Editor's Note: I am organizing all the links to the posts in Paradigms and Demographics. This will takes some time. I have completed those from 2007 and 2008.
ESA Outrages, Part I
By Rich Kozlovich Thursday, September 18, 2008
Last week I told everyone that
I would be running a section dealing with ESA outrages. Here is the first
installment. I first want to make sure we had some historical background for
what is to come.
Between 1962 and 1972 the U.S. Congress got all wrapped up in passing bills
that couldn’t help but make the greenie heart beat fast and furious and take
their breaths away.
• Wilderness Act, 1964
• Clean Water Act, 1965
• Endangered Species Act, 1966
• Clean Air Act, 1967
• Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 1968
• Endangered Species Conservation Act, 1969
• Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, 1971
• Marine Mammal Protection Act, 1972
Most of us would think that this would satisfy the most jaded greenie. They
wanted more, and it was decided that the 1969 ESA was inadequate and in 1972
they “upgraded” ESA with some significant changes. Section 4 and Section 7
contained poisoned pills and no one realized it.
Section 4 required the Secretary of the Interior to list any species that was
endangered or threatened and defined species as “fish or wildlife or plants” and further refined that definition as “any mammal, fish, bird, amphibian, reptile, mollusk,
crustacean, arthropod or other invertebrate.” This will take on greater significance in coming weeks…….
By Rich Kozlovich
Monday, September 22, 2008
The environmentalist’s victory regarding DDT gave them unprecedented power and
influence, but the decision in TVA v. Hill gave them regulatory authority.
Never before have individuals outside of the government been able to “not only
advance, but to enforce, wildlife preservation without restraint.”
Under the 5th amendment of the Constitution it is stated that; “ nor shall
private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
Except for one occasion (which was in Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District
v. United States where-in the court ruled that this ESA action was a “taking”
under the 5th amendment and the government had to pay compensation if they
wanted to proceed) no federal court or agency of the federal government has
declared that the seizing of private property under ESA is for public use.
Unfortunately only appellate decisions carry the weight of precedent…….
By Rich Kozlovich Saturday, October 18, 2008
Property owners face a daunting
task against government agents and activists if there should be some type of
endangered species of plant or animal on their property. Robert J. Smith wrote
that these agents “routinely prevent
use of their lands or property, including such activities as harvesting trees,
planting crops, grazing cattle, irrigating fields, clearing brush along fence
lines, discing firebreaks around homes and barns, or building a home.“ Even Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Regional Director,
Sam D. Hamilton recognizes that because of the ESA effect “The incentives are wrong here. If I have a rare metal n my
property, its value goes up. But if a rare bird occupies the land, its value
disappears.”
One such example of what is wrong with ESA is the property owned by Ben Cone,
Jr. Cone owns several thousand acres of pine forest in Pender County, North
Carolina. Like so many who own undeveloped lands he took pride in maintaining
it. They enjoy the wildlife, the outdoor experience and many times they are the
ones who create habitat for all sorts of wildlife.
For almost 10 years after inheriting this property “he planted special grasses for wild turkey, selectively
logged 30-50 acres on a five years basis to create open areas for wildlife and
conducted controlled burns to enhance foraging for quail and deer.” Red-cockaded woodpeckers had been on his land since the
1970’s, but since he wasn’t logging there at the time it was no big deal…….
