Re: letter from RMEF about wolves
Well written, right directly to the source. But they don’t have to do anything, they have an out.
Their position is “No upper limit for wolf populations”, regardless of impact or cost. It is indefensible as far as wildlife or wolves are concerned, but it makes perfect political and financial sense for them. Because, by not specifying or supporting maximum acceptable numbers they maintain the "right of first refusal" in the perpetually outraged environmentalist circles.
Marx had a concept (well Trotsky and some others) called "permanent revolution" and our progressive/socialist environmentalists have planned into every reintroduction program, an un-resolvable point of contention. They have a predictable stage in every wolf plan that will allow them to perpetually argue against killing any wolves.
Regardless of what they agreed to pre-reintroduction. Regardless of the arguments they made based upon “their scientists research”, it is in their interest to react sensationally when wolves are killed. Every wolf killed is a propaganda bonanza. It feeds their revenues, and keeps their leadership funded; it also serves as a highly visible marker issue in anti-hunting and anti-trapping efforts.
They have somehow convinced their followers that if they can drive the free and independent hunters, trappers, farmers, ranchers, or anybody they disagree with, out of business, or legislate them out of existence, or regulate them beyond recovery, that their "no liberty, no private property ownership, "we tell you and you don't count" version of socialist utopia can be a reality.
The trouble with Marxism and the like is that the plan is always to keep the bottom, on the bottom; it is the only way that system works. All they want is a change of leadership and a redistribution of power and wealth. They need a massive moody mob that they can mobilize by waving meat over their heads, ostensibly so that when they get what they want.... well they can never allow that, because that’s when they have to prove true and make the utopia reality. They would have to deliver on all their promises, and they can’t, they never really thought they would be able to. Socialism has never worked, it can't, it has a self limiting set screw on the carburetor throttle cable labeled "running out of other people’s money". Socialism ONLY works in the revolution stage, they can't allow the revolution to end, and it means they end.
They need constant turmoil, revolution, and wild points of contention to keep the "stir" going. The mob is willing and useful idiots will rise to serve with enthusiasm. Wolves are a great issue for them. Wild horses are a great issue for them. People who kill wolves or slaughter horses are heaven sent gifts.
I don't think it was ever about wolves; it was (and is) about what wolves can get them. Resolution of the issues is not in their interest. For them to define the upper limit of the wolf population, is to side with the wolf killers and in the eyes of the mob, that makes them wolf killers to. They would have no solid base of support left to manipulate, they would be a target of their own mob.
I think our concerted efforts should be to force the wolf advocates hand somehow to get them to nail down the upper limit. If we do that we take away their open ended, movable goal line, bonanza.
Every hunting season debate or trapping season debate or livestock predation debate should have a focused public information and involvement component. Every meeting with the government should somehow direct the government to move for specificity on population indicators when lethal action is to be taken. For example: “The wolf population can exceed X# and lethal management methods can be employed”. As it is now, government won’t specify upper limits of any animal they are responsible for managing. Perhaps it can be legislated that the government is required to have the upper limit before finalizing any plan or proposal. Any wolf advocate proposal would have to include specificity in this area BEFORE government could even accept their proposal for review. Wolf advocates would have to pin themselves down, or they won’t get the wolf reintroductions they want. It is not workable now, and it feeds the attack on our liberty.