Befuddled bureaucrats trying to play God with our money

“Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? There is more hope of a fool than of him.”

— Proverbs 26:12

Economist F.A. Hayek called the efforts of central planners to create a more efficient economy than the free market could: “The Fatal Conceit.”

So perhaps the efforts of federal bureaucrats to better control nature than nature can should be called: “The Futile Conceit.” They are bound and determined to play God if it costs the last shekel of our money.

Nevada may well be the laboratory or the crucible in which the futility of this experiment is proven.

Federal agencies have spent untold millions in taxes and fees extorted from land developers trying to keep the desert tortoise from becoming extinct, only to recently announce a sterilization program because there are too many in backyards. And of course the 20-year-old, 220-acre Desert Tortoise Conservation Center will close at the end of the year, when its funding runs out.

Mulitmillion-dollar minnow being “preserved” in a $4.5 million aquarium. (R-J photo)

Meanwhile, researchers admit they have no idea how many desert tortoises there were in the wild 20 years ago when they were declared “threatened” nor how many there are now or what the proper, sustainable population should be.

In 2008, when 770 desert tortoises from Fort Irwin were released into the open desert in California, the project was promptly suspended because 90 percent of the transplants were devoured by predators, mostly ravens.

Speaking of ravens, it should be noted that these same federal agencies are hell bent to preserve the greater sage grouse — by shutting down economic activity such as mining, drilling, farming and ranching — while at the same time its principle predator, the raven, is protected by a migratory bird treaty.

Then there was the plan to increase the population of wild turkeys in Great Basin National Park. The birds — with few natural predators and hunting disallowed in the park — have taken over the Lehman Caves Visitor Center, roosting in trees at the center’s entrance, befouling lawn and sidewalks with copious droppings.

“Wild” horses being preserved in pens. (Photo by Jo Mitchell)

As for wild horses, there are now more being held in holding pens around the country than in the wild, and those in the wild are so overpopulated that they are stressing the water and grazing availability.

Then there is the granddaddy of species preservation conceit, the champion of profligate expenditures: The Devil’s Hole pupfish preserve in Amargosa Valley, which were placed on the endangered species list in 1967.

Its pond is surrounded by a chain link fence topped with barbed wire, surrounded by cameras and alarms, linked by microwave to security 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

After spending millions of dollars in a futile attempt to preserve this iridescent minnow, the population has fallen to less than 100. So, sort of like the wild horses, the federal government built a $4.5 million, 100,000-gallon aquarium that mimics the temperature and all aspects of the tiny Devil’s Hole.

Like the horses, pupfish are being reserved by removal from their natural habitats.

They could more cheaply seine out a couple dozen minnows and ship them to an aquarium and let the remainder fend for themselves in what we like to call “nature,” where some species are fit enough to survive and others are not, through no fault of mankind.

Our representatives in Washington should turn off the spigot of our money being wasted on futile efforts by bureaucrats to play God.

Cattlemen stand by rule of law but explain the problems being caused by BLM ignoring the law

When the tensions first began to escalate at Cliven Bundy’s Bunkerville ranch as the Bureau of Land Management began rounding up cattle that they said were trespassing on federal public land, the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association distanced themselves, issuing a statement that NCA “does not feel it is in our best interest to interfere in the process of adjudication in this matter, and in addition NCA believes the matter is between Mr. Bundy and the federal courts.”

The association, which represents about 700 Nevada ranchers, has since issued a longer statement. NCA still does not take sides in the Bundy matter, but it spells out the ranchers’ concerns about property rights and the BLM’s failure to fully comply with the laws under which it is congressionally required to operate. The following includes the entire statement, which begins:

“(Elko, NV) April 16, 2014 – The Nevada Cattlemen’s Association believes that private property rights are at the foundation of our country and our liberty, and we know that the rule of law protects those property rights. Our policy supports private property interests that exist on public lands, including water rights and grazing rights. We also support the continued multiple use of public lands, as authorized by law and confirmed by the courts. It is under this framework of the rule of law that our property rights and multiple uses are protected.

“The multiple-use statutes allow timber, grazing, wildlife, recreation and other uses to carry on side-by-side in a way that, as the statute reads ‘will best meet the needs of the American people.’ Increasingly, we see the federal government placing higher priority on uses other than grazing. This not only violates the multiple-use statutes, it violates the grazing and water rights that are also protected by laws such as the Taylor Grazing Act (TGA). Under the TGA, ranchers have a right to graze livestock on federal lands based on historical utilization. While this property interest is complex by nature — given that it exists on surfaces owned by the federal government — it is nonetheless a real property interest that is taxed and saleable. It must be protected. On the same token, ranchers who exercise their grazing rights are obligated to pay a grazing fee as established by law.”

Though the statement doesn’t mention the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause, that portion of the Bill of Rights was penned to protect private property and require fair compensation when property is taken by government, whether through outright possession or by making the property less valuable through restrictions on use or access. In Bundy’s case he was told 20 years ago he could not graze during the only time of year in which he could fatten his cattle and make a profit. Bundy decided to stop signing restrictive grazing permits and paying grazing fees. The NCA statement goes on to describe what has happened to Bundy and is happening to many other ranchers:

“Ranchers such as Mr. Bundy have found themselves with their backs against the wall as, increasingly, federal regulations have infringed on their public land grazing rights and the multiple use management principle. This is not only devastating to individual ranching families; it is also causing rural communities in the west to whither on the vine. In the west, one in every two acres is owned by the federal government. Therefore, the integrity of the laws protecting productive multiple use is paramount to the communities that exist there.

Desert tortoise

“The situation in Nevada stands as an example the federal agencies’ steady trend toward elevating environmental and wildlife issues over livestock grazing – in violation of the above mentioned laws and principles. Well-intentioned laws such as the Endangered Species Act — which are factors in Mr. Bundy’s case — are being implemented in a way that are damaging  to our rights and to our western families and communities. In Bundy’s case the designation of his grazing area as a critical habitat for the endangered desert tortoise gave the BLM the rationale they needed to order a 500% decrease in his cattle numbers. There never was any scientific proof that cattle had historically harmed the desert tortoise.”

This is a point seldom mentioned in the media coverage. The BLM ordered Bundy to reduce his cattle numbers by 500 percent, even though there was not then and is not now any scientific proof that cattle grazing in any way harms tortoises or their habitat. In fact, biologists have found desert tortoises thrive where cattle are present.

Greater sage grouse

While Bundy’s problem is the desert tortoise, every rancher in 11 Western states is watching closely federal plans to declare the greater sage grouse as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), a move that will prove to be far more devastating than the ham-fisted efforts to protect desert tortoise. Of course, the feds are paying no heed whatsoever to the fact there were very few grouse until cattle came along to improve the range with their droppings while ranchers improved water sources.

But Bundy has lost his case in federal court twice. Though he had strong arguments about water rights and grazing rights and the fact the federal government has no business controlling so much land in a sovereign state. The judge had to go by a 9th U.S. Circuit Court ruling involving another Nevada rancher who refused to pay grazing fees after being kicked off his own grazing range on Forest Service land.

The NCA makes the pro forma rule of law statement:

“However, in accordance with the rule of law, we must use the system set forth in our Constitution to change those laws and regulations. Nevada Cattlemen’s Association does not condone actions that are outside the law in which citizens take the law into their own hands. Nevada Cattlemen’s Association (NCA) works hard to change regulations detrimental to the sound management of public lands in a lawful manner and supports the concept of multiple uses on federally managed lands and encourages members of the livestock industry to abide by regulations governing federal lands.

“Furthermore, Nevada Cattlemen’s Association supports effective range management through collaboration with resource management agencies and interested parties to achieve rangeland management goals for economically viable ranch operations and the conservation of wildlife species.”

Collaboration can be difficult when the federal agency has the power to dictate what is proper range management and has no incentive whatsoever to compromise or listen to sound science, when the environmental radicals — who elect their Washington, D.C., bosses — continuously clamor, sue and settle.

The statement concludes:

“With the above stated this case was reviewed by a federal judge and a decision was rendered to remove the cattle. Nevada Cattlemen’s Association does not feel it is our place to interfere in the process of adjudication in this matter. Additionally, NCA believes the matter is between Mr. Bundy and the Federal Courts.

“We regret that this entire situation was not avoided through more local government involvement and better implementation of federal regulations, laws, and court decisions. While we cannot advocate operating outside the law to solve problems, we also sympathize with Mr. Bundy’s dilemma. With good faith negotiations from both sides, we believe a result can be achieved which recognizes the balance that must be struck between private property rights and resource sustainability.”

The problem is that our federal agencies have no respect or even passing concern for private property rights and would rather chase off every rancher, farmer, miner, logger, oil and gas explorer, off-roader, hunter, fisher and hiker rather than risk someone disturbing some presumably threatened bug, bird, reptile, minnow, weed or mammal. It is range management by knee-jerk reaction and by whim, instead of reason and science and compromise.

Protesting roundup of Bundy cattle. (R-J photo by Jason Bean)

Saving the desert tortoises too much for bureaucrats when funds dry up?

Federal officials decided they would save the “threatened” desert tortoise no matter what it cost you and me in taxes, $550-an-acre development fees, fences and precautions to prevent any harm whatsoever and up to $50,000 in fines and/or a year in jail for “disturbing” the slow-moving, hard-shelled, long-lived creatures.

But now that the recession has sucked the development fee life blood out of their budget, the bureaucrats are throwing up their arms in defeat and plan to close the Desert Tortoise Conservation Center in 2014 and euthanize hundreds of the tortoises that have lived at the refuge for years, according to an AP report.

Deseert tortoise (AP photo)

The Bureau of Land Management budget for the 220-acre refuge is $1 million a year, but the fees that fund it have generated only $290,000 in the past 11 months.

The AP account says the feds have set up a large refrigerator labeled “carcass freezer.” The center’s 1,400 tortoises are examined to see which are hearty enough to release into the unprotected desert and which will become tortoise popsicles — estimated to be about half.

A year ago, a Review-Journal editorial noted how well such releases have worked out in the past:

“A previous release of tortoises didn’t go so well. When 770 desert tortoises from Fort Irwin were placed in the open desert in California, 90 percent of the transplants were promptly devoured by predators, leading to the program’s suspension in 2008.”

That editorial also quoted Harry Pappas, who in the 1990s served on the Clark County Tortoise Advisory Council. In 2001 Pappas recalled:

“So what happened? They got so overrun with tortoises being turned in that they told us they were going to have to start euthanizing them. I said ‘Hold on a minute, here. Euthanize them? Why don’t you just drop them out in the desert?’ They said, ‘Oh no, they’ll fight with the native tortoises that already live out there and they’ll kill each other, because all these lands are already at saturation levels.’ I said, ‘Which is it? How can they be ‘threatened’ or ‘endangered’ … but now you tell us all these lands are at ‘saturation levels’ for tortoises?”

For decades untold millions have been spent by private builders and contractors on fences, tortoise tunnels and workers whose sole job was to prevent harming tortoises.

For what? Just to see the bureaucrats throw in the towel?