Six Lives are Worth It!

The other day one of my good friends posted this:

Two men are running for the presidency of the nation of Imaginaria. In his campaign speech, the first candidate wants to communicate his progressive position so he takes ten innocent children and lines them up against the wall. He promises to help frustrated and tired parents by machine gunning down all ten of the children if elected. The second candidate who previously supported the machine gunni...

ng of most of the children, lines up ten children himself. But he explains that if he is elected he will machine gun down no more than four of the ten children lined up against the wall. And to demonstrate his "commitment to life", he will only machine gun to death the children who are in his mind "justifiably" unwanted by their parents.

Question: Is it wise, honorable and biblical for Christian voters to put their stamp of approval and vote for the second candidate because he will machine gun and brutally murder less children than the first? Is it an incremental step in the right direction?

 

This is my response:

 

 

My response is that the above argument is a strawman and not relevant to our current election.

Let's pretend that those two men are the choices and that children will be gunned down. I believe we should vote for the man who will murder fewer children. Six lives are worth it. Not perfect, but worth it. We don't live in a perfect society, we live in a fallen society and sometimes (ok, often) have to make do with what is 'better' rather than what is optimal.

Also – the man that would only murder 4 children has softened from his original position of murdering all of the children. There is hope that he will continue to soften and realize that murdering children isn't evil and quit killing them. It will be easier to turn the second man than the first man.

Assuming that the illustration is really of Obama and Romney and abortion – I still say vote for Romney. The truth is that the president doesn't have that much influence over abortion at this time. His influence extends mostly to appointing Supreme Court justices. If Obama is re-elected he will appoint liberal judges. A liberal court will not hear an abortion case. They have nothing to gain. If Romney is elected, conservatives will have some influence over court appointments. A conservative court is more likely to hear an abortion case, but there is no guarantee that one will get that far and that they would consent to hear it. IF they do hear it and IF the court struck down Rove v. Wade, abortion would still be legal. It would simply become a state issue.

The president has some 'soap-box' status and could champion the Pro-Life Movement – but that power is limited. None of the other candidates were pro-life AND small government (except Bachmann – I'll have to check on her)

I'm not sure why Mitt supported abortion or why he changed his mind. I suspect political expediency. And political expediency points to my preferred method of doing away with abortion. Change hearts and minds. I know that's so cliché at this point, but it's still true. We need to teach and model good sexual behavior – including responsibility. We need to work in adoption centers and promote adoption centers. We need to fight legislation that takes churches out of adoption centers. We also need to start foundations that provide prenatal and general health care – sort of competition to Planned Parenthood. We need to change society and that will cause politicians to change their actions – political expediency.

Jesus Commands us to LOVE Our Neighbor.

“If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don't want to do it.” or so says Stephen Colbert.

I, however, must protest. Vigorously protest!

Stephen Colbert - quit putting up a Strawman. Do Something Yourself. As a Christian it is YOUR responsibility. YOU! God has provided you with money, now act like a good steward of His money and use it for good. As a practicing Catholic, I'm sure you donate to charities, but I also bet you can do more. You have fame and connections, use what God gave you to start or help an organization that is serving the needy as Jesus commands. And then leave me alone so I can do the same. Quit advocating for the government to take the money God has provided to me, so they can misuse it. Allow me to allocate the money God has entrusted to me.

Christians and the government are NOT the same thing. The Good Samaritan was NOT a government official. The Good Samaritan spent his own time and his own money; put his own life on the line to help a stranger. The Good Samaritan didn't petition the government for further taxation to pay for robbery victim aid while they pocket as much as possible behind closed doors.Jesus didn't advocate for government control. Jesus advocted for personal responsibility. He said YOU are responsible for your neighbor.

Colbert's remarks in the sketch the above quote was taken from show that he believes that today, Jesus would be a Liberal Democrat. Colbert's remarks are definitely in support of government taxation and unquestioned welfare distribution.

Colbert's entire TV persona is a Strawman. The fallacy that Republicans and Libertarians who don't support big government and heavy taxation or unlimited welfare are just plain mean. We are uncaring and unloving; we don't want clean water or roads or schools; we somehow want people to die. I know that sounds over-the-top, but those are things I, personally, have been accused of by liberal friends. People that have known me for years. People that have worked with me on charitable projects.

Obviously, I don't think Jesus would be a Liberal Democrat. I also dont' think he'd be a Republican. From everything I've read and studied in the Bible, Jesus was all about Love and Relationships - with a little self-empowerment thrown in. The government isn't about Love and relationships with the government are always in the governments favor.

My opinion is that when the government taxes and taxes and then hands it out to those they deem worthy (individuals or companies), it diminishes the relationship between people. The very relationship that is so essential in the Bible. After the government has forcibly taken your money and redistributed it, the natural response is that you've done your duty and have no further personal obligation. You've already given of your fruits to help the needy - it just involved a middle man. The personal relationship between you and your neighbor is severed. How can there be love in a relationship that doesn't exist?

As I originally said, the Good Samaritan didn't take the injured man to the welfare office or the free clinic. He took him to a private place, hired someone to help, went on about his business (presumably to ear more money, maybe not), and returned to make sure the injured man was OK and that the innkeeper was justly rewarded for his service. A relationship of caring was established between all three players.

What government welfare and taxation often amounts to is letting people not feel guilty for not personally getting involved. Afterall, that's the government's job. It also lets those in control of those  who run government programs fill their pockets with a little (or a lot) extra money.

Just for the record, I do realize that some people will fall through the cracks if we leave charity up to the churches and other groups. People fall through the cracks with government assistance, too. It is a Christian's calling to look for those people, and help them.

I do realize that Colbert donates to several charities. But he isn't living the life of Mother Teresa and he should quit throwing stones. As he advocates higher taxes, I have less money. Less money to help my neighbors with - and trust me - I'm a more frugal middleman than the U.S. Government.

P.S. Colbert's name calling and sarcasm doesn't strike me as a great Christian role model.

The Current State of Wolves in Montana

The Current State of Wolves in Montana

In May, 2012, the Montana Fish Wildlife Parks (FWP) Commission met to discuss the volatile topic of wolf hunts. For me to say the debate is contentious is an understatement of the highest order. The stated goal of the 2011/12 wolf hunt was to reduce the statewide population to 425 wolves. The quota was set at 220 wolves, but only 166 were harvested during the 2011/12 wolf hunt. The wolf population numbers at least 653 in Montana. The proposed 2012/13 plan will eliminate all quotas and introduce trapping. The commission expects to announce their decision on July 12. I believe now is a good time to review the facts about wolves in Montana and the greater Yellowstone area (GYA).

History

First a little history, after all, wolves have been a hotly debated topic for over 100 years. When ranchers and homesteaders first moved to Montana, they had a huge motive to kill as many predators as possible. Decreasing the predator population meant safer livestock. It's easy for me to imagine that the people themselves felt safer, too.

Yellowstone was established as our first National Park in 1872 by President U.S. Grant. First the U.S. Army and then the Park Commission oversaw operations; they believed smaller predator numbers would increase tourism and help the ecology of the park.

Government officials, happy to oblige the ranchers and park authorities, implemented several different predator removal programs. Several of these government programs provided financial incentive - a bounty for every animal brought in. It didn't take long to rid the park, and most of Montana, of not only wolves, but mountain lions and grizzly bear, too. For all intents and purposes, wolves were eliminated from the GYA in 1924.

With predators minimized, tourism at Yellowstone boomed. Ranchers and homesteaders harvested big game for food and eventually for trophy. Over time 'Outfitter' businesses grew and guided hunting trips provided income to guides and local communities as outsiders came from all over to hunt the big game and take home trophies and bragging rights.

However, as much as an absence of predators was good for hunters and outfitters, it wasn't good for some micro habitats, especially in Yellowstone where hunting wasn't allowed. The lack of predators (including human predators) allowed the elk population in Yellowstone to get comfortable. Elk quit moving about the park to avoid predators, since there weren't any predators to avoid. The elk found their sweet spots – luscious willow stands – and settled in. As their stay lengthened, they overused the willow stands – essentially destroying them. This had a ripple effect throughout the Yellowstone ecology.

Wolf Reintroduction

A variety of practical and ideological reasons finally led to the re-introduction of wolves. The road to wolf reintroduction included a well run public relations campaign, political activism, and legal action to allow for wolf protection. In January 1995 and 1996, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) traveled to Canada, caught and then released wolves in 3 locations: Yellowstone National Park, Idaho, and Glacier National Park. Specifically, 14 wolves were released in GYA in March, 1995 and an additional 17 wolves in 1997.

This was done at the cost of $12 million from hunting and fishing excise taxes. The end result was one of the fastest endangered species comebacks on record. The original goal of the wolf reintroduction project was 10 breeding pair in each of the 3 release locations for a period of 3 years.

The wolves released in GYA in 1995 consisted of 3 packs: Rose Creek Pack, Soda Butte Pack and the Crystal Creek Pack. The Soda Creek Pack (4 members) headed into the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness, not far from their release site and gave birth to 1 pup that spring. The Crystal Creek Pack (6 members) roamed around for awhile, ending up near their release site. The Rose Creek Pack (3 members) made their way to Red Lodge, MT, where the alpha male was shot. The two females parted company and the alpha female gave birth to 8 pups a week later. To ensure their survival, the alpha female and her pups were fed and taken care of by the park service.

Wolf Population Growth Success

The debate still continues to whether the particular subspecies of wolves selected for reintroduction was a good choice. But at this point, I don't see that it matters. It seems important, however, to acknowledge that the wolves that were reintroduced are larger than the original native wolves. This gave the the reintroduced wolves a huge ecological benefit. Their larger size made them better equipped to survive the weather, made it easier to take down large prey, and brought bigger appetites. The local habitat, filled with high game and livestock numbers, provided the perfect food source. Couple the easy and plentiful prey with low competition and the wolf population exploded. The wolves quickly left the borders of Yellowstone and have been found large distances from their release points. Along the way, they have encountered and conflicted with local human and domestic and wild populations.

Wolf Effect on the Environment

The elk population in Yellowstone has decreased since reintroduction of the wolves. In 1992, the North Yellowstone Elk Herd peaked at about 20,000. As of December 2011, that number has declined 80%. FWP set a target number of elk for that herd to be somewhere between 3,000 – 5,000. The 2011 count was 2724. It should be noted that the wolf population is also down in the area of this particular elk herd. With reduced food supply, the wolves have moved on.

FWP officials account for the decrease in elk by blaming 'weather' and they promise 'signs of stabilization'. However, looking at the raw data, it's easy to see that elk numbers are up in areas that had similar weather but are not populated with wolves. The 2012 FWP elk numbers show a further 10% decline in the herd, despite a very mild 2011-2012 winter season. The exact numbers on the herd population are conflicting but never-the-less, they show a continuing decline. The decline in Elk can also be seen in the number of 'Late Hunt Permits' for antlerless elk. In 2005 1,102 permits were granted. From 2006 – 2010, there were 100 permits per year. There was no late season in 2011.

Whether the reduced herd size is of sustainable population or not, is one of those topics up for debate. The wolves have kept the elk in Yellowstone on the move and that movement has prevented the elk from settling in, allowing the willow stands to rejuvenate. Healthy willow stands have brought back beaver and songbirds. Prior to wolf reintroduction there was only one beaver colony in Yellowstone, now there are nine. The beaver have built dams, benefiting overall stream hydrology within the park. Seasonal run off is better controlled; the water table has been recharged, and there is an increase in shaded water for fish health. It must be mentioned that the beaver rebound could be due to the 1988 fires or warmer and drier winters. Never-the-less, wolves have not hurt the Yellowstone ecology, and they could be the driving force of the new diversity and healthier forest.

As the Yellowstone elk numbers continue to drop due to depredation, the wolves have moved into Paradise Valley and beyond in search of food. As game ceases to be available, livestock increasingly becomes the wolf's food source. As wolves move closer to domesticated areas, domesticated pets will suffer the consequences. This can already be seen as ranchers and homeowners across the western part of Montana find signs of wolves daily. We don't see evidence of wolves not reproducing because elk number has decreased by 80%. We see evidence of wolves migrating; of wolves looking for new food sources and finding them.

De-listing and State Control

The wolf population has increased to the point that it far exceeds the original goals. After some political wrangling, wolves have been de-listed in Montana and are now mostly under state control. In 2009, the USFWS de-listed wolves from the protection of the Endangered Species Act and returned wolf management authority to the state. However, pro-wolf groups sued to keep wolves on the ESA list and on August 5, 2010, a federal district court vacated the rule de-listing the wolves, effectively re-listing them as an endangered species. On April 15, 2011, they were again de-listed as part of the FY2011 Federal Budget negotiations. As of May 2011, when the de-listing took effect, Montana became responsible for managing wolves in a manner similar to bears, mountain lions and other wildlife. Again, pro-wolf groups sued to have wolves relisted. This time, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the constitutionality of de-listing. The deadline for further appeal to the US Supreme Court was June 14, 2012 – it passed without action, so for now, the 9th Circuit ruling stands. The de-listing did have some caveats, however, including continued monitoring and specified minimum wolf populations.

Several pro-wolf groups are unhappy with the de-listing decision and are working toward what they call the scientific management of wolves. Scientific management generally means federal government regulation and oversight. These groups are actively working to increase federal regulation through writing, social media, and legal/judicial decree. The Center for Biological Diversity, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, and Wild Earth Guardians are included in their ranks.

Defenders of Wildlife, a pro-wolf group has been involved in beneficial support since the inception of wolf reintroduction. From 1987 until 2010, Defenders compensated ranchers for their livestock losses to wolves. They disbanded the project when Senators Tester (MT) and Barcasso (WY) sponsored a bill to have the Federal Government take over responsibility for wolf depredation reimbursements. Defenders now spend their time and resources investing in non-lethal and innovative deterrents and safe husbandry practices.

There is no doubt to me that wolves are here to stay and that they are beneficial is some habitats. However there are several questions that remain to be answered: How many wolves are needed for a healthy ecosystem? Where should they be located? What can and should be done to maintain that number? What are the consequences if the number increases or decreases? My own opinion on the matter, based on research and discussions with proponents on both sides, is that wolves should be protected in a similar fashion to other wildlife on state and federal lands. On private land – the land owner decides.