Incredible tale in Land of Make Believe (man 'finds' endangered turtle

Once upon a time in the Land of Make Believe, a man named Scott Angus says he spotted a turtle basking in the late afternoon sun.

After picking up the animal and seeing its reddish, orange legs and the small pyramid-shaped designs on its shell, Angus concluded the critter was no ordinary turtle, but a wood turtle -- a threatened species in New Jersey.

"...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.

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?

I'm sure it was immensively expensive to prove a negative!

As you point out, the poor landowner had already proved to the state DEP's satisfaction that no such endangered turtles lived there -- then shazzam, one appears out of the blue! And how convenient, right next to the parking lot!

I wonder if objective investigators could determine whether this miraculous turtle actually came from Mr. Maier's land, e.g., through soil analysis.

"The Land of Make Believe," btw, is not a plastic-y, evironmentally obnoxious amusement park. It's very low key and fits seamlessly into the surrounding area.

I wonder if objective investigators could determine whether this miraculous turtle actually came from Mr. Maier's land, e.g., through soil analysis.

Maybe they could if they can find it! That's the outrageous part. The only evidence that this turtle ever existed at this location is the recollection of the person who reported it and the notation in his log. There is no turtle to test because nobody except Mr. Angus ever saw the turtle!

The DEP deputized these enviro-troopers and then gives them a tremendous amount of unchecked power. A notation in the log book, and suddenly part of your land is off limits. It is not the duty of the enviro-trooper to demonstrate that his findings are true. All he has to do is report them. And now the state is providing Mr. Angus' defense!

You're probably right. I've read and re-read the article, trying to find out what Mr. Angus DID with the putative turtle, but can't find anything there.

I'm going to email the reporter and ask if he knows what the claim is - will post his answer if he replies.

Another galling thing: We the taxpayers are paying for Angus's defense. (Thanks to decision by Gov. McGreevey's attorney general.) On what grounds, I wonder, was THAT decision made?

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.

We the taxpayers are paying for Angus's defense

The state is providing his defense because he was acting on behalf of the state when he reported the alleged turtle. He was acting as an unpaid volunteer, whose assignment it was to go out and find and count endangered species.

What kind of person voluntarily goes out to work for the state tracking turtles through the woods for no pay? An environmentalist, that's who! So you have people who have a certain point of view acting on behalf of the state without supervision, who have the authority to take land from landowners on a whim. This is what the state is defending.

Well Hayek sure was prescient. A "fanatical religious group" is exactly what radical environmentalists are.

I received this answer from Mr. Twyman, the Star-Ledger reporter, in response to my question, "What does Mr. Angus say he did with the turtle?"

"He said he released the turtle."

So you're right: No turtle, no identification by qualified biologists, no testing to determine if the putative turtle had actually traversed Mr. Maier's land.

...you have people who have a certain point of view acting on behalf of the state without supervision...

Yes, and since when does the state fund the defense of a self-appointed "volunteer" for the state?!

If a "volunteer" turns in his neighbor for, say, child abuse; and then the allegation begins to look false and maliciously motivated, is that volunteer's defense going to be paid by the taxpayers when he is sued for defamation by the accused? I doubt it.

You'll get no argument from me. I think the landowner in this case should sue Mr. Argus and I would hope that he prevails.

The state is providing a defense because they have a policy of recruiting and directing volunteers to do exactly what Mr. Argus was doing. It was not that he was a passerby who happened to see something. He was acting at the direction of the state as an unpaid volunteer. This crucial difference is why the state is interested in defending him.

I think this is the wrong decision. I also think it is wrong for the state to use unpaid volunteers to gather information, because this system invites just this type of abuse. The whole system should be scrapped, and the Audobon Society can just have tough noogies.

Cute li'l feller. But we'll never know what kind of turtle Mr. Angus saw. If any.

Too bad he "let the turtle go." As the picture shows, turtles are likely to pick up a lot of sand and soil. Sure would come in handy to have some sand and soil specimens from that critter (if he ever existed) to see if they matched Mr. Maier's land.

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?

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.