in money and shared Federal power. A wide range of impacts on power and money from the Defenders of Wildlife steering wolf programs in the West to groups from the Wildlife Federation and PETA to Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund are expected if anyone succeeds in getting the US Congress to move seriously toward reform, amendment, or outright repeal of the laws mentioned by the Sierra Club.

All of these harmful laws and the UN Convention (Treaty) that underpins them were sold as “based on science”. All of the expansions and harmful court precedents that have harmed property owners, rural residents, State agencies, hunters, dog owners, ranchers, loggers, etc., etc. were likewise “based on science”. The current program to build and expand on the harms of these laws by creating a national “need” for “native ecosystems” (i.e. a Federal Invasive Species Law based on a UN Treaty) is also sold as “based on science”.

So what the heck is so axiomatic about science? Did “science” predict that Canada geese could live without migrating in the millions in US parking lots eating bluegrass the year around? No. Did “science” predict the explosion of wild turkeys independent of untouched virgin forests? No. Did “science” predict the loss of thousands of pets to unmanaged wolves and cougars or the human threats that such animals pose? Again, no.

“Science” records the things that support plants and animals today and what supported them yesterday. “Science” offers NOTHING about Wilderness even though it decreases biodiversity and creates enormous fire hazards. “Science” invents novel concepts like “Distinct Population Segments” to enable bureaucrats to expand their shared power over citizens. “Science” stands ready to reinforce any concept or need that provides grants, publicity, recognition, or other emoluments that lead to tenure, power, increased retirement, or just plain fame. In other words, “scientists” are just like us.

Scientific facts are important things. When we set out to manage or preserve species, when we try to establish long-term and sustainable uses of renewable natural resources, or when we intend to extract non-renewable natural resources; the consideration of known facts (i.e. “science”) is most important. Scientific facts are but one dimension of the equation that leads to the best course of action for America today.

What are the impacts on private property? What are the impacts on States’ rights and Constitutional authority? What are the impacts on communities? What are the impacts on the economy? What are the impacts on international matters? I could go on here, but I am sure you get the point. The thing is we ELECT politicians to make these decisions for us. They write the laws that ultimately TELL the bureaucrat what to do (and not do). The “scientists” and their “science” – are you listening Sierra Club? – are but one element of the equation. We the People long ago (118 years ago to be exact) decided that the Federal government would have certain duties, the State would have some other responsibilities, and the rest of the powers to rule we “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”.

Leaving such decisions to “Science” (i.e. “scientists”) is like leaving military decisions to Generals. Ever since time began, civilian control of military power has been a never-ending issue. The US answer has been to keep the Generals under civilian (i.e. “elected”) control. The decision about whether MacArthur was to invade China was a civilian decision. The decision about where to “meet” the Russians at the end of WW II was a civilian decision. The decision about whether to invade Afghanistan and Iraq were civilian decisions. The decision about blockading Cuba was a civilian decision. We, unlike Roman Generals or Japanese Generals in the 1930’s or Generals in any number of current and past military dictatorships, consider more than the military perspective when making military decisions for more reasons than I could list in this short piece.

It should be no different with consideration of the “science” perspective. “Scientists” and their “facts” as with “Generals” and their “facts” are important but albeit not the only consideration in determining what is best for America.

Remember this as Endangered Species Act reformers tout “peer-review” as something other than “scientists” reinforcing “scientists”. Remember this as Federal or State employees complain about “science” being ignored. Remember this as the environmental extremists and animal rights radicals run back and forth, holding their head, and moaning that “science” is “taking a backseat to politics”. I for one hope “science” will once again take a “backseat” to “politics” that considers me and my family and this great nation as that which “science” serves instead of the other way around.

Jim Beers
4 February 2005

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

This article 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