Posted on 07/29/2005 8:16:11 AM PDT by grundle
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?2908d135-6ebf-4647-8310-a7c0416ce86a
Who Pays for the Delhi Sands Fly?
The Endangered Species Act Keeps on Not Saving Endangered Species
By Ronald Bailey, 7/27/2005
Environmental activists are howling worse than a heartsick wolf on a moonless winter night over proposed revisions to the Endangered Species Act (ESA). House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo (R-Calif.) is circulating a draft revision to the ESA that, according to Defenders of Wildlife Executive Vice President Jamie Rappaport Clark, "takes a wrecking ball to the whole Endangered Species Act."
But taking into account that its goal is to conserve and recover endangered species, the Act already seems pretty well wrecked. Since 1973 some 1,264 species have been put on the Endangered Species list and there are 286 candidate species waiting to be listed. The idea behind listing species is that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would devise plans aimed at recovering listed species so their wild populations would grow to the point where they could maintain themselves.
How successful have the Feds been at recovering species? Not very.
Since 1973, only 40 species have been removed from the endangered and threatened species list and only 15 of those have been de-listed because their populations had recovered. The other de-listed species either went extinct (nine species) or shouldn't have been listed in the first place (16 species). Only about one percent of listed species have been declared no longer in endangered or threatened by extinction. Despite this sorry performance, the activist group Endangered Species Coalition hails the ESA as "one of our nation's strongest environmental laws."
One aspect of the draft revisions of the ESA that raises the ire of activists is the proposal to permit compensation when a property owner shows that a government action aimed at protecting an endangered species has diminished a property's value by at least 50 percent. The Center for Biological Diversity tendentiously declares that this draft provision would "bankrupt the federal agencies by diverting conservation funds to pay landowners and corporations to obey the law."
At a recent seminar at Seattle University, Holly Fretwell, a senior fellow at the Property Environment Research Center in Bozeman, Montana, offered some case studies showing why compensation to landowners is not only fair but also in the interests of saving endangered species. Fretwell cited the case of Ben Cone, a tree farmer in North Carolina. Cone owns 7,200 acres on which he raises southern pines in an 80 to 100 year rotation—that is, once he harvests an area, he allows new trees to grow for 80 to 100 years before harvesting them. This kind of forest management is very favorable to wildlife and his woods attracted and sustained a wide variety of animals, including 29 red cockaded woodpeckers. The woodpeckers were listed as endangered in 1970, three years before the ESA was enacted. Red cockaded woodpeckers prefer to make nesting holes in pine trees that are about 80 years old.
Suspecting that Cone's woods might be home to the woodpecker, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) which administers the ESA, required Cone to pay a biologist $8,000 to find woodpeckers in his forests. In 1991, once the woodpeckers had been identified, the FWS prohibited Cone from harvesting timber on 1,560 acres of his land in order to protect woodpecker habitat. The cost to Cone: $1.8 million. Note that the Fish and Wildlife Service paid nothing and the taxpayers in whose names the woodpecker was being protected paid nothing; the only person out any money was Ben Cone. Between 1983 and 1991, Cone had been harvesting 919 tons of timber annually.
Cone, trying not to lose more money and control over his land, increased his rate of harvest on the land he could still access more than 10-fold. His goal was to prevent his pine trees from maturing into trees suitable for nesting woodpeckers. Obviously, this was not good for the woodpeckers the FWS was supposedly trying to help. Later researchers found that as Cone's problems became widely known among North Carolina foresters, many also feared that the feds would some day prohibit them from harvesting their timber. They began to cut their trees on a faster 30 to 40 year rotation in order to prevent woodpeckers from inhabiting their woods. Ultimately, Cone had enough money to hire lawyers to sue the Fish and Wildlife Service for compensation. Afraid that they would lose the case, the feds eventually settled with Cone.
Others have not been so fortunate. Fretwell briefly discussed the economic harm to the impoverished city of Colton, California, caused by uncompensated efforts to protect the Delhi Sands fly. On the outskirts of Austin, Texas, Margaret Rector's 15-acre property plummeted in value from $831,000 to $30,000 once it was declared suitable habitat for the Golden-Cheeked Warbler. As Fretwell noted, "Under the Third Amendment to the Constitution, Americans cannot be forced to quarter soldiers in their houses, but under the ESA Americans can be forced to harbor listed birds, snails, wolves and bears."
The Fifth Amendment also guarantees that private property will not be taken without just compensation. In other words, cities, states, and the federal government can't just take someone's property to build worthy projects like schools and roads without paying them for it. And while it would be far cheaper if the land were just seized, we don't do that and claim that such payments would "bankrupt" government agencies.
Why should the case be any different for protecting endangered species? The draft revisions of the ESA would partially right this current wrong, but why should landowners be compensated for only 50 percent of their losses? We would all think it unjust to give people whose land is taken to build roads and schools only half the value of their property. If the public values endangered species (and most of us do), then it seems only fair that we fully compensate the people on whose land they live for taking care of them for us.
Ronald Bailey is Reason's science correspondent. His book Liberation Biology: The Scientific and Moral Case for the Biotech Revolution is now available from Prometheus Books.
eco-ping
Proves to me that the ESA is a heart thing and has zip to do with real science.
Most of the people who swear by this whole "endangered species" thing are lefties who also swear by Darwin's "survival of the fittest" and each concept is backwards of the other. Various species have disappeared over the ages as a result of different things. It's only now if a human is building a house, or drilling for oil or whatever other human progress is being pursued that they get their panties in a wad. Even if one accepts the argument of "macro evolution", humans are the only species that has evolved to the point of air-conditioned homes, flush toilets and firearms, so those other species are just out of luck.
ESA was the subject of a recent Penn and Teller BullS**T segment.
Oh, it's strong all right. Not effective at all, but very, very strong...
While I agree for the most part, we still have to be mindful of other creatures. Not so much to preserve antiquated species or ecosystems but to ensure the survival of humanity. We need the services of many species to provide food (from pollinators to cows), clean water, etc. Can't wipe out everything simply because we are most fit and can. The truth of the matter is that we have very little understanding how communities truly function and interact. We, as a species, are very dependent upon other species.
the golden cheeked warbler makes its nest in birch trees. Birch trees grow naturally in low lying, marshy areas. Farmers in Texas draw so much water off of the existing rivers that those areas don't form anymore in the hill country. Less Birch equals less golden warblers. The existing land owner shouldn't have to pay for that but we should all be more aware of how our land use affects the next generation...The Rio Grande doesn't even flow to the Gulf of Mexico any more...it stops several hundred yards short because of all the water that is pulled out of it for farming....something to think about
Good point. Thats where I have problems with the complete property rights arguement. Property values are just as likely to be affected by neighboring careless property owners as they are by big brother stepping in. Things like water, air, and soil do not know property boundaries and any alteration of such can cause serious impacts on adjacent property.
ping-a-ring-rang-dong. Any input available?
input about what?
I am not condoning treading on individual property rights...that is a Socialist agenda. I invite anyone who thinks I don't understand property rights to take a step on my land uninvited. If you yell freeper, I will aim low and left....lol
"ESA was the subject of a recent Penn and Teller BullS**T segment."
I saw this. I had to tie my wife to a chair to watch it. Now she gets it.
I felt so sorry for the handicapped woman who had to shower with a garden hose outside because of a bird on her own property.
"While I agree for the most part, we still have to be mindful of other creatures. Not so much to preserve antiquated species or ecosystems but to ensure the survival of humanity. We need the services of many species to provide food (from pollinators to cows), clean water, etc. Can't wipe out everything simply because we are most fit and can. The truth of the matter is that we have very little understanding how communities truly function and interact. We, as a species, are very dependent upon other species"
What does a mosquito do to contribute to our eco-system (besides thin the human herd in 3rd world countryies)?
I understand the reciprocal rights but there are many that do not want anyone restricting anything on private property. What happens when land owner have a species that breeds on one property but spends the majority of its lifecycle on another? Say one landowner profits from the activity of the species. Can the 1 landower destroy the breeding grounds? Mainly a rhetorical question as I see a fine line as to what constitutes reciprocal rights. Where is the line drawn?
If your asking if our existence would change much if mosquitoes were completely wiped out, I'd say no (aren't any species I know of that feed exclusively off of mosquitoes or require them in any way). However, community dynamics are very complex and we could only guess as to what might happen. Mosquitoes do spread pathogens and who knows how those direct nature. Mosquitoes borne pathogens may limit or enhance other populations. Any argument I could make would only be a guess.
My point was only that we can't completely ignore the benefits and necessary services properly functioning ecosystems provide and it is these 'Species' that are often an essential cog of properly functioning ecosystems.
If you want to tell me what happens on and what I can do on my land, you help me pay the taxes (and perhaps even help pay for the land itself) I sacrificed to buy it, and a lot of my sweat has dropped on it. Consequently, a stranger, IMHO, has very little say what I should plant on it or what I do with it as long as I don't bother my neighbors.
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.