Posted on 04/10/2002 4:59:39 PM PDT by WhiteyAppleseed
I think managing habitat for endangered species is a perfectly reasonable land use that the owner should be free to market as a service. Endangered species should be treated economically as the assets that they are with a risk of loss priced actuarially. Census data should be private property as certified by an insured third party. For more information on this proposal, please consider my book: Natural Process: That Environmental Laws May Serve the Laws of Nature.
And nobody will know unless we tell them; the "news" media have essentially spiked the story.
About this there can be no doubt; our universities have little or no intellectual honesty, and ZERO credibility.
I don't see the proposed legislation as "throwing a bone to the universities," although their input would be welcomed, I'm sure, if I read the language of the bills correctly.
Some suggestions had to do with land-owner co-operation.
William Rex Amack, Director Nebraska Game and Parks Commission mentioned a program of the USFWS, quote, The United States Fish and Wildlife Service works with private landowners in the conservation and recovery of species by providing technical assistance and through Asafe harbor@ agreements. A safe harbor agreement assures landowners that improving habitat for species will not restrict land-use options on their land in the future. The key to recovery is the cooperation of many partners working together to develop innovative conservation and management actions that benefit the species, while accommodating socioeconomic goals."
There was a wealth of information and viewpoints presented at the March 20th meeting of the House Resource Committee, that could be incorporated into the bills.
I live in the heart of the devastation caused by the listing of the Northern Spotted Owl (and the Marbled Murralett). Can you steer me to the research on the marriage of the Owls?
Farmers, when I was a kid, used to leave a row or two on the end or side of their fields for the local habit. Rabbits, deer, pheasants, foxes, etc. were common on every farm and ranch because of the attitude of the country living folks. They enjoyed watching the wildlife on their property.
Along comes the EPA and ESA, the farmers starting cutting and burning the ditches, cutting every bit of possible growth out of their fields. WHY ? Because they are terrified that the EPA or ESA is going to come along and say, "You have this endangered <>snake<>bug<>animal<>turtle<> living on your property and we are ordering that you do not use fertilizer or grow crop in this 160 acre field!
Common sense went out the window when the UN started these agencies!
Considering that scientific computer modeling is used to implement the Endangered Species Act, computer modeling that is an educated guess at best, I'm surprised that the outcry is not louder!
Sound Science Bills To Reform ESA In Congress Following Court Findings of "Junk Science"
by George Dupray
Occasionally, there comes a piece of legislation that looks and sounds just like it came directly from Grange policy. Over and over, we have said that Grangers are the soul and body of real conservation and protectors of the space in which we live, raise families, earn our living and feed the world. We have fought the good fight for rural America and continue to do so today. So, here comes something we can all stand behind and hopefully win a serious battle over those who would rather de-populate rural America.
Congressman Greg Waldon of Oregon has introduced House of Representatives (H. R.) Bill 2829 that speaks to the use of sound science over the current unproven, emotional, and capricious rule making procedure. Current practice in setting the rules destroys confidence and trust in our Constitutional protections. The title of the bill is the Sound Science for Endangered Species Act Planning Act of 2001. This is a five point plan of action that will, in the end, restore some of the trust in the effort to save some species.
. A companion bill has been introduced inthe Senate, S-1912. Authored by Smith of Oregon, has been given the title, Sound Science for Endangered Species Decisionmaking Act of 2002.
Language in the companion bill varies slightly from the House version, but the essential provisions calling for peer reviewed, sound science as well as data collected from landowners and information submitted by the public in response to public notification of the proposed listing.
The following chart is a side-by-side comparison of what the bill calls for as opposed to current practice. You are encouraged to write to your Congressman in support of this issue. And when you do, please tell them you are a Granger and proud of the fact that the Grange has worked so hard in getting this issue addressed.
Every drain, a wetland. Every fencerow, a critical habitat.
The greater wrong would be to do nothing to amend the ESA.
I see. The tyranny of the urgent justifies the means. Really? After nearly thirty years?
Those species, even those that are migratory, are integral to processes that are all that constitutes private property. My web-site contains a philosophical proof of that. It may be just what the SCOTUS is looking for. Any civic claim to represent the interests of endangered species is no more than an expressed claim on the part of a civic agent to control the use of private property in the interest of the politically dominant. In fact, to socialize a species is to place its welfare at the hands of an agent that derives its income only as long as the species is in trouble. That is in contradiction of the terms of the treaties that are the authority for the ESA. I’ll bet you can’t wait for that constitutional challenge.
The testimony I read from the February 16 Resource Committee meeting had many helpful insights form a variety of people. There were good points brought to light that could be incorporated into HR 2829 and HR 3705.
Ah the ol “consensus” pitch from those invited to comment. Very smooth. We see that one all over, except they call themselves democrats, socialists, and globalists... Your assumption is that the claim of agency for rare and endangered species are the legitimately the exclusive province of government, a civic monopoly. So do all the supplicants you invite. My intent is to blow that claim out of the water entirely. Such control is hardly constitutional as managing species habitat is a perfectly reasonable business, a premise co-linear within both the Convention on Nature Protection or CITES. After presenting the thesis, later chapters in the book demonstrate how sophisticated are its capabilities. Would you like to know how to blow those treaties out of the water instead of “reforming” the ESA into concrete? Would you like to know how property owners can get standing in those sweetheart suits between agencies and NGOs? I don’t suppose you know that the Convention on Nature Protection presumes to control all land and all species in the United States without any limits to the commitment? If you don’t, take a gander at the preamble and then Article V. I have the Congressional Record on that one. Cordell Hull lied to the Senate about the scope of that part of the Convention. No recorded vote either.
I don't see the proposed legislation as "throwing a bone to the universities," although their input would be welcomed, I'm sure, if I read the language of the bills correctly.
Then you are either blind, ignorant, or dishonest; take your pick. The sole power to confer peerage is strictly controlled by a university oligopoly nearly totally dependent upon Federal funding or tax-exempt foundations that are using the power to control grant funding of “scientific” research to control the value of natural resources, commodities, real estate, imported goods, or even as tools of foreign policy to prop up foreign loans. That is a systemic conflict of interest with those of the species and American property owners. Heck, these people even manipulate currencies as part of this game.
William Rex Amack, Director Nebraska Game and Parks Commission mentioned a program of the USFWS, quote, The United States Fish and Wildlife Service works with private landowners in the conservation and recovery of species by providing technical assistance and through safe harbor agreements. A safe harbor agreement assures landowners that improving habitat for species will not restrict land-use options on their land in the future. The key to recovery is the cooperation of many partners working together to develop innovative conservation and management actions that benefit the species, while accommodating socioeconomic goals."
The assumption is, of course, that the USFWS is a competent agent, that they legitimately can determine what is acceptable accommodation, or that they don’t serve the select interests of both themselves and large campaign donors to control resource market as a system of political favors. The very idea that centralized planning systems are capable of doing this job from Washington is bizarre, much less that it is optimal. It’s too corrupt to do it even if its motives were pure. I assure you they are not because USFWS operates within a motivational architecture that is structurally adverse to the interests of species or private property owners. Under my free-market management method those interests are co-aligned and all the same principles that make our free market industries flourish then come to fore.
There was a wealth of information and viewpoints presented at the March 20th meeting of the House Resource Committee, that could be incorporated into the bills.
The usual suspects I am certain. I didn’t get a plane ticket. What do you bet if I showed up they would have let me testify?
Some suggestions had to do with land-owner co-operation.
This is the most damning thing you wrote, and I am sure that you can’t see it. Co-operation? You assume the legitimacy of the entire process. It is so ingrained that you scoff at the very idea of anything different as if I don't know what's going on in your little club. Sir, it’s the landowners’ property to control. The very act of extending a civic claim to control those assets is destructive to the economic worth of the species as the basis for profitable management services, caring for species integral to maintaining a functioning ecosystem so that urban populations can take advantage of proximity. It has gone so far that you can’t even conceive of such a thing. You are so used to civic control it’s no wonder I spend 80% of my time explaining to people how a free market in risk management works.
The UN is an American creation. It is intended as a get-around against the Constitution using the supposed primacy of internaitonal law. It benefits the extremely rich almost exclusively, all altruistic crocodile tears to the contrary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.