In her weekly column, Nancy Churchill states that ‘our society desperately needs a return to sanity’

Nancy Churchill
Dangerous Rhetoric

I planned to write about wildlife today, specifically the problems caused by introducing large apex predators like grizzly bears and wolves into rural areas where it is certain they will conflict with people. I have been thinking about how the progressive politicians running our country and our state value these wildlife predators over the lives and wishes of the people who live, work, and play in our more remote areas. This morning, I realized that the urban areas of the state also have a problem with predators: lawbreakers, thieves, squatters, protesters and rioters. These lawless people are also a kind of predator.

For both human and non-human predators, the progressive left has created an entire legal structure to elevate the “rights” of predators over and above the rights of law-abiding, hard-working, tax-paying citizens.

Big gentle diggers

For a “grizzly” example, consider this week’s announcement by the federal government that it has decided to import grizzly bears into the North Central Cascade Mountains. From Q13 Fox, “The National Park Service and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service announced on Thursday that they have made the decision to actively restore grizzly bears to the North Cascades.”

These are taxpayer-supported federal agencies which plan to import large, dangerous, apex predators into the mountains of Washington for the cause of “ecosystem diversity.” At one contentious meeting on this issue held in Omak, a government scientist explained condescendingly to us that the reason the ecosystem needed grizzly bears was because they are really very gentle and they eat carrion and because they use their long claws to dig in the forest floor. We pointed out that there are already lots of critters that eat carrion and dig, but he wasn’t having it: “But we need grizzlies,” he said, providing zero actual scientific data.

Your government values predators over you

In fact, there’s an entire agency, the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee which “… supports recovery and delisting, and ongoing conservation of grizzly bear populations and their habitats in areas of the western United States …”. This committee has pre-determined that it WILL introduce Grizzly Bears in the lower 48, starting in the western states.

During the comment period for the planned introduction in the North Cascades, the agencies received over 12,000 comments on the proposal, and there was overwhelming opposition on both sides of the Cascade crest: “Darrington locals say ‘no’ to reintroducing grizzlies to the wild.” Another article, titled “Plans to restore grizzly bears in Washington has people drawing a line in the sand” noted: “When you look closer at the in-state comments, the support dropped as you got closer to the areas where reintroduction is considered.” Weirdly, people who had to live with grizzly bears weren’t too excited about having dangerous and destructive new neighbors. It’s like not wanting a meth house in your neighborhood.

Wildlife shoplifters

But it’s not just grizzly bears, the reintroduction of wolves has not gone well for the residents of northeast Washington as you can see from this headline: “Washington’s gray wolf population recovering, warning issued for hikers.” In fact, according to the new WDWF Report, the state’s wolf population is up 20%. Most of them are in one small area of the state, and livestock producers are losing young, newborn stock to these predators, but the state doesn’t count these losses if there’s not a body left to count. Kind of like shoplifting doesn’t really count if the stolen goods are valued under $750, right?

And don’t get me started about cougars, which are sneaky and like eating small humans and pets: “Olympic National Park is considered cougar territory, and visitors are encouraged to not travel alone, not bring pets and keep children within sight.” In Washington state, lions, wolves and bears (oh my) are protected by laws and regulations.

Why do the progressives protect predators?

The rancher losing stock to wolf depredations and the store owner losing stock to rampant shoplifting have the same problem. Predators are putting them out of business, and the predators are now protected by the law. Urban families losing their children to drugs and gang violence and wilderness visitors whose children (or pets) have been attacked by cougars have the same problem: predators are protected by law.

But Why?

It’s because the progressive left and the environmental groups have a common worldview: a Malthusian and suicidal hatred of humanity itself.

On his Substack, Dr. Robert Malone, in a commentary introducing “Suicidal Society,” points out that our suicidal society “…is the logical consequence of the unquestioning acceptance of Malthusianism combined with endorsement of utilitarianism—ends justifying means. Malthusianism is the theory that population growth is potentially exponential, according to the Malthusian growth model, while the growth of the food supply or other resources is linear, which eventually reduces living standards to the point of triggering a population decline and an eventual global ecological catastrophe which it is believed can only be averted by resorting to globalized techno-totalitarianism and modernized fascism.”

Malthusian (Anti-human) and Suicidal: That sums up the insane progressive world view in a nutshell. That’s why they protect predators of all kinds.

How can everyday people protect themselves from these insane ideas? Vote Republican. Republican politicians may not be perfect, but they generally value human life and small government. Our society desperately needs a return to sanity.

Nancy Churchill is the state committeewoman for the Ferry County Republican Party. She may be reached at DangerousRhetoric@pm.me. The opinions expressed in Dangerous Rhetoric are her own.

---

Also read:

• 
  Opinion: Restore Election Confidence Initiative signature-gathering effort nears deadline
  The Restore Election Confidence (REC) Initiative is in its final stage of signature gathering, with a deadline set for May 25, 2024.
• 
  Opinion: Would the passage of Initiative 2124 kill WA Cares?
  Elizabeth New (Hovde) believes it’s likely that if the state’s new, mandatory long-term-care program was made optional for Washington state workers many would flee, leaving it unable to pay its way in its current form.
• 
  Opinion: Making sense of filing week
  The week of May 6 to 10 was filing week in Washington state.
• 
  Opinion: For the love of mom, vote yes on I-2124
  Let’s Go Washington Press Secretary Hallie Balch offers support for Initiative 2124, the Opt Out of State-Run Long Term Care Coverage Act.
• 
  POLL: Do you support Initiative 2124, which would make participation in WA Cares optional?
  Do you support Initiative 2124, which would make participation in WA Cares optional?