Capitol Commentary
Neutralovian: Language of the Legislature
By Jill Kuraitis, 1-12-07
 |
|
 | |
|
Never heard of Neutralovian? I made it up. But it works, don’t you think? I’m going to watch it work its way into the American lexicon, like Stephen Colbert’s “truthiness.” Let me know when you see it in Mad Magazine. Then I will have arrived.
The creative use of Neutralovian in speeches and documents around here is everyday stuff. In a committee meeting Friday, the Agricultural Department’s John Chatburn briefed legislators on the “Domestic Cervidae Program.” (An elk is a cervidae of the order of even-toed ungulates, sharing a category with the well-known hairy-fronted muntjac {muntiacus crinifrons}. But of course.)
At the briefing, a Neutralovian word was used right off the bat: “Idaho State Department of Agriculture quarantined and depopulated all 37 animals….”
“Depopulated,” is even sillier than “deplane” to describe getting off an airplane. Even sillier, some of the sportsmen’s groups prefer “harvested” and “eradicate.” And there’s my favorite, “supporting wildlife.” Now THAT’s Neutralovian.
Inexplicably, Chatburn jumped from “depopulated” to “slaughtered,” an icky word which creates a mental image of strewn-about bloody carcasses chopped to bits by rampaging, sword-waving Visigoths. (Maybe Neutralovian isn’t so bad after all.)
Then, during questioning by legislators, the term “fence breaching” was used to mean “a hole in the fence.” All together now: A HOLE IN THE FENCE.
The Idaho chapter of Sportsmen for Fish & Wildlife passed out a press release saying they were going to hold a petition drive “demanding relief from the unmanaged wolf population.” That sounds as if wolves are running rampant in the countryside, cranking up the volume on their car stereos, ripping off old ladies and harassing people for beer outside the Seven-Eleven. If that’s what they mean, the Sportsmen are right: we demand relief from this sort of thing, don’t we? Pass me that petition!
The harrowing news for the wolves is that “demanding relief” means “we wanna kill.” There’s that mental image thing again – picturing the shooting of a beautiful animal like a wolf can bring to mind the assassination of your husky-shepherd mutt or the neighbor’s gorgeous Malamute. But the Neutralovian “demand for relief” sounds more like asking for a Tums. So soothing, those Tums. Not like killing at all.
I’ll endeavor to transmute the most objectionable Neutralovian as the legislators utilize obfuscation as a contrivance to prevail in the future determination of the distribution of supremacy under the rotunda.
That is, if I can have some relief from the Neutralators.
[End of article]
haha!
I'll be sure to look for other examples in JFAC. I know there was a great one last year -- something like 'leveraging natural resources' in Eagle Island State Park, when they actually meant 'put a gravel pit in it.'
Dear Jill,
I'm afraid that you'll find plenty of examples in Wyoming and Washington, D.C.
Depopulate.
Predator control.
Test and remove.
Surge.
Augmentation.
No matter what language is used, I do not see any way to end the polarization of the two sides because of the way the whole thing was set up. Wolves are a benefit to the one side and because they perceive them beneficial to themselves, they want more of a good thing, and there is no cost or problem to them. The folks actually dealing with wolves on the other hand consider them a detriment because of all of the cost and all of the problems that go with wolves are borne by them. They have no benefit at all to them, only harm, so they want less of them.
I know of no way to change these facts, so I can see no compromise that can level these things unless someone can find a way of moving the wolves where the benefit equals the detriment.
Marion is probably right, "wolf polarization" will not end. However, a couple of months ago Ralph Maughan attached an article about the economic benefits that have occurred in the Gardiner-Cook City areas since the reintroduction of the wolf. They were substantual! I have been visiting Yellowstone for 50 years, and prior to the introduction of the wolf, the Lamar Valley was often devoid of human visitors (which I preferred) & now there are year-round vistors who- I assume-are spreading economic benefit to the locals.
The "Yellowstone Ecosystem" is unique, it is the largest protected area in the temperate regions of the world. It is one of the world's natural crown jewels as adjacent landscapes are mutating into into vast human feedlots. If this area, of concentrated public lands (20 million acres) was a state, the perimeter of this area would be one of the fastest growing states in the country. The aura of pristine wild lands, esthetics & wildlife, including apex predators, are the fuel that drive this economic engine. This is a cold severe place for much of the year that is hostile to domestic live stock where only endemic wildlife are raw hide tough enough to survive. Yellowstone is the sum of it's wild parts & this "wildness", throughout the years, has drawn billions of dollars into the local economies & will continue to do so. Economically it is no contest, the wildness of the wolves win even though many are blind to this fact!!
The interesting thing about that article tha Ralph posted by some guy claiming 45 million revenue from wolves, there are no new motels in any of the border towns, including Gardiner and Cooke City, nor new restaraunts. They interviewed one restaraunt owner in Gardiner and they have had to close in the winter because of decreased business due to the lack of hunters. The elk permits in the Gardiner have dropped from I think 3000 to 100.
That is a huge drop to the state in lost licenses and of course taxes form the restaraunt. I haven't heard how the motels are faring.
There are probably a couple hundred avid wolf watchers, but they cannot ofset the income from thousands of hunters.
I have no idea where that guy got his numbers, from a computer model, I'm guessing.
Jill,
Excellent point. I have another explanation: so many of our legislators are LDS, and they've been conditioned since early childhood to eschew disagreement.