Posted on 06/30/2002 6:07:10 AM PDT by chance33_98
Homebuilder charged with Endangered Species Act violations
OAKLAND, Calif. (AP) A developer who wanted to build 3,200 homes in Pittsburg has been charged with violating the Endangered Species Act.
West Coast Homebuilders Inc. of Concord was charged in U.S. District Court in Oakland Friday with two counts of violating the act after authorities said a department of Fish and Game warden found a dead California red-legged frog on the site last year.
Prosecutors say Albert Seeno Jr. owner of the company ordered his workers to fill in ponds that were home to the endangered frog.
The frog is believed to be the one Mark Twain made famous in his short story ``The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County.'' It was put on the endangered species list in 1996, and has disappeared from nearly three-quarters of its natural range.
The company could be placed on five years' probation and fined if convicted of violating the act. The company is expected to plead July 19.
Seeno's attorney Bill Goodman declined to comment on the case Saturday.
Grandpa goodieD, "Well, when we were young, we wanted to play tennis in our own back yard, and . . ."
Grandson: "Okay Grandpa, can I go out and play on the tennis court?"
I would be sure to quietly eliminate the frogs regardless, and double-check to make sure they were exterminated from my property.
The alternative would be to risk having my property declared a frog preserve under the Endangered Species Act, thus eliminating its market value after having sunk my money into it.
Must not despoil the Land of the Sacred Frog!
Why do I get the feeling our society has subtly lapsed into Greek-style paganism? The EPA (Oracle of Sacred Critters) has spoken: Must not build there.
What has it cost us to save the California Condor? This is a case where a hugely expensive, multi-decade preservation program had failed completely before a controversial captive-breeding program was begun. How many dollars were lost in resource and land use value during the preservation? How much was spent in breeding studies, behavior analyses, incubation, training, release monitoring, and then what are the fines going to be for the homeowners who have the insensitivity to allow the condors to steal the nachos off the back deck? All that preservation with nearly total failure and the birds apparently enjoy the shelter of suburban housing developments. Would it have been cheaper and more successful to have a few houses funding a heterogeneous approach to increasing condor populations? Did we really have to preserve their habitat or would suburban condor overpopulation have driven young birds with better genetic diversity back into the wild? Is there a benefit to having semi-domesticated transitional, suburban condor population reservoirs? Would there be people on the margins of the wild areas prepared to make a buck assuring their success? Do we really know? Is the information, of how much time and effort that went into that restoration and reintroduction, valuable as an estimate of the risk associated with the loss of other species?Emphasis added.None of these countervailing questions would come into play with a risk-based pricing system. Jealous landowners would have already invested in a critical range junction at Gorman Pass (in Southern California) for its value as ideal condor habitat. They would demand too high a price for the land for Enron to buy, compared to other locations with steady winds. Under the current system (sorry), Enron had to find out the hard way after years of site exploration and negotiations. A lawsuit stated that their tax-subsidized wind generators threatened to chew more condors into little bits. Under InsCert, there would have been no lawsuit, no bad PR, no political hassle, and no wasted energy on the part of Enron.
The benefits of a good management system are found, not in how they solve problems, but in how effortlessly they are prevented.
You cannot "find out" this with "absolute certainty". You mean, because the gov't says so? How do you know there aren't more such frogs somewhere in some boondocks? You don't.
By filling in your pond you know, beyond a doubt, the frogs will be gone forever.
In fact, all those frogs will be gone forever regardless, in a few years (depending on froggie lifespan). All animals die, didn't you know?
I guess what you are talking about is that not only would these die, but they would have no descendents, or their descendants would die as well. Uh yeah, so? It happens. It has happened to zillions of species and will continue to happen.
Why must every species of critter have descendants forever and ever?
One more thing: If these frogs are such great jumpers, won't they hop away when they hear the bulldozers coming? They're FROGS, for pete's sake, not statues! Just because you pave over their pond doesn't mean they'll SIT THERE, does it?
Probably it was crushed by a SUV!!!
BAN all SUV's!!!
Some of these will end up being found dead on developer's property if this idiocy continues.
Yes, but first I'd spray it with insecticides, pick out the dead carcasses and toss them into your swimming pool for asking this non applicable "hypothetical".
That's how far the eviro-freak facists have pushed us animal and nature loving conservationists.
It is common for the certain "endangered" species to be relocated to a more suitable environment (as determined by Fish and Game in my local). Relocation to controlled environments allow the species to multiply faster and spread out.
The truth is, there are plenty of these frogs, as evidenced by their presence at every new building site. (unless the enviro-wackos are relocating the same frogs from site to site just prior to the EIR s being done) The relocation thing is a compromise that developers agree to just to speed up the building process and to stay out of court.
Either you would call in the bulldozers or you wouldn't. I don't believe all those who say they would, would.
How do you expect an elite enviralist, who is over educated in the wrong things and completely unskilled in the correct things and people skills to make a living if this concept of yours comes into effect:
The benefits of a good management system are found, not in how they solve problems, but in how effortlessly they are prevented.
There is zero future for meddling elite enviros if your system comes into effect. All of the meddling elite enviros would lose their elite paychecks. Do you want to be responsible for so many elite enviros becoming depressed and unemployed street people?
How do you expect an elite enviralist, who is over educated in the wrong things and completely unskilled in the correct things and people skills to make a living if this concept of yours comes into effect?
Under a competitive bidding system in risk offsets one would need to know what the relative value associated with one frog site is versus another. One might be able to improve its performance to make it more competitive. That takes someone who understands frogs.
There is zero future for meddling elite enviros if your system comes into effect.
True, but smart biologists might do very well. Those lawyers should learn to write contracts. Of course, they might have to compete with my daughter because she would be automating the contracts and trades with software.
Heheheh...
All of the meddling elite enviros would lose their elite paychecks.
Not all, only those who aren't worth their paychecks.
Do you want to be responsible for so many elite enviros becoming depressed and unemployed street people?
Hehehehe....
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.