-By Warner Todd Huston

Teddy Roosevelt impressed the nation with his focus on conservation and while he was president was responsible for pushing to conserve our nation’s wilderness in the form of sundry national parks, mostly in the western U.S. This was a worthy enterprise, few can deny. But what is the true purpose of these conservatories but to set aside tracts of land away from developers so that nature can prevail? Is it not a given that these lands should be governed by nature and but set aside by government?

So, we all agree that government may take the unspoiled wilderness and save aside a portion of it to be left to the machinations of Mother Nature so that future generations might see what our landscape looked like untouched by man’s industry. Well and good.

But, what if Mother Nature isn’t so kind as Uncle Sam? We have here a perfect example of what happens when government gets involved in anything and it’s what the military calls mission creep.

The AP reported this week that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is issuing warnings that the nation’s second oldest wildlife refuge is deteriorating and “needs” restoration. This alarming rhetoric should get the most concerned conservationist’s attention. “Deteriorating” is quite a frightening term after all.

But, why is it “deteriorating”? Is it industrial encroachment? Is it human neglect or pollution?

Not really.

The Chandeleur and Breton islands have been battered by hurricanes in the past four years and they took a pounding from Hurricane Katrina, which “reduced the islands by one-half of their pre-storm size,” the agency said in a new report.

So, Mother Nature is responsible? Yet, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are claiming that “the nation should pour money into restoring the refuge” as if the U.S. government and we the people — who pay its bills — should take responsibility for what Mother Nature hath wrought?

The logic simply does not stand to reason.

We made these wildlife refuges to allow Mother Nature to reign supreme. Yet, when Mother Nature makes her decision to destroy these same places, we feel somehow responsible to step in and… what… “fix” Mother Nature’s “mistake”?

This is the arrogance of government writ large. What we have here are some government drudges who are justifying their jobs by raising false alarms about what we the people should be forced to waste our money upon. We have some government men who are tasked with safeguarding a couple of islands so that Mother Nature can operate unhindered suddenly deciding that they are smarter and more responsible than Mother Nature herself to govern those pristine garden spots.

What arrogance these men exhibit.

And, at what cost do we “fix” Mother Nature’s obvious neglect, government man?

Because the islands are so far from shore, restoration would be expensive and would cost tens of millions of dollars, Bohannan said. Scientists are studying what sections could feasibly be restored, he said.

Mark Schexnayder, a coastal adviser for Louisiana State University’s Sea Grant Extension, said the nation and state need to find the money to save the islands regardless of the cost.

But why, why should we be more caring than Mother Nature, Mr. government man?

“It’s got historical significance and it’s the largest rookery for our state bird, the brown pelican,” Schexnayder said. “I’m not willing to fold the tent and go home.”

See, here is your logical error, Mr. government man. Birdies have these things called wings. When they find their natural home destroyed naturally, they naturally fly away with them wingie thingies and find a new home. They won’t just stand on the islands and drown as the ocean overtakes the land. All life will not end if nature decides in its infinite wisdom that these little islands are to be no more.

Certainly I am not for wanton destruction by men of our natural habitats. Absolutely I think we can be sensible enough to put aside some bits of our natural resources and lands to maintain those habitats. But when nature itself steps in to say otherwise, who are we mere humans to nay say that eventuality?

It is wrong headed and illogical to pour tens of millions of dollars to protect nature when nature itself is saying no to such protection.

But, then this is what we mean by “mission creep.” These government drudges have a charge and that is to save these islands for nature and they aren’t going to let nature get in the way of that cushy government job. They have gone from assuming they are helping nature to assuming they are ruling it.

Mission creep at its most extreme example. And its most obscene.

Rate this post:

(2 votes, average: 5 out of 5)

 Loading ...