It surely starts there, but over time it diverges as more land uses and regulatory functions are privatized. There could well be some ugly legal battles along the way. There is no alternative but to try else we face the historic truism that the accrual of civic power is irreversible without the price of blood.
A point you make in your book suggests that we should indeed, try to change the ESA by hollering from the rooftops for our Congress-persons to support HR2829. Earlier, you said that though you saw some positive things in HR2829, you didn't think it was the answer. Your belief is that HR2829 would make it more difficult to implement InsCerts.
One problem with enforcement of the ESA has been the lack of science in listings, and everthing related to listings. In your book, you said,
I wanted to show the all-too-often down-trodden scientist in civil service the promise of a new career working with people who love their land, to spend their time actually doing science to help the land they love instead of writing grants to nameless benefactors who place bizarre demands upon the output. I wanted to show the financial elite that they have made a horrible mistake.page 400.Natural Process: That Environmental Laws May Serve the Laws of Nature, Mark Edward Vande Pol, Wildergarten Press, Redwood Estates, CA, 2001
This seems at odds with what you call the universities: paraphrased: Genetic facilitators of the government for more regulatory control of private property.
There are other instances within the book that suggest more peer control, better science, is one way to get the government from shaking the Tree of Liberty to dislodge anyone attempting the ridiculous idea of finding life liberty and the pursuit of happiness there.
For instance, on page 395 of Natural Process, you say the the key is to fight back against the regulators who come knocking on your door, to be ready for them with accumulated data. But until there is a civil alternative, we should try to change the ESA. Better science seems to be a temporary key to fight the regulators. As you said:
Although the activist NGOs and bureaucrats will protest, is is lack of faith in their case and their own system that will drive them to resist objective environmental review. They will not subjugat themselves to scientific scrutiny because of their beliefs (and their need for a paycheck) is so strong that they believe that any technical rationale that can challenge that faith must be flawed. page 395Natural Process
There are other quotes from NP that I will supply in a future post.
I don't understand how HR2829 would make it more difficult to implement what you advocate, an idea that deserves a much wider audience.
Wouldn't required peer review be one way for enterprising businesses to open the regulatory door to free enterprise?
The federal agency wants to shut down a property owners land for whatever reason. They have circled their own peer review wagons and are about to transport that Conglomerate lock stock and barrel to the private property of an individual.
Don't businesses already exist (consulting firms) that make top dollar by using science.........lost the train of thought but I'll leave what I wrote here. Maybe it will come back.
Another instance within Natural Process where evidence exists that peer review would be a good thing is on page 366:
Research for this book encountered technical papers whose conclusions were diametrically at odds with supporting data!
So would required peer review, emprical evidence, field data work to take some of the unconstitutionality out of the ESA? On the same page, you said: In its essence, peer review is a wonderful thing.