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.
WA:"The greater wrong would be to do nothing to amend the ESA."
C_O:"I see. The tyranny of the urgent justifies the means. Really? After nearly thirty years?"
WA:"The diplomatic answer to pedantic snobbery would be to point out to you the possibility that though the ESA is almost as old as I am, I've only recently lit out for the wilds of civic responsibility. Elsewhere I read somewhere in those links I provided that one witness called to testify said he had spoken with the orignal bill-makers (I'm new to the vernacular) and that those he spoke with had no idea what kind of monster they were unleasing. Finally, I would paraphrase words from our own Declaration of Independence: "All experience has shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, rather than to right themselves by opposing the forms they have grown accustomed to..." Thirty years? And I know from very personal experience how slow the government moves and I realize there has been a roll call of legislation introduced that never went anywhere. My source, I'm sure you noticed, is personal outrage, and I hope it isn't extinguished before I'm at least planted some seeds for change.
C_O: "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."
WA: I suppose the commerce clause is a kind of control on another species, us, the states, but we use it still, though it may have some faults. Or we're back to the thirty-year war againand the premise underlying the ESA: that we have caused species to go extinct. Whether you believe all of that or not, we still have an ESA and it has harmed farmers in the northwest, killed fire fighters.......
If you showed up in a suit ready to testify, they would probably change the meeting location and make it SECRET. Don't scare them that bad, TRUTH is NOT ALLOWED!
C_O:”Then you are either blind, ignorant, or dishonest; take your pick. The sole power to confer peerage is strictly controlled by a university oligopoly…”
WA: “The proposed legislation looks to correct some of the wrongs committed in the name of the ESA. Since science has been the tool used to enforce the ESA, HR2829/HR3705 provides a means to power for the landowners; the listing agency must accept data on the species collected by landowners. Funny how the little barking environmental dogs never seem to lack for the geist of the university knowledge, more polter than zeit (I’ve waited all my life to use that.), to control private property—using a science of their own making to wage war against another power base of science. I read HR2829/HR3705 as an attempt to control some of the battle, that too often takes place in court, and which has resulted in landowners plowing their borders under as a kind of moat to keep species off, instead of waiting for the dreaded computer model that suggests the lack of alligators at the pole is a cause for concern. (Interesting, isn’t it, that computer modeling enables those who seek to control property a means whereby they don’t have to trespass. But hey, who drives 55? A kind of cyper-trespassing?)
C_O: The aforementioned schools are “…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.”
WA:”Okay, I can’t wait for the book. I think we both agree (read previous dialogue) that science is being misused. I don’t think there is any argument that there is a power base using the universities. I’ll be digesting the rest in time.
The ESA is not working. Regardless of the constituionality of the Act, it has been around for 30 years. In the end, most people don’t wish to see any species become extinct. Given the underlying premise of the Act—that we are responsible and that by our actions we are causing extinction—the Act supposes that it is in our power to change that, a Herculean task as we have learned.
Yet as it exists, the ESA harms our countrymen. I don’t think anyone can argue for more wrong as was done to the farmers and ranchers around Klamath.
HR2829 and HR3705 are attempts to give more of a voice to the property owner. In the Klamath, there were three federal agencies, each disagreeing with the other, and in the end, the farmers lost. These bills would have prevented what happened in the Klamath by requiring the science be reviewed.
It is well-documented that many species that made it to the threatened/endangered list should never have been placed there in the first place. Lately, it is common for a species to be listed simply to affect negotiations for an Section 10 Exception. That is science? We know it’s not. But that is what’s being done. It’s time for a change. Long overdue.