Posted on 12/28/2002 12:17:23 AM PST by JohnHuang2
"Intoxicating liquors" were banned by the 18th Amendment in 1919. It took 14 years for the country to realize its mistake and repeal the law that was horribly abused.
The Endangered Species Act became law in 1973. It, too, is horribly abused and should be repealed. Originally conceived to "protect" the Bald Eagle, and a few other species that were truly on the brink of extinction, the law has become the weapon of choice used by environmental extremists to shut down development, obliterate the concept of private property rights and transfer land-use control to the federal government.
During the Clinton years, four varieties of freshwater shrimp were listed as threatened or endangered, at the urging of environmental groups. The Fish and Wildlife Service did not believe they were sufficiently endangered to designate critical habitat for them.
The Butte Environmental Council – a collection of environmental groups – disagreed and sued the Fish and Wildlife service. To appease the extremists, the Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing to designate 1.7 million acres as critical habitat to protect the tiny shrimp that thrive in mud puddles.
How many mud puddles can there be in 1.7 million acres, covering 38 counties in two states? More importantly, how many of these tiny creatures live in these mud puddles? If there are that many, how can they possibly be endangered? Congressman-elect Dennis Cardoza says: "On its face, common sense tells you that that's not an endangered species if you can find that species in all these locations."
This lawsuit is not about protecting a shrimp – it is about blocking the use of this land for productive agriculture and future development.
The Fish and Wildlife Service shut off water to 1,400 Klamath Basin farmers to protect the endangered salmon – the same agency also clubs to death thousands of salmon hatchlings. Do they really want to protect the fish, or simply rid the farmland of people?
The Center for Biological Diversity sued the Fish and Wildlife Service in 1992 to force the designation of 731,000 acres of Arizona as critical habitat for the pygmy owl. Ten years of court battles by green groups are expected to result in doubling the habitat area, providing 66,000 acres for each known owl. Ridiculous?
Don Fife, a geologist who advised four secretaries of the Interior Department, asked a Forest Service botanist how a particular listed weed could possibly be endangered, when it appeared throughout the forest. The reply: "Everybody knows these aren't really endangered. We just need them to stop mining."
Fife secured a signed affidavit from a former Forest Service employee of the San Bernadino National Forest, which said the "staff had volunteers collect the seeds for these ESA-listed plants and spread them in the forest to stop mining and recreation on up to 44,575 acres of the mineral-rich forest."
These are only a few examples of how the ESA is being abused in order to stop productive use of both public and private lands. It is an abuse that should come to a screeching halt – by repealing the Endangered Species Act. More than 2,000 species are currently listed under the law, and more than 30,000 species are listed under a United Nations treaty.
Nature demands that all species adapt to change – or die. This was nature's law long before the first environmental organization came into existence, and it will remain nature's law long after the last environmental organization becomes extinct. It is not only presumptuous, it is profoundly stupid for environmental organizations to think that this fundamental law of nature can be repealed.
Environmental organizations that use the ESA do so not for the benefit of the species, but as a tool to achieve a much broader objective: to reduce and control consumption to ensure equity in the use of the earth's resources. This is the essence of "sustainable development."
This objective cannot be achieved if people are free to own and use their own property and resources. This objective cannot be achieved if people are free to make their own decisions about what products to buy, which automobiles to drive or where they wish to live.
Should the government control its people? Or, should the people control their government?
Like the 18th Amendment, the ESA gives government the power to control the people. The ESA was a mistake, as was the 18th Amendment. It is time to correct the mistake by repealing the ESA. This action will be an important step toward returning control of government to the people.
Then it'll be against the law to die :)
The history of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) abounds with horror stories recounting clear abuses of power under the color of law. Many who initially supported the ESA have come to question whether it still reflects its original intent. Others argue that the requirements to consider economic and cultural impacts of regulatory measures pursuant to NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) are being ignored.
No, there were cries of outrage that I didn't think the changes to the ESA by Rep. Pombo were beneficial. Henry Lamb was even getting calls accusing me of being a spy for the New World Order.
If I was a spy, at least they could pay me for it.
"President Bush's actions would gut the Endangered Species Act, our nation's premiere wildlife protection law," said Carl Pope, the Sierra Club's Executive Director."
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.