Molly Ivins May 2

AUSTIN — How do they do it? Those clever congressional Republicans just keep coming up with the kickiest ideas. Open the national wildlife refuges to hunting and fishing — now there's a plan. How come no one else thought of that?

Actually, according to the public information office of the Fish and Wildlife Service, of the 508 refuges currently established, hunting is permitted on 274 and fishing in 264. But the purpose of wildlife refuges (you're not gonna believe this) is wildlife conservation, period, nothing else. If hunting and fishing don't harm the local wildlife populations, well and good.

The Republican bill makes hunting, fishing, boating, bird-watching and environmental education equally important public purposes. "Of course, those are important activities and should be considered priority public uses," said the government spokesperson, "but if you make them the purpose of refuges, then you get a conflict between wildlife preservation and recreational use. There's a fundamental difference." No kidding, Sherlock.

For example, on the Chesapeake Bay, famous for duck-hunting, there is a magnificent waterfowl refuge where deer hunting is permitted but duck hunting is not. The refuge is surrounded by hunting areas, leased out at high prices by local landowners who don't want the competition of an inexpensive federal refuge. The commercial leasers also want a place where waterfowl are protected to keep up their own economic interest in having a plentiful supply of birds for hunting.

Another problem with the bill is that it does away with the refuge manager's right to consider "what is otherwise in the public interest." Merely allowing bird-watchers and hikers into an area can disrupt nesting activities and cause mortalities. Refuges have to be managed by a strict set of guidelines, including using the best available scientific information, but taking away a manager's right to use his own common-sense judgment about the public interest takes away needed flexibility.

It's not in the public interest to have anything fished or hunted to extinction.

Those Republicans just have the most amazing variety of expertise. Not only do they know more than professional wildlife managers and biologists about how to run a refuge, but just a few weeks ago, they were telling doctors what to do when a late-term pregnancy threatens a woman's life.

Members of Congress have also been busy challenging the wisdom of the founding fathers, having submitted a total of 139 constitutional amendments (not all of them from Republicans). The House has already passed two amendments (one for a balanced budget and the other against flag desecration) and voted down two (tax limitation and term limits). I like the one that includes term limits for lobbyists and the one that requires government employees to move out of Washington for four out of every 16 years the government employs them. Of course, this could run up government moving bills and unbalance the budget again.

As someone recently pointed out, one reason that Washington is so different from the rest of the country is because it exists only for the purpose of government, like Brasilia. Other countries have their capitals in leading cities, like London and Paris, that are also the intellectual, commercial and media capitals. By that logic, we should have kept our government in New York City; or if we want it somewhere more central, we should move it to St. Louis. Only a onetime moving cost. Then our solons would have a chance to rub elbows and converse with people who sell siding or write poetry for a living instead of spending all their time with people who work for or write about the government.

I still think the Republicans' all-time best effort (so far) was the knacky notion of shutting down the government entirely. Except they proved that it costs just as much to not run the government as it does to run it. There must have been a better way.

***

Molly Ivins is a columnist for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

COPYRIGHT 1996 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.