WILD BILL
The Mouse That Roared
By Bill Schneider, 4-06-06
 |
|
 | |
| Preble's meadow jumping mouse. Photo courtesy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. | |
|
I’ve been accused of only caring about and writing about the so-called charismatic megafauna, you know, the grizzly bears, bison, wolves, and elk—at the expense, of course, of many smaller creatures that collectively complete the ecosystems we need to exist. So today, to set the record straight, I’m writing about the mouse that roared.
Not the 1959 Grade B movie or the mouse that lives down in Anaheim, but a little rodent that lives on the Front Range of Colorado. It only weighs an ounce, but it might be big enough to stop runaway commercial development or bring down the Endangered Species Act—or both.
The story started back in 1998 when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) designated the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse as a threatened species—the same designation bestowed upon the mighty grizzly bear—under the provisos of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The landmark law, clearly the most controversial environmental legislation ever passed, protects all species, not just the megafauna. In fact, most listed species are small birds, rodents, and slimy things you never heard of. Legally and scientifically, the mouse equals the bear.
The disciples of biodiversity have a tough life. They must convince us a mouse is worth saving, especially at the expense of a big housing development or new highway, maybe even a school or hospital. Scientists see Preble’s meadow jumping mouse as a wonderfully unique member of the Order Rodentia, one of many hundreds of biologically different, visually similar, mouse-like critters. But to most people, it’s only another dirty little rodent that they don’t want in their kitchen.
As a threatened species, the mouse has power. It can stop a freeway from being built through its critical habitat. It can even stop—and indeed, it has—the aggressive politics of the Bush administration, something the United Nations couldn’t do.
The mouse has become the poster child of House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo (R-CA) and other politicians trying to “reform” the ESA, which puts the greens in the unenviable position of defending the mouse. Must make them feel like Saddam’s lawyers. Not fun, but needs to be done.
Enviros have faced this type of public relations challenge before. In fact, the ESA shot right out of the chute with such a controversy. By the time Congress passed the ESA in 1973, it had already authorized the Tellico Dam on the Little Tennessee River. In this case, it was the minnow that roared. Opponents of the dam found a similar “insignificant” but endangered species, a three-inch fish called the snail darter, inhabiting the river and used the ESA to delay the gates of already built Tellico Dam from closing for years while the litigation climbed up to the Supreme Court, which eventually ruled for the snail darter. Congress then exempted Tellico Dam from the ESA. Other “unimportant” species like the desert pupfish, Kirtland’s warbler, and Utah prairie dog have stalled development, as has the desert tortoise, which has limited the expansion of Las Vegas.
On March 23, the Wall Street Journal lambasted the mouse in a pointy commentary called Of Mice and Men. WSJ editorial board member Stephen Moore called efforts to save the mouse “preposterous” and followed with a litany of business horror stories like a FWS requirement to build million-dollar mouse pathways under a pond. So far, Moore claims, the mouse has cost Colorado landowners $183 million with no end in sight.
To stop their losses, a Colorado property rights coalition hired scientist Rob Roy Ramey from the Denver Museum of Natural History to study the mouse. Ramey not only concluded the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse wasn’t threatened but wasn’t even a distinct species. Instead, he claimed, it was a minor variant of other mouse species.
Using Ramey’s study, landowners and developers petitioned the FWS for delisting. Even Interior Secretary Gale Norton touted Ramey’s study in pushing for delisting of the mouse.
In response, the FWS, which let us not forget is under Norton’s preview and controlled by the extremely ESA unfriendly administration, did its own study and concluded the mouse was indeed a distinct species—and a threatened one at that—and denied delisting. (Enviros drummed Ramey out of the Denver Museum of Natural History, but he landed a nice job with the White House efforts to delist more endangered species.)
What makes the mouse so controversial is the unfortunate (or fortunate?) fact that its range coincides with the Front Range of Colorado, the east slope of the Continental Divide, starting about Colorado Springs and extending north halfway through Wyoming, a rapidly growing region to say the least. That guarantees more opportunities for the mouse to face off with a bulldozer. If the Preble’s mouse lived in western Utah or eastern Montana, nobody would have ever heard of it.
In his editorial, Moore claimed the threatened status itself threatened the mouse and hence should be removed just to save the species. One in four landowners purposely degraded mouse habitat, he wrote, but didn’t stop there. “Many of these landowners have been so strong-armed by federal bureaucrats that they have come to believe—with good reason—that the original and widely supported intent of the ESA has been subverted into a back-door means to slam the brakes on economic development.”
To support this, Moore quoted R.J. Smith, credited with being an ESA expert at the Competitive Enterprise Institute: "It's a cost-free way for the government and the greens to impose land-use control on property owners."
Now, that’s what I call preposterous.
In looking at this “mouse problem,” three things occur to me. First, I dearly hope most people can see through the superficial ploy by the Pombos and Moores and Smiths of the world. They want us to laser focus on one situation or species, such as a lowly rodent, and ignore the big picture to justify their cause—gutting the ESA. Even though the historic legislation may need a fix or two, everybody knows these critics intend to leave a toothless shell behind in the name of “reform.” Their true intent prevents true reform because greens are justifiably paranoid about supporting any legitimate ESA reforms in fear that they will be blended with devastating amendments in the congressional grinder and result in the irreversible loss of ESA effectiveness.
Second, in places like the Front Range, an inappropriate development should be defeated by its own inappropriate-ness, but regrettably, many such developments go ahead regardless. This puts opponents into the position of desperation where their last option might be the “mouse card,” no different than enviros in the northern Rockies frequently playing “bear card” to stop destructive development. Keep in mind that greens push this legal agenda, not the FWS, and I seriously doubt they’re truly out there passionately trying to save mouse habitat. Instead, it’s about stopping something that in some (but definitely not all) cases needs to be stopped. This makes the other land use laws—those that pave the way for inappropriate, destructive development—the real problem, not the ESA, which has merely become the last line of defense and, of course, the whipping boy of developers and conservative politicians.
Third, the greens need to pick their battles wisely and, at times, pull in their fangs, and I question whether the end justifies the means in some situations. Greens don’t want to give the other side free punches with things like million-dollar, red-carpeted mouse tunnels. Some fights aren’t worth fighting, We could, for example, try to ban domestic cats in Preble’s mouse habitat because you know what cats do, right? But if enviros think property rights fanatics and developers are challenging, wait until the Cat People turn on them. I doubt this will advance the cause of saving the ESA.
In my view, the ESA has become the foundation of species conservation, but we must be reasonable in enforcing it or in our defense of all species in all situations. We can’t push it to the point where landowners view it as an economic plague, which they probably do now in Colorado and many other places. If we keep this up, the Act itself could go extinct.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
However, until and unless we all can discuss that other beloved beast, AKA the ESA, without braiding facts and science with politically motivated yarns it is unlikely that the ESA will survive as it was probably originally meant to be and should have continued to be in spite of the big money spent by all special interest groups who have used it as a tool to provide access to goals unrelated to an actual Species. In my not-so-humble opinion, your voice raised in these paragraphs is heavily clouded with prejudice and does nothing to solve a problem whether you consider that problem to be a real one or not.
Should you actually wish to be an asset to your cause, then you should readily admit that this infamous mouse should never have been listed at all prior to a complete, accurate and unprejudiced scientific study of it. This was obviously not done and because it was not done when it should have been done the repercussions have been enormous for many innocent parties without just cause. Although my land is not effected one way or the other by the infamous mouse, I live in a County where these areas exist and therefore have had the dubious pleasure of paying my-fair-share of all public costs incurred.
Misuse of the ESA must come to an end whether or not you are a proponent of the right to own and use private property which, may I remind you, is one of the most valuable rights we have as citizens in the USA and a right not equally duplicated anywhere else in the world. If you actually do believe it is preposterous that the greens, and the NIMBYs (Not In My Back Yard) who link arms with them, are looking to the ESA, among other things, as a cost-free way to impose land-use sterilization and control over private property you are sadly mistaken.
Of those three things that occurred to you while “looking at this ‘mouse problem’ ”, even while almost-but-not-quite admitting in your first thought that the ESA might need reform, you assume only the worst about any person promoting reform while totally justifying paranoia by greens in defense of “irreversible loss of ESA effectiveness”. I can only counter to you, Bill, that if the ESA was now justifiably effective as it was intended TO be this discussion would not be taking place. No, Bill. “Everybody” does NOT know that critics of the ESA intend to leave nothing but a “toothless shell” behind in the name of reform. And comments such as these do nothing to promote a good and honest reevaluation of an Act gone awry on too many occasions.
Your second point jumps headlong into what sounds most like just exactly what you so vehemently denied as “preposterous” ~ the idea that the use of the ESA might be used to impose land-use control on private property owners! Now here a couple paragraphs later that is just exactly what you are hoping-against-hope WILL happen!!! And your only concern is whether or not opponents to any development might have to use an ESA “card” as a last desperate attempt to stop someone else from exercising their right to own and use their own property? Does it ever cross your mind that if you would like to see someone else’s property used in some other way than what the owner of it intends you could actually belly up to the bar and BUY it? They did, you know. And the fact that you and others would rather take it from them without paying for it, whatever the pretext, does not make that motive nor that goal praiseworthy. Your values are askew ~ or ~ perhaps you do not have any children or grandchildren who could end up being denied that precious right to own AND USE property in this Great Nation.
In your second proclamation you also say you doubt the FWS is out there passionately trying to save mouse habitat. Yes, the greens are the ones who collect the big emotional bucks and spend them in the courts whenever possible. And I think it is very possible that FWS might not give a hoot about the actual “passion” of saving anything, mouse related or otherwise. But they are most certainly very concerned about saving their own job security which they can hardly maintain if they do not seek to find an ES wherever they can; whether or not if even exists is beside the point. Have you already conveniently forgotten that lynx fur they planted in the bushes, for openers? And I have had personal experience witnessing just how far they will go and how many laws they will break to preserve those jobs in their attempt to find ES that do not exist and how many times they will repeat those illegal actions even after being reprimanded for doing so. If you need court records to confirm those clay ankles I would be happy to provide them for you.
Your credentials as an opponent of all development of any land remain intact, Bill. But if you really want to win that war in the State of Colorado you will need to do more research in China. Development is a direct result of people being born. China had the only government I know of who found an adequate solution to the problem. It did not involve land use regulations so maybe that would be a good place to start your investigation. Land use regulations as they have been applied in Boulder, for instance, have not necessarily stopped development but they have been used to structure society. If you doubt that statement I suggest you re-read an article published in New West in January regarding the price of homes in Boulder. Neither my kids nor my grandkids ~ nor could I! ~ ever afford to join the structure of the society that Boulder has so successfully created in the last many years, primarily via land use regulations. If you wish to witness what-happens-next when a No Growth philosophy takes hold visit Boulder. I do hope the Great State of Colorado never degenerates entirely to that degree. If you are a wealthy man you may not care.
Why anyone thinks that “developers” pay the dues for the ESA or any other curtailing laws or regulations is beyond my comprehension. The land owner who sells land to the developer pays by having to take a lesser price when selling and the homeowner pays much more when they buy a home encumbered with the additional costs of each regulation inflicted during the development of the land. It has not one thing to do with the profit made by any developer. They make their profit no matter the buy/sell costs, high or low.
BUT ~ back on topic to The Mouse and proceeding onward to your third revelation, you are exactly right in my not-so-humble opinion regarding the greens needing to pick their battles wisely. That will take a big change of heart and mind, spending habits and actions initiated.
Interestingly enough, had you done just a tad more reading and research regarding this notorious mouse you would have discovered that domestic cats ARE banned in what has been declared to be “mouse country”!!! How about them apples, Mr. Bill??!!! When this all started I did suggest to a few folks up that way that they could solve two problems with one compassionate visit to the local humane society but that was before FWS started Open Season on Cats!
In closing, I honestly do thank you for expressing yourself on these issues as I hope you will thank me for expressing my opinions even though they do not necessarily coincide. But we will make it through the joys of the adventures ahead if all of us will pay close attention to your final words stating:
“In my view, the ESA has become the foundation of species conservation, but we must be reasonable in enforcing it or in our defense of all species in all situations. We can’t push it to the point where landowners view it as an economic plague, which they probably do now in Colorado and many other places. If we keep this up, the Act itself could go extinct.”
Or so I *also* believe!
Rose Mary
But there's another, older ingredient in this simmering stew of controversy over human purpose that runs headon into species survival. And, in many circles today, it has much more moral power than anything from the realms of science. So I've sometimes wondered what role this older ingredient would play if, as Bill fears, the Endangered Species Act is indeed as endangered as a one-ounce mouse.
The language of this older order is every bit as explicit as that of the Endangered Species Act. To wit: "... every living thing of all flesh .... keep them alive with thee ....of every sort ... to keep them alive .... Bring forth with thee every living thing that is with thee .... every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth: that they may breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply upon the earth ...."
Genesis, chapter 6
(King James version)
Every living thing. It's hard to mistake the meaning of that, and I'm assuming that it includes little mice whose homes stand in the path of human purposes.
Now, we all know, of course, that a lot of people perceive them pesky environmentalist as idjuts who'd dare place lowly critters' needs on a par with the purposes of people. But it's very hard to miss the old tradition supporting that very view.
"… a man have no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity."
Ecclesiastes chapter 3
(King James version)
Sorting out the controversy around Pombo et al, and their furious scramble to push lil' mice and other critters aside so that the great economic boom can proceed, does raise questions about the future of the Endangered Species Act. But how shall Pombo et al reckon with that older order?
Lance Olsen
But He also made me the steward, or custodian on earth, if you will, of my own kids and grandkids and in His wisdom He has given me the tools that I need to provide for them me-thinks. And I share with all wild creatures that overwhelming desire to protect my young! To do that, in the wild or elsewhere, choices must be made.
Your words are very meaningful but they are also without discussion of His will that we see played out each day "in the wilds" without interruption or contribution from that selfish creature AKA "mankind".
Historically we can backtrack to see that many creatures who once walked the face of this earth do so no longer and very often the fact that they no longer exist has never been tied to an interruption of their existence by mankind, to the best of my knowledge.
Eternally we see survival of the fittest within any species and amongst/between any combination of species.
It is common urban and greenie rhetoric to unequivocally proclaim as undeniable fact that gun-happy ranchers are the obscene reason that many varieties of wildlife no longer exist in many places while seldom releasing for public consumption the VAST numbers of animals who have died as a direct result of people trying to transplant those species where they no longer exist today. Must one not wonder if this "movement", this transplant of those species from areas where they are thriving today to those places where they no longer *naturally* thrive, is not most of all for and about PEOPLE?
It is also common urban and greenie rhetoric to unequivocally proclaim as undeniable fact that the development of land for the purpose of creating habitat for people is obscene and needs to come to a screeching halt ~ as long as it is at someone else's expense when it does. As a native of the Great State of Colorado, I wonder why nobody ever stops to poll the numbers of those anti-development persons who are now living on land that was ranch or farm land before they demanded it be developed for their own homes and occupancy ~ and/or why it might have been a fine and dandy thing for them to build THEIR house on pristine Colorado acres but, now that they have theirs, why it is a bad thing for someone else to follow in their well-worn footsteps. Yep ~ that one is spelled NIMBY!!! But would their voices be here to be raised had all us natives done and said the same thing when they were moving into our glorious State? And should we now sit still and silent while they drive up the cost of homes to the point where our own children can no longer afford to live in this Great State of Colorado?
So many questions, so few FACTUAL answers!!! And so many of things that mankind will never totally understand nor be able to factually document without question or controversy. All coupled with that "interesting" and often unexplainable or justifiable characteristic AKA "human nature"!
Go figure, huh.
However, if you would like for me to put you on the list to receive one of the first copies of my intended book which will be entitled "Why Ranches Such As Mine Turn Into Concrete Jungles" just let me know!
The drought has sealed the fate, perhaps,
And made the journey weary;
The horses that I've raised with pride
Face marketplace that's dreary.
But if I find a hundred folks,
All greenies, urbanites,
Who want to buy a horse for sale,
Might cause a slight respite.
But with each voice today we hear,
Each one that's raised to holler,
Each one that wants to "save" the land,
Wants NOT to spend a dollar.
Oh yes, a Public Dollar spent,
One paid from my purse too,
Is fine and dandy any day
To pay the cost when due.
Right now let's have a show of hands:
Vote YES and stand, proclaim,
That YOU will pay the bill for Species
Harbored ~ YOUR domain!
If YOU will place that mouse or grizzly
In YOUR own backyard,
And do so without pay or thanks
Would that be very hard?
If not and if YOU'll volunteer
For job that you want done,
PLEASE let me know immediately!
Would make this day SUCH fun!!!
But if you're settin' on your hands,
No movement do I see,
Then must I not assume it's true:
You want free land from ME?
That would not mean my purse is large
Or yours is very small.
It only means for what you want
You will not take the fall.
Most greenies, as they're called these days,
Are often from affluent
Homes within society,
Formidable, pursuant.
Is pay-fair-share of legal costs
To sue for what they want
As equitable as purchasing
The land that they could flaunt?
Or is the taking what the fun
For most is all about?
If not, stand up and volunteer
YOUR land with hefty shout!!!
... choices and voices ...
Every day we make them and raise them.
Or so it seems to me!
Rose Mary
-Thomas Graf
Littleton, CO
(I am the DOI attorney handling all legal matters involving the Preble's meadow jumping mouse.)
Also, along those lines, it's worth noting that this mouse is not a threatened species by definition; it's a threatened subspecies at best. This is an important distinction depending on how you classify the genetic characteristics shared with other members of its species.
I'm sure that taxonomically it's possible to classify any geographically distinct population and find genetic similarities within that population; but in the end, it's still a subspecies, not a species.
The whole thing seems awfully arbitrary. If you don't define species or subspecies by genetic differences, what do you define them by? Where do you draw the line between species and subspecies? Unfortunately none of these studies address that, and no study can "prove" this issue either way, because there is no absolute genetic criteria for species/subspecies differentiation.
On top of that, and as Dept. of Interior attorney Graf states above, YOU ~ as a taxpayer ~ are "getting to" pay for this mickey-mouse adventure for another many-moons into the future, 2006 and perhaps-beyond. In the meantime no public or private party CAN legally go forward with any project of any kind, necessary or arbitrary, without meeting every ridiculous and extremely expensive requirement set in motion by the FWS original listing of this Mouse.
Can you hear the cash register ring? Re-read Mr. Graf's message, above, and I do not know how you could not. Those are Federal dollars in excess of, in addition to, the local and private dollars referenced in the WSJ report.
There is just too much of this type of thing going on in the name of the ESA and too few people who wish to remember that lynx fur planted in the bushes and those pictures of spotted owls nesting in the eaves of K-Mart and Target.
Those who reeeeaaaaalllllly care about ES should be clamoring for a re-write ~ from scratch ~ of the ESA.
As Bill so very accurately stated in this article: " If we keep this up, the Act itself could go extinct." And if this is what we have to show for it all, the future of it, maybe it should.
Rose Mary
One glaring thing left out of the ESA is accountability on the part of those wielding the power. The perpetrators of some of these restrictions that are costing the American people billions take no responsibility for problems that develop. The mouse is a poster child for those abuses of the public.
Wolves are another. A very big reason for pushing the wolves off on ranchers is to clear the public lands for recreation of those who can afford the time and money for extended trips on foot. I realize there are folks who almost worship them, interestingly enough there is no concern for other wildlife in the area. Seeing numbers that show the Northern Elk herd at 3649 this year indicates that herd may be in big trouble. That is a pretty hefty drop from 19,000 11 years ago, even from 9500 a year ago. Ed Bangs is calling for transferring the costs to the 3 states because the cost of managing them is getting too high for the federal government to handle.
The act needs some very thorough overhauling. It has spawned a very big industry in environmental organizations that keep a constant flurry of lawsuits against the United states taxpayer. So far as I can see that is their sole purpose.
In fact, a full elk was not done. That is unfortunate because these data are needed. Bad weather is the official explanation, but I think it might have been something else too (like agency conflict or lack of coordination)
However, the figure of 3649 came from a survey of the elk (survey means part, not all of the elk).
It least that's what I have been able to figure out. I think the elk count may be down further, but the reason was winter starvation. There was frank starvation on the Northern Range portion in the Park in March due to very hard snow from repeated thawing and freezing.
This business of telling folks only what FWS wants them to know about the wolf situation has virtually destroyed their credibility.
http://www.jacksonholenet.com/news/jackson_hole_news_headline_2.php
http://www.nps.gov/yell/press/0616b.htm
The YNP news release said,
"Thus, the count was considered poor and inaccurate, and results are not comparable to surveys during good conditions in previous years. White stated “It was a frustrating winter and, unfortunately, we were unable to get a good count of the elk during the typical count period in December and January. We’ll certainly shoot for a good count next winter and, hopefully, see an increase in elk numbers if recruitment remains higher for another year.”
Thank you for providing these links.
Have you seen the news from the Colombia Gorge? I am curious as to your opinion of this type of Cash-UP-Front approach to conservation. I would like very much if you would take the time to read today's "Friends of the Gorge" article on New West Columbia Gorge and comment, if not online, at least to me privately at .
I like your poetry. I am a big fan of Jeffers, Rexroth and Auden.
most sincerly, Tomi Owens.
How kind of you to actually ask for my opinion on anything!!! How dangerous is THAT fer-pity-sakes!!! ;-)
But I did find and read the "Friends of the Gorge" news article you mentioned and I did post my comments while I was there ~ although you may or may not agree with a single thing I had to say!
I am so very pleased that you liked my poetry! That type of writing is only one of my mental deficiencies but perhaps the one that I do enjoy most. I enjoy it very most of all when shared with tolerant persons who also enjoy it ~ so thanks much for letting me know you do!
Appreciated!!!
Rose Mary
Tomi, I couldn't find the article you mentioned, could you send me a link please? My private email is fine too if you prefer.
I was lucky enough to read some of Rose Mary's poetry at http://www.cowboypoetry.com/rma.htm. And frankly, she is too good for writing articles. She ought to be writing children's books and Poetry for us adults who remember what it was like to be children.
Email me if you like.
All the best, tomi.
Actually, Marion, my friends who are constantly badgered and beleaguered on a daily basis with my so-called-political rhymes about every front page news subject on the face of this earth, coast to coast, have often encouraged me to approach some publication about writing such a daily commentary in rhyme ~ but with the drought and all I've been acutely aware that it would only take ONE cross-burning in my front corral to wipe out my entire ranch!!! Not everyone understands that I never expect the entire world to agree with my outspoken opinions although I do enjoy sharing back/forth with just about everyone.
Thank YOU, Tomi, for taking the time to read some of my "cowboy" poetry published on that site. However, you must have had too many cups of tooooooo "heavily spiced" tea to think that I would ever be "too good" for anything!!! NOT! Should you ever notice me getting to that point in Life then PLEASE order a pine box with a matching match immediately!
I am not sure how many of those cowboy-type-poetry lovers might frequent the New West Network, but there actually is one poem posted there that is very applicable to New West readers and subjects of conern published here. To save the non-cowboys amongst us the trip to the corral I will copy/paste it here below. If nothing else: please remember that I actually wrote this sucker back in *1994* and as far as I can tell not ONE thing has changed since then!!! Go figure, huh.
"Public" "Person"
Are you a "person" or a "public"?
Just a "one" or part of "all"?
Are you "caring" or "destructive"?
"Crashing through" or "walking tall"?
If you're surveyed as a "person",
You're environmental minded.
If you're a "public" you destroy;
Sensitivity is blinded.
As a person at the meetings,
You make quite a penetration.
You profess to want to save
The earth for future generations.
As a public you destroy
Everything within your sight.
You have tramped and raped and plundered
With a thoughtless, careless might.
As a person you recycle,
Sorting garbage, very neat.
As a public you distribute
Cans and trash upon the street.
As a person you promote
And gather funds for hiking trails.
As a public you destroy
Habitat for bear or quail.
In your home you train your children
Not to play with matches there.
After camping in the forests,
Smoke and fire fill the air.
You may freely give your funds
To museums for displays;
Crowds on site at sacred places,
Fill their pockets there for days.
As a person you support
Legislation to protect.
As a public you continue
To treat all things with neglect.
If a neighbor tramps your rose bush
You will take him into court.
When you drive into the country,
Trespass there will be your sport.
You fence your private, personal boundaries,
To keep the passerby at bay.
But you snip, destroy, or climb
A wire fence near fields of hay.
As a person you distribute
Chemicals upon your lawn.
As a public you protest
A cow who pees at early dawn.
You may leave your sprinkler running
When you leave your house in haste.
But you think that farms and ranches
Producing food, with water: waste.
Though your shoes are made of leather
And your coat is virgin wool,
You will march into the streets
Against the grazing ram or bull.
You say cowboys are on welfare,
Crush their economic base.
But you will spend public money,
To buy farms for "open space".
You'll spend half-a-million dollars,
Build large homes on platted land.
When your neighbor subdivides,
Their "open space" is your demand.
As a person you commute
To work in cars that create smog.
As a public you will lobby
To protect a wetland bog.
As a person you inhabit
Wooden house with redwood deck.
As a public you profess
To want the trees for owls with 'specks'.
If a bear or mountain lion
Eats your dog you raise a cry.
But if wildlife kills at range
You do not notice babies die.
You want wolves reintroduced,
On the range that livestock grazed;
Transplanted in that "open space",
Where only ranchers' babes are raised.
But when wolves with dogs are mated,
Turned loose on the city streets,
You will vote to kill, destroy them,
Put an end to bloody feats.
You send food to hungry people
Throughout the world who do not eat.
You think supermarket shelves
Provide the food to do this feat.
Should we lobby to protect
The conscientious "person" now?
Or shall we open hunting season
On the "public" beast, so foul?
... a musing from the West by Rose Mary Allmendinger © 1994
Have you read Range Magazine? I would think they would be most interested in your poetry. Granted you would be preaching to the choir there, but it would make us feel good, and you wouldn't have to fear the revenge of the "environmentalists".
Contrary to my previous tongue-in-cheek comment about that so-called "cross burning" in my front corral, I have never feared the revenge of any so-called "environmentalist"!!! I actually used to consider myself the world's greatest environmentalist until I had the unfortunate experience to witness first-hand how some of the biggest and the so-called best do business. Fortunately, all environmentalists are NOT alike and although there are those groups and organizations who do operate with donated money under false pretenses or want to sterilize private property rights while riding horses with 3 legs or less, I think the vast majority of the "regular people" who consider themselves to be environmentalists do have an honest desire to be protective, whether or not we all agree on the ways, means or methods.
It is up to those of us who wish to continue to live in the West we love to monitor and restrict the actions of those who wish to "take", with or without the help of a Killer CAT!!!
.... or so it seems to me ... and the Mouse that got away!!!
Rose Mary
WHAT A BUMMER YOU'D HAVE THE AUDACITY TO POST SOMETHING LIKE THIS ON THIS WEBSITE WHERE IT IS NEITHER WANTED NOR APPRECIATED AND ONE CAN ONLY HOPE THAT SOONER OR LATER YOU WILL FIND OUT FOR YOURSELF IT IS A ***SURE*** WAY TO KILL *ANY* BUSINESS COMING YOUR WAY FROM ANYONE WHO USES THIS WEBSITE FOR THE PURPOSE IT IS INTENDED. WHY DON'T YOU GO SUCK EGGS ELSEWHERE CAUSE IT SURE AIN'T GONNA DO YOU ANY GOOD HERE ... UNLESS YOU ENJOY BEING RESENTED?
Thanks for the backup. I've deleted the so-called Allen's "comment" from the thread. We do not allow spam on the site and when we find spam comments I delete them. So, if you see any more anywhere, please alert me () and I'll take appropriate action.
Again, thanks!
Thank you very much