TOO MANY

By Jim Beers

In December 1967 Paul Ehrlich (a butterfly specialist) predicted that the world would experience famines sometime between 1970 and 1985 due to population growth outstripping resources. Additionally he predicted that hundreds of millions of people would starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon at that time. Tough guy that he was he said government would be forced to make many apparent brutal and heartless decisions. He called for the addition of temporary sterilants to water supplies or staple food. Doses of the antidote would necessarily be carefully rationed by the government to produce the desired family size. Ever since Ehrlich invoked the imagery of a human population bomb, human overpopulation has been blamed for a variety of societal problems from poverty and genocide to unemploymant and environmental decline.
Dr. Ehrlich is one of the early "fathers" of the environmental movement. His anti-human extremism was spawned in the midst of the "free love" and "peace" revolution in the 1960's. Roe v. Wade, The Endangered Species Act, The Wilderness Act, and Animal Welfare Act are each hallmark "accomplishments" of that period of federal government growth. This decade of American history was in fact a period wherein the federal government grew to "save us" from predictions of famine, societal disintegration, and an environment as pictured in the movie "Blade Runner". This federal growth spurt mirrored the 1930's spurt that was justified to "save us" from The Depression, and the 1910 - 1920 spurt that was purported to create a more powerful central government seen as necessary to make the USA a leader of the gestating world government known at the time as The League of Nations. Each of these radical degradations of our Constitutional Republic was an advancement of the radical communal theories of Karl Marx, the "man as just another animal" philosophies of Darwin and Margaret Sanger, and the intellectual snobbery of late 19th century British elites like George Bernard Shaw that advocated all-powerful central governments run by that small group of intellectuals that is so much "wiser" than the rest of us.
Ehrlich's followers include the modern-day environmental extremists and animal rights radicals that similarly espouse more absolute central government control to "save" both the environment and animals from humans and their activities. Claims of "global warming" (it was global cooling in Ehrich's day) and assertions about the "importance" of a "native ecosystem" are, like the claims of Marx and Sanger, unjust assaults on the dignity and rights of man for the purpose of putting all power over the many in the hands of a few. Like the claims of Darwin and Shaw, history will show that they were merely personal agendas dressed up in slanted "science" and myths like Teutonic fables about Aryan supermen.
Dr. Ehrlich and all his forerunners came to mind this morning as the news broadcasts wailed about the plight of San Francisco elites trying to deal with increasingly super-abundant and aggressive sea lions on piers where boatowners and tourists mingle and in the waters where swimmers are becoming reluctant to swim. This West Coast phenomenon is matched by current news reports from the suburbs of St. Paul, Minnesota of mountain lion sightings and signs in the river bottoms that wend through the suburbs.
Consider, if you will, the public propaganda that informs us about the sea lion and cougar situations:

·The absolute and "eternal" federal protection of The Marine Mammal Protection Act for all sea lions is never mentioned. When will there ever be "enough" or "too many" seals, sea lions, sea otters, etc.? The widespread situation of state laws "protecting" cougars that are not officially present in those states are an abomination. If state governments are advocating the establishment of cougars, let them expose that agenda and then be answerable for the effect of such establishment.

·We are constantly reminded that "we" are in "their" habitat. Are they ever in "our" habitat?

·Assertions that there has "never" been a "documented" attack by cougars on a person in this state are ludicrous. Is the fact that there has "never" been a documented attack by a grizzly bear in Tennessee relevant when one gets loose or wanders into the Smoky Mountains? Does anyone really believe that cougar attacks, bear attacks, wolf attacks, or shark attacks are always reported (or "confirmed) by some central authority? History, both current and historical, is replete with thousands of such attacks that are always glibly glossed over by modern "experts.

·Cougar sightings and damages in Eastern and Midwestern states have been denied and ridiculed for thirty years by "experts" such as state and federal employees, University professors, and environmental organization employees. Could the fact that each and every one of these persons wants such animals (just like wolves and bears) to become established everywhere have any influence on their "professional" pronouncements?

·We are constantly reminded that both cougars and sea lions are "native" species. Since "native" is meant to denote those animals in the USA that were present when Columbus introduced European "pollution"; what biological similarities to America circa 1492 even exist today? Why would anyone advocate a return to several hundred thousand humans in present-day America living primitive lives that Thomas Hobbes the 17th century philosopher would only describe as lives of "brutishness and misery"?

·We are constantly reminded that cougars and sea lions are "completely protected" and that they may not be harmed in any way. So who is responsible when a cougar kills a child or a sea lion bites a swimmer? If I may not defend myself or my family; I have become an animal LESS IMPORTANT than a wild animal in the eyes of (MY OWN?) government.

·We are told to "contact police" in case of an emergency. Aside from the delay in the case of a real emergency (like during a rural burglary or a camping encounter with a grizzly bear), what are the costs of all these "tranquillizing" and "releasing in the wilderness" and "releasing far 'up the coast'" publicity stunts. Why is there never any mention of the cost of gathering of all these "experts" (females in uniforms, uniformed Jim Fowler "wannabees", deputy sheriffs, policemen, and the ubiquitous seal or cougar "advocate" from a nearby "center") and all the equipment from special guns, large nets and cages to A-frame trucks and special boats? In times of economic stress, especially, those costs compared to local hunters (as Florida employs for problem alligators and to control numbers) that USE the animals and PAY for a license or armed law enforcement officers that kill the animal and employ a productive disposal and USE system are like comparing the costs of public education and home schooling.

·There is never any mention of the very real and deadly danger from the presence of these large predators in populated areas. Aside from the nonsense about not "looking at them" and "puffing up" we are left with the impression of animals exciting to see (like tourists that live elsewhere see them) and of no real danger. Those fostering these notions are guilty of a serious endangerment of fellow humans.

·There is never any mention of the impact of all these sea lions on marine commercial fisheries or the inshore plant and animal communities where people fish and recreate. Similarly there is never any mention of the impact of mountain lions on deer or elk numbers, on pets, or on livestock. Just as abundant sea lions impact fisheries, so too do established cougars reduce numbers of game animals, pets, and livestock as well as human activities from hiking to visits to grandmother's house and going to and from school buses.
The media loves these stories. "Animal interest" stories always please readers and prove a useful vehicle for writers to hone their emotional hyperbole. The folks that provide the grist for these stories are mainly state and federal biologists, University professors, Non-Government Organization radicals, and urban socialists.
Their motives can be lumped into two categories. First, if you believe in The Tooth Fairy you would probably believe that their motivation flows from a child-like conviction that there should be no management, no control, and no use of any animals because (Mother) Nature is deserving of our worship and she will do as she will.
The second category, that I happen to subscribe to, is that the activists share the following agenda:
Stopping further development in urban areas, be it more piers or home building. This makes these lands more susceptible to eventual government control or purchase.
Justification for urban clearances "to protect" and/or "save" said critters.
Justification for more citizen control in/near/ and around "critical" habitat for said critters.
Making both urban and rural living habits more tenuous and therefore more government-dependent.
Making urban and rural work and worksites more tenuous and therefore more government-dependent.
Making urban and rural businesses from farms and ranches to daycare centers more tenuous and therefore more government-dependent.
Making private property owners from boat owners and ranchers to dog breeders more and more dependent on government and more susceptible to government offers of acquisition or government mandates.
Isn't it strange that these very followers of Ehrlich and Sanger and Darwin NEVER accept that there are TOO MANY of any animal? Be it wolves or cougars or Canada geese, etc. there is no place off limits and no densities considered too high. Yet these very same radicals (The White House staff and Washington politicians are overflowing with them) constantly war on humans that are always TOO MANY for their own good. Abortion, euthanasia, birth control, school indoctrination, aberrant sex encouragement, family destruction, and pressure on religious organizations to cooperate or be destroyed are expanded both nationally and internationally. On the one hand we do everything we can to reduce human numbers by violence, aberrant sex, marriage destruction, and propaganda as we protect animals from any and all human impacts. What is wrong with this picture?
If anyone is not sickened by this situation there is only one solution; change more names. Biologists have changed names of animals like:
Killer whales are now "Orcas" (no longer "killers" but nondescript "Orcas".)
Old squaws are now "long-tailed ducks" (no longer politically incorrect and sexist ducks that chatter 24/7 but merely ducks with a long tail.)
Upland Game Birds are now "Upland ground birds" (no longer "game" for hunters but now simply birds that spend a good deal of the day on their feet as opposed on the wing or in trees.)
Following up on this approach I propose that we rename these two "problem" animals. I suggest that we rename sea lions as "Marine Dogs". Doing away with the picture of the "sea" as a dangerous place and replacing and replacing it with the innocuous word "marine" that few understand and replacing the dangerous aura of lions with that of "dog" we make this "problem" seem even more benign and cute. Mountain Lions (cougars) present a similar issue of perception. I suggest we rename them "Hill Tabbies". What is more benign than a grassy hill and a pet cat? How could a marine dog or a hill tabby be dangerous? Who would not delight in protecting such animals, no matter the cost?
Sarcasm is only worthy because the situation is so stupid and resistant to truth. One hundred years of denigrating humans (always TOO MANY) while elevating wild animals (never TOO MANY) to super-human status is both morally repugnant and intellectually vapid. Like the destruction of our US Constitution during this period we have let the lowest among us gain more and more control of the lives and activities of the rest of us. We have made a bed that we cannot lie in, only die in.
Jim Beers 7 October 2009