Replies

"...he walked around the parking lot and spotted the turtle. He had no idea that as far as DEP and Maier were concerned, spotting the turtle would open an old can of worms.

"'I didn't know of it at all,' said Angus, 38, a Bangor, Pa., resident who works for an environmental company in Flemington."

Yeah right.

We've heard of planting lynx fur. Could we now have ... planting turtles?

This guy didn't even plant a turtle. The only evidence he has is his own recollection and a notation in a log-book.

Land of Make Believe indeed.

From Article: "We think it's irresponsible to persecute a volunteer acting in good faith to protect the environment," Campbell said.

The operative questions is whether or not this person was acting in good faith. The land-owner (sorry, I forgot the "evil" prefix) demonstrated to the satisfaction of the DEP that the turtles were not there. Do you know how difficult and costly it probably was to determine that? You have against that the word of a single environmental (dare I say activist?) who says otherwise. Does anybody really believe that the turtle actually was there? Or do the environmentalists think that protecting a wetland is a good thing and a little white lie never hurt anyone?

In order to take this person's word at face value, you would have to believe that he saw the turtle, recognized it at a distance, confirmed that it was endangered and reported it, all without being aware of the controversy. Given that he has two daughters who work at the park, this strains credulity, to say the least. I'm sure he brought up his daughters to be good little enviro-troopers, and they let him know what was going on.

People who maliciously use the mechanisms of the state to persecute land-owners should be treated very harshly by the law. The only thing to determine is whether or not that happened in this case. The state should be investigating this activity, not defending it.

Few arguments have been used so widely and effectively to persuade the public of the “wastefulness of competition” and the desirability of a central direction of important economic activities as the alleged squandering of natural resources by private enterprise. (Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty, p368)

It is possible that a fanatical religious group will impose upon the rest restrictions which its members will be pleased to observe but which will be obstacles for others in the pursuit of important aims. (Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty, p155)

It is sheer illusion to think that when certain needs of the citizen have become the exclusive concern of a single bureaucratic machine, democratic control of that machine can then effectively guard the liberty of the citizen. So far as the preservation of personal liberty is concerned, the division of labor between a legislature which merely says this or that should be done and an administrative apparatus which is given exclusive power to carry out these instructions is the most dangerous arrangement possible.(Friedrich A Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty, 1960, p 261)

And another short quote from The Federalist Papers here. In No. 47, James Madison tells us exactly what the "concentration of the several powers in the same department" is called:

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether on one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

There is legislation in the U.S. House HR2829 (and Senate S1912) aimed at taking some of the sting out of the ESA. The legislation would require peer review of science in enforcement of the ESA. In this case, an alleged siting of a turtle was enough to wreck havoc on private property. The shade provided by the Tree of Liberty has been defoliated by the army worms of the ESA. It's unfortunate that the Tree of Liberty does not receive the same tender devotion that results in the falling death of a tree-sitter. I suggest contacting your Congress-person and asking them to support this legislation that would stifle the ability of the ESA to cause the suicide death of Klamath farmers.

If not us, who? If not now, when?