Regulation For The Sake Of Regulation Doesn’t Make The World Better
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
Over the past week there has been a new awareness raised on the necessity for vigilance in watching for government’s creeping tendencies to seek greater control on as many aspects of our lives as they possibly can get away with. For some reason, we see it first-hand in the legislative process too, there is an attitude if we get more government oversight and control all the things we want to be better will be made so.
If we have a set of workable regulatory processes – making those requirements more stringent will surely improve outcomes… If we have laws that make something a crime – making it a higher penalized crime will do even more to protect us from ourselves…
A news account earlier this week, that another lawsuit had been filed against the Environmental Protection Agency’s quest to gain greater control than they are authorized, caught my eye and somewhat set the stage for giving the topic of over-regulation more attention. Farm Bureau is also involved in a lawsuit with EPA over the same issue. This background paper offers the organization’s point of view on the critical nature of challenging a rogue agency, bound and determined to over-reach at every opportunity. EPA’s culture seems to be based on their thinking they should have unlimited power to force whatever outcomes they determine to accomplish…the law – Supreme Court rulings and any other boundary-establishing, limitation should be skirted, ignored and when all else fails…do an end run around the “hindrance”.
Another agency that is prone to appreciate its ability to shut the world down is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife. Nothing has yet been found to be more useful in accomplishing the advance of an agenda than the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Those involved in growing this tool into the powerful game-changer it has become, know full-well how to wield it to their ends.
The less-than-secret arrangements being worked on by interests who would like to use Sage Grouse as their nuclear option in controlling land use in the West – meeting with U.S. Fish and Wildlife officials to come up with a time-table – should have alarm bells going off in lots of places.
It is interesting to reflect on the outrage when those working on conserving Sage Grouse (outside of the mechanisms of the ESA and before a listing was determined to be necessary) met with U.S. Fish and Wildlife officials to discuss a game-plan for avoiding a listing. The moral outrage and the wailing of “unfair collusion” was shrieked from the highest pinnacles. “How dare the pure ‘scientists’ of the wildlife agency be sullied and biased by greedy and powerful captains of industry.”
Now that the science of the room has been established, the closed-door sessions to find a way for using Sage Grouse as the “off-button” to the use of public lands, is just business as usual.
It is against this background of concerns on how government agencies inappropriately use their regulatory authority to accomplish more command and control than actual beneficial purposes that further raise the worry of this letter. It was sent by state wildlife officials to Washington, D.C. agency authorities, requesting a more comprehensive regulatory regime to assist in giving U.S. Fish and Wildlife bureaucrats greater confidence that Sage Grouse are better off because there is more regulation in place.
There seems to be lots of inconsistencies in what Bureau of Land Management officials have said about Sage Grouse protection and what their actions have done – but, that might not be fixable with simply more regulations. Following sound and rationale management policy that is already in place could get the job done without adding more.
It seems if you could demonstrate that you mean what you say – you wouldn’t need a fuller rule book to get your point across.
Over the past week there has been a new awareness raised on the necessity for vigilance in watching for government’s creeping tendencies to seek greater control on as many aspects of our lives as they possibly can get away with. For some reason, we see it first-hand in the legislative process too, there is an attitude if we get more government oversight and control all the things we want to be better will be made so.
If we have a set of workable regulatory processes – making those requirements more stringent will surely improve outcomes… If we have laws that make something a crime – making it a higher penalized crime will do even more to protect us from ourselves…
A news account earlier this week, that another lawsuit had been filed against the Environmental Protection Agency’s quest to gain greater control than they are authorized, caught my eye and somewhat set the stage for giving the topic of over-regulation more attention. Farm Bureau is also involved in a lawsuit with EPA over the same issue. This background paper offers the organization’s point of view on the critical nature of challenging a rogue agency, bound and determined to over-reach at every opportunity. EPA’s culture seems to be based on their thinking they should have unlimited power to force whatever outcomes they determine to accomplish…the law – Supreme Court rulings and any other boundary-establishing, limitation should be skirted, ignored and when all else fails…do an end run around the “hindrance”.
Another agency that is prone to appreciate its ability to shut the world down is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife. Nothing has yet been found to be more useful in accomplishing the advance of an agenda than the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Those involved in growing this tool into the powerful game-changer it has become, know full-well how to wield it to their ends.
The less-than-secret arrangements being worked on by interests who would like to use Sage Grouse as their nuclear option in controlling land use in the West – meeting with U.S. Fish and Wildlife officials to come up with a time-table – should have alarm bells going off in lots of places.
It is interesting to reflect on the outrage when those working on conserving Sage Grouse (outside of the mechanisms of the ESA and before a listing was determined to be necessary) met with U.S. Fish and Wildlife officials to discuss a game-plan for avoiding a listing. The moral outrage and the wailing of “unfair collusion” was shrieked from the highest pinnacles. “How dare the pure ‘scientists’ of the wildlife agency be sullied and biased by greedy and powerful captains of industry.”
Now that the science of the room has been established, the closed-door sessions to find a way for using Sage Grouse as the “off-button” to the use of public lands, is just business as usual.
It is against this background of concerns on how government agencies inappropriately use their regulatory authority to accomplish more command and control than actual beneficial purposes that further raise the worry of this letter. It was sent by state wildlife officials to Washington, D.C. agency authorities, requesting a more comprehensive regulatory regime to assist in giving U.S. Fish and Wildlife bureaucrats greater confidence that Sage Grouse are better off because there is more regulation in place.
There seems to be lots of inconsistencies in what Bureau of Land Management officials have said about Sage Grouse protection and what their actions have done – but, that might not be fixable with simply more regulations. Following sound and rationale management policy that is already in place could get the job done without adding more.
It seems if you could demonstrate that you mean what you say – you wouldn’t need a fuller rule book to get your point across.
Posted by Doug Busselman at 7/1/2011 9:00 AM 
Categories: Government
Tags: EPA Regulations Sage Grouse U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Government Central Planning
Categories: Government
Tags: EPA Regulations Sage Grouse U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Government Central Planning
Comments