The Endangered Species Act Keeps on Not Saving Endangered Species

Hawaii Reporter ^ | 7/27/2005 | Ronald Bailey

[grundle]

The Endangered Species act turns endangered species into a liability for private landowners. So guess how the landowners respond?

[GreenFreeper]

eco-ping

[llevrok]

The ESA is absurd. It "saves" things we can see. Like owls, seals, etc. But how about the zillions of micro organisms that live, die and evolve every day?

Proves to me that the ESA is a heart thing and has zip to do with real science.

[Emmett McCarthy]

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.

[sono]

ESA was the subject of a recent Penn and Teller BullS**T segment.

[gridlock]

Despite this sorry performance, the activist group Endangered Species Coalition hails the ESA as "one of our nation's strongest environmental laws."

Oh, it's strong all right. Not effective at all, but very, very strong...

[GreenFreeper]

....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.

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.

[willyd]

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

[GreenFreeper]

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

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.

[Treader]

ping-a-ring-rang-dong. Any input available?

[willyd]

input about what?

[Jaysun]

The ESA is a socialist tool and nothing more. The imposition of an open ended form of nature worship that trumps all other considerations and is administered by central government bureaucrats can only lead to disaster in a society like ours based on Constitutional rights and State jurisdictions over daily life.

Their goal isn't to save endangered species, it's to eliminate private property and free enterprise.

[Jaysun]

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.

We already have laws to address this problem. If your property has a river on it that runs through several people's property, you have "reciprocal rights" to the water. That is to say, you can't build a dam or reroute the river on your property if it causes the river to dry up on your neighbor's property.

Nobody has an interest in truly damaging the environment or lowering their property values and it doesn't happen on a large scale. The concern is a red herring and it's a road to socialism.

[willyd]

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

[Tenacious 1]

"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.

[Tenacious 1]

"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)?

[GreenFreeper]

We already have laws to address this problem. If your property has a river on it that runs through several people's property, you have "reciprocal rights" to the water. That is to say, you can't build a dam or reroute the river on your property if it causes the river to dry up on your neighbor's property.

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?

[GreenFreeper]

What does a mosquito do to contribute to our eco-system (besides thin the human herd in 3rd world countryies)?

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.

[Citizen Tom Paine]

One thing that always frosts me in these discussion which rarely is mentioned is this. I pay the taxes on my property. They are quite large, thousands of dollars per year. Over the years, I have developed a vested interest in the land and what happens on it.

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.

[Jaysun]

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?

I don't want anyone restricting anything on private property. It's fundamental to our freedom and system of government. Reciprocal rights make sense and doubt there are many arguing against them.

Why does a line need to be drawn? In the few cases where one's property is damaged by another the courts can be used for redress. It's done on a case by case basis. I really don't see the problem here and I personally think you're overly worried about a non issue.

In the end, the earth is for the benefit of mankind. I may argue that if we're not going to use something to our benefit then there's no point in having it. You may argue that we need to conserve various things, but even that stance is argued for the benefit of mankind at it's root. There is no benefit in causing irreparable harm to the environment.