Bill Would Require Scientific Proof for Applying Endangered Species Act

Talon News ^ | 07/01/03 | Jimmy Moore

[bedolido]

WASHINGTON (Talon News) -- Rep. C. L. "Butch" Otter (R-ID) has proposed a bill that would require scientific proof that land should be restricted before the Endangered Species Act can be applied to public land.

This bill, called the Scientifically Identifying the Need for Critical Habitat (SINCH) Act, or H.R. 2602, would let the secretary of Interior decide whether the habitat that holds these limited species is threatened or endangered. Under the Endangered Species Act, a critical habitat includes any area where an endangered species lives as well as any territory that it decides to migrate to in order to repopulate.

The federal government is required to talk to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration's fisheries office before anything can be done within the confines of a designated critical habitat in order to protect the wildlife from harm.

Additionally, government agencies must also consult with species protection regulators before anything can be done, regardless of whether an area has been designated a restricted critical habitat or not.

The Fish and Wildlife Service will experience a budget shortfall this year because of court-mandated deadlines brought on by environmentalist lawsuits that have created critical habitat areas for 32 new species so far this year. The agency expects it will need $120 to $150 million to manage any additional critical habitat listings that will become available this year.

There are currently 31 lawsuits in the courts over critical habitat designations with another 36 on the verge of suing. The Fish and Wildlife Service is in the process of complying with 35 different court orders regarding critical habitat designations.

"Give the people who live here and the local leaders responsible for complying with the law some credit for common sense and good intentions," Otter said in support of his bill. "And if you're going to throw a blanket over big chunks of our land, you better make sure you have the solid evidence to back it up."

Otter says the Interior secretary can determine whether a critical habitat designation is needed or not. He added that sound science combined with cooberating evidence should be used when labeling these areas as well as the species that live there.

Copyright © 2003 Talon News -- All rights reserved.

[farmfriend]

If you want, I'll repost that article of mine that Henry Lamb ran in eco-logic.

I had just pinged someone to this one the other day.

I've gone ahead and re-pinged everyone to it in light of this article.

“Sound Science” and Crumbling Structure

[RightWhale]

We don' need no steenkin' proofs, we are envirogreenocologists.

[Blood of Tyrants]

The entire EPA and the Endangered Species Act needs to be gotten rid of.

[Carry_Okie]

Thanks. This time I'll bookmark it.

[AAABEST]

Comments?

I don't know much about it yet, but it would seem that giving the Secretary of the Interior (like a Babbit) this kind of pull doesn't solve a lot. I for one would like to see the ESA go away or be drastically changed.

I would be interested to know what Chuck Cushman thought about this, his people are good at picking apart legislation.

[blackie]

Protect Private Property Rights!

Stop the attacks on our Freedoms by the wacko, extreme left-wing, lunatic fringe, dirt worshipping Green Jihadist, enviro-nazis terrorist's and their toadies in the media!

Protect The Forest...Eradicate The Greenies!

Fighting Irresponsible Radical Environmentalism!

Freedom Is Worth Fighting For!

[sergeantdave]

Not only should there be scientific proof when applying the fascist ESA, there needs to be publication in scientific journals of the need for land restrictions so it may be peer reviewed. (And "deep ecology" is not a recognized disciple; it's blood and soil nature worship, so deep ecology journals are out!)

Further, the ESA should be applied only to the collectivized, socialist government land, not private property. And if the ESA is applied to private land, the taxpayer must compensate the land owner with a price reflecting the fullest and best use of that land, as determined by the affected land owner. No exceptions, and it's not reviewable by any bureaucrat or court.

Further, any bureaucrat, judge or politician that has in the past taken private property under the ESA without paying compensation will be subject to seizure of all his property, wages and accounts by affected landowners. Failure by these people to turn over all assets within 24 hours of a judgement would be sentenced to 50 years in prison somewhere in northern Alaska.

Finally, any so-called environmental group or foundation that aided in the seizure of private property under the fascist ESA would be subject to pay damage claims at 50 times the court determined damages. And these courts would be manned only by individuals who own property and work the land. Lawyers need not apply, unless they hate the ESA.

I have more, but I'll quit for now.