A moose attacked Congressman Bob Schaffer in late July (Rocky Mountain News 8-1-99) in the Twin Lakes area that I know so well.  He claims it chased him for over 20 minutes.  It probably did, no doubt, go after him with gusto.  This is a revelation!  This proves moose are very intelligent.  Bravo Madame Moose! Bravo!  Strike at the heart of the system that is killing you!  This moose knew exactly what she was doing.  This moose knew exactly who she was chasing.
 In the same paper as the aforementioned humor column, Good 'ol "I do penance everyday before breakfast" Bob shoots off his pompous, holier-than-thou mouth about The Endangered Species Act and describes his vast knowledge of ecological survey and statistic methods for all in detail (doesn't take long).  Thank you, Bob.  We are so grateful for your input.  From which late night AM broadcast did you get your useless drivel from?
     The title of this article sets the tone quite well:  Federal law does more damage than its worth.  With a title liek this, it's got to be good. "At the expense of Colorado's ranchers, farmers, schools, communities, and our water supply, the Endangered Species Act attempts to nurse endangered critter populations back to sustainable sizes."  Critters?!  I doubt you would call a cougar from Florida a "critter" if it was stalking you in through the sub-tropical night. Or perhaps you wouldn't care at all if those pesky red wolf "critters" disapeared from America the Industrial forever.  Call me crazy, Bob, but I just don't see a 2-ton polar bear or a 10 foot alligator as a "critter". This is part of Bob's two-prong attack: to empathize with housewives afraid of mice and farmers who hate gophers.  We're not talking about pesky critters here, we're talking about noble, beautiful animals that have been hunted, poached, poisoned and booted out of almost every ecosystem in the country.  Far be it for a few well meaning people to try to save the few last vestiges of animal diversity.  Yeah, how dare they! (shouts of agreement, general consent.)
     Bob's statement also clues the reader into his other big beef of the conservation movement: it costs money.  He's right, it does.  I can't deny that. Unfortunately, conservation doesn't happen by magic all by itself at night while we sleep in our million dollar mansions on feather beds.    Conservation is an effort.  If it was free, it would happen by itself.  Far be it for those wealthy fat cat politicians to pay an extra 1/2 cent a year to support the population of the California Condor which is outnumbered by humans about a billion to 1. Besides, if money is such a problem, why do anything? If Bob decries the use of taxes to preserve a world that is habitable for all, just what does he support?
     Bob is angry that a Montana rancher that finds a red wolf on his land can't exercise his God-given right to blow it's ass off  ("Among other onerous provisions, it holds individual land owners personally resposible for securing the public goal of species recovery").  Why is it so dang hard not to shoot every animal on the farm?
     Bob states with authority that the bald Eagle's comeback is attributed to hunting regulations and a ban on DDT.  Did it ever occur to "I hate Bill Clinton more"-Bob  that the endangered species act brought about the ban on DDT?  The Endangered Species Act is a catalyst for change, a tool to forcefully bring about change for the benefit of endangered species when voluntary change will not happen.  Do you think anyone would have altered hunting regulations had they not been forced to?  In our money-grubbing society, not bloody likely.  Do you think DOW Chemical wuld have pulled it's best selling pesticide off the market out of benevolence to the Bald Eagles had it not been forced to?  Think again!
     Bob doesn't stop at that.  He brings in credible witnesses to push forth his agenda with heartfelt testimony. Let's listen:  "In Greeley, congressmen heard conservation experts describe the implications of a law gone awry.  Colorado's Agriculture Commisioner said, "The ESA serves the needs of neither the endangered species nor the taxpayers."  Ah, what a profound statement.  Especially coming from such a "conservation expert".  Wait a minute, the AGRICULTURE COMMISIONER is a CONSERVATION EXPERT?  Yeah, I'm sure they fly greenpeace banners from the farms everyday.  Viva la Conservation! Never have two entities been so polarized on an issue as conservationists and farmers.  The only aspect of conservation the agriculture commisioner is an expert in is how to prevent it. Bob then follows up with his ace in the hole, testimony from the vice-president of the Colorado Farm Bureu. the Colorado Farm Bureu you ask? Yes indeed, that very bastion of conservation. Way to strike at the heart of it Bob. Bob leaves us hanging at this point, as this is the only "expert" testimony he can produce.
     Bob further demonstrates his idiocy by attacking the method by which government scientists estimate the populations of species, in this case the mountain plover.  The researchers use a standard random plot method of counting, that is, they count the number of birds in random plots, and extrapolate it over the entire region.  Bob takes issue with this.  He claims it is not accurate to extrapolate data like this.  Perhaps he'd prefer to have government workers scoure the countryside by the millions in an attempt to count every single bird.  This would cost more money than Bob is wanting to save.  What's the deal Bob?!  Pick an illogical side here! Random plotting is a scientifically valid operation that is performed on virtually every species on the planet (check out the 2000 census sometime).  Bob even contradicts himself by stating that the government estimate is too high, but that the fouled-up estimates have somehow landed a non-endangered species on the list.  What?
     Bob has astutely shown that his misguided opinion is without statistical support, without expert support (and I mean real expert support -not this ag commisioner nonsense), and without historical support ("ESA has not caused recovery of one single species").  What does Bob's idea have going for it?  Perhaps it's biblical ("Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it."- Genesis).  Perhaps it's egotistical.  Why should government tell farmers what not to kill?  I think it's just ignorance.  Bob doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.  He just knows that his plan saves a little money that could better spent on bombs or estate tax cuts.  He knows that it's the popular thing to do among people who see the dollar as the highest good. He understands the workings of politics and knows that an underfunded agency attempting to do a monumental task of good has no time to inform the public how wrong he is.  Well, I just can't sit by and let him get away with this nonsense. I voted against him before, and I'll be sure to do the same again.
     Meanwhile we can always hope for more help from our friends in the animal kingdom.  Be on the lookout for intelligent, life-minded moose.