Shouldn't the Endangered species act be considered unconstitutional?

[..PAUL4PRES..]

What do you think?

 

[fisharmor]

I don't care what people consider it, it IS unconstitutional.

If you're the type who thinks that English words printed on paper don't mean what they objectively mean, then you're probably not going to appeal to constitutionality in the first place.

If you are the type who thinks that words have meanings, then there's no defense for the constitutionality of the act.

 

[..PAUL4PRES..]

I don't care what people consider it, it IS unconstitutional.

If you're the type who thinks that English words printed on paper don't mean what they objectively mean, then you're probably not going to appeal to constitutionality in the first place.

If you are the type who thinks that words have meanings, then there's no defense for the constitutionality of the act.

I agree but how should it be handled in a Libertarian society? Would it even be addressed?

 

[erowe1]

I agree but how should it be handled in a Libertarian society? Would it even be addressed?

Let endangered species enjoy the same kind of protection for their posterity that the free market affords to cows, chickens, and other such animals that will never go extinct precisely because it is profitable and legal to sell products that come from them.

For example, the rhinoceros would not be endangered today if it were legal to sell rhinoceros horn. Then entrepreneurs in search of profit would have incentive to use methods of taking bits of their horns at a time and keeping the species alive, rather than sneaking around and killing rhinos out in the middle of nowhere to cut their whole horns off to sell on black markets.

This is exactly why the American Buffalo is no longer endangered.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I agree but how should it be handled in a Libertarian society? Would it even be addressed?

Directed ostracization and abject ridicule, I would imagine.

I would not be opposed to some kind of Constitutional amendment permitting some active preservation of species on the verge of extinction, the role would have to be limited and defined, but as it stands (being without such an amendment) it is clearly unconstitutional. It should be pretty clear that ecological systems benefit from diversity, and medicinal and homeopathic research may rely on the existence of some of our more endangered species of flora and fauna. Therefore it would be in the best interests of the United States and the American people to prevent the extinction of species in most cases -- but just because something is "good" does not make it Constitutional. In order to give the fed.gov any kind of role in this area, a Constitutional Amendment would clearly have to be adopted.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Let endangered species enjoy the same kind of protection for their posterity that the free market affords to cows, chickens, and other such animals that will never go extinct precisely because it is profitable and legal to sell products that come from them.

For example, the rhinoceros would not be endangered today if it were legal to sell rhinoceros horn. Then entrepreneurs in search of profit would have incentive to use methods of taking bits of their horns at a time and keeping the species alive, rather than sneaking around and killing rhinos out in the middle of nowhere to cut their whole horns off to sell on black markets.

This is exactly why the American Buffalo is no longer endangered.

Agree for the most part, BUT --

For all we know, the saliva of the wizened moonbat may hold the cure for AIDS; which thing won't be discovered until 2015, but if it goes extinct in 2012 prior to the discovery of a commercial interest, we will have lost the cure for AIDS.

There is SOME role to be played in preservation -- I think the role the fed.gov already plays is not only unconstitutional, but improper to the point of detrimental. Obviously, in order for there to be ANY role, there would have to be a Constitutional amendment; but even given an amendment I do not think the government's current role is the correct one.

 

[erowe1]

Agree for the most part, BUT --

For all we know, the saliva of the wizened moonbat may hold the cure for AIDS; which thing won't be discovered until 2015, but if it goes extinct in 2012 prior to the discovery of a commercial interest, we will have lost the cure for AIDS.

That might be true. But by the same token, it might not.

On the other hand, we will never exhaust the pool of animal and plant based substances to research among the species that do remain available to us, regardless of however many go extinct. And since we don't know which species will pay off, then we really can't do any better than simply to do however much research we can within the unexhaustible pool of available species, rather than picking winners by assigning certain endangered species a special status of deserving protection that always seems to turn out to be pretty costly to us in the present in hope of a future payoff.

Given the information now available, which is the only information we can use in making a decision about whether to enact a law today, we really can't say that finding a cure for AIDS or anything else will be more likely in the scenario where we do protect endangered species than in the scenario where we don't. But we can say with 100% certainty that there will be costs involved in enacting that law that will materialize in ways that will be harmful to people. Rerouting roads, for example, will result in greater distances traveled, more traffic accidents, more fuel consumed, and rising costs for all things transported on those roads (including food and medicine). The added burden of preventing other kinds of things from being built where they otherwise would have been built will similarly result in costs passed on to the public in a wide variety of ways that, when looked at in the aggregate, include a certain decrease in the availability of things we consider important for life.

Also, between all that would go on in the process of legislators writing those laws (or constitutional amendments) and the bureaucrats enforcing them, I'm pretty skeptical of their ability to end up doing a very good job of accomplishing what they're supposed to, while I'm quite certain that they would accomplish a lot of bad things they're not supposed to. If any government entity could do a good job at something like this, it would be only the most local one, like at the level of the city or county, where the particular species about which the legislators and bureaucrats would be concerned would be one they know personally within the rather limited range of kinds of ecosystems in their area. I'm even skeptical of that, but to push the process out farther to a whole state or much less the federal government (with or without a constitutional amendment), I can't conceive of doing more good than harm.

And even if kept very locally, I have to wonder how much we can really know about the resilience of any given species, and how the ecosystem in question would adapt in one scenario (the one where they enact protections), as opposed to how it would adapt in another (the one where they don't). I don't think we can really predict that or even know all the variables involved. I do know that when legislators involve themselves in it they'll inevitably concentrate on that which is seen, and ignore that which is unseen. And they'll be guided in that by well-intentioned advocates for protecting a species whose beliefs about the inability of that species to survive will turn out to be myths (the spotted owl is a great example of that).

 

[TonySutton]

Any role should be addressed at the state level, the Constitution does not authorize Congress to protect animal species.

In a libertarian society, foundations would form to protect endangered species. People would donate money and volunteer to assist these foundations in their endeavors.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

That might be true. But by the same token, it might not.

On the other hand, we will never exhaust the pool of animal and plant based substances to research among the species that do remain available to us, regardless of however many go extinct. And since we don't know which species will pay off, then we really can't do any better than simply to do however much research we can within the unexhaustible pool of available species, rather than picking winners by assigning certain endangered species a special status of deserving protection that always seems to turn out to be pretty costly to us in the present in hope of a future payoff.

Given the information now available, which is the only information we can use in making a decision about whether to enact a law today, we really can't say that finding a cure for AIDS or anything else will be more likely in the scenario where we do protect endangered species than in the scenario where we don't. But we can say with 100% certainty that there will be costs involved in enacting that law that will materialize in ways that will be harmful to people. Rerouting roads, for example, will result in greater distances traveled, more traffic accidents, more fuel consumed, and rising costs for all things transported on those roads (including food and medicine). The added burden of preventing other kinds of things from being built where they otherwise would have been built will similarly result in costs passed on to the public in a wide variety of ways that, when looked at in the aggregate, include a certain decrease in the availability of things we consider important for life.

Also, between all that would go on in the process of legislators writing those laws (or constitutional amendments) and the bureaucrats enforcing them, I'm pretty skeptical of their ability to end up doing a very good job of accomplishing what they're supposed to, while I'm quite certain that they would accomplish a lot of bad things they're not supposed to. If any government entity could do a good job at something like this, it would be only the most local one, like at the level of the city or county, where the particular species about which the legislators and bureaucrats would be concerned would be one they know personally within the rather limited range of kinds of ecosystems in their area. I'm even skeptical of that, but to push the process out farther to a whole state or much less the federal government (with or without a constitutional amendment), I can't conceive of doing more good than harm.

And even if kept very locally, I have to wonder how much we can really know about the resilience of any given species, and how the ecosystem in question would adapt in one scenario (the one where they enact protections), as opposed to how it would adapt in another (the one where they don't). I don't think we can really predict that or even know all the variables involved. I do know that when legislators involve themselves in it they'll inevitably concentrate on that which is seen, and ignore that which is unseen. And they'll be guided in that by well-intentioned advocates for protecting a species whose beliefs about the inability of that species to survive will turn out to be myths (the spotted owl is a great example of that).

When I said some role, I was in no way, shape, or form advocating their current role. If I were to get specific on it, I would like to see their role limited to identifying and listing, and perhaps even to go so far as recommending actions to be taken by private foundations and local governments. This, of course, would require an amendment just to do that much.

I agree with TonySutton's post that the best active defense of endangered species will be enacted by private foundations, and not by any government.

The reason I am open to allowing the fed.gov to act in terms of identifying, listing, and recommending, is on account of the fact that species habitats are simply not restrained by state borders. A state cannot act outside of it's own borders, so it's efforts to identify and list would be hampered by that.

Insofar as mandating actions such as re-routing roads (other than interstate and federal highways, of course) and land use/access restriction, clearly fed.gov should have no role whatsoever. Thus I agree with the principle that active defense of endangered species be limited to local governments and private foundations.

That said, it is government restrictions upon private foundations which prevent them from being truly effective today, and in order to make this work, many of those restrictions and regulations will have to be lifted.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Animals have zero rights. They are protected through property rights. When you have landowners nothing is universal. Hunting is never universal. So animals are protected. And they always have been, until government gets involved

 

[BenIsForRon]

Let endangered species enjoy the same kind of protection for their posterity that the free market affords to cows, chickens, and other such animals that will never go extinct precisely because it is profitable and legal to sell products that come from them.

For example, the rhinoceros would not be endangered today if it were legal to sell rhinoceros horn. Then entrepreneurs in search of profit would have incentive to use methods of taking bits of their horns at a time and keeping the species alive, rather than sneaking around and killing rhinos out in the middle of nowhere to cut their whole horns off to sell on black markets.

This is exactly why the American Buffalo is no longer endangered.

You're totally wrong here. Some animals simply don't have as much economic potential as a cow. Therefore, you're saying that animals without an economic use should go extinct, or that there's nothing we can do to stop them from going extinct.

In a libertarian society, foundations would form to protect endangered species. People would donate money and volunteer to assist these foundations in their endeavors.

There are already many such foundations, but their abilities are limited, because many property owners would rather develop their land than sell it to a conservation agency. The ESA aims to prevent people from further endangering a species by simply making it against the law to destroy their habitat or hunt them. That way, the property owner still has his land, but he must be mindful of the species living on it.

Animals have zero rights. They are protected through property rights. When you have landowners nothing is universal. Hunting is never universal. So animals are protected. And they always have been, until government gets involved

You know most animals don't reside on a specific piece of property their entire lives. If a bird looks for food on your property, but has a nest in a tree on anothers property, you can't say that you own the bird.

Besides, animals do have rights, especially the right to not be forced into extinction. Hence, the environmental movement pressured congress to write the ESA in the 70's.

As for the constitutionality, many say it is covered under the commerce clause. Of course, the commerce clause is a vague part of the constitution, but it is there. I'd like to see some scholarly opinions on whether it is or not. That said, either way we should have an amendment to strengthen the legitimacy of the ESA.

 

[M House]

I haven't looked at the act in detail but I'd like to say it's in your best interests to not decimate the local wildlife. If you really feel America is a better place cuz of cows and kudzu, your delusional.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

You know most animals don't reside on a specific piece of property their entire lives. If a bird looks for food on your property, but has a nest in a tree on anothers property, you can't say that you own the bird.

But the bird doesn't have any rights. If someone claimed ownership over the bird, then he might have something.

Besides, animals do have rights, especially the right to not be forced into extinction. Hence, the environmental movement pressured congress to write the ESA in the 70's.

Umm rights? No, not really. There has been no extinction of an animal where there is a strict sense of property rights. If I own 10000 acres and I hunt buffalo fine. the owner "next door" might own a buffalo farm. it's an unpredictable thing, but it works. especially if there's demand for something. We all love to eat fish, guess what, there are salmon farms! this ensures that they don't go extinct, even if we fish them all out of the rivers and streams. that would just increase the price of salmon, thus the incentive to start a salmon ranch goes up.

As for the constitutionality, many say it is covered under the commerce clause. Of course, the commerce clause is a vague part of the constitution, but it is there. I'd like to see some scholarly opinions on whether it is or not. That said, either way we should have an amendment to strengthen the legitimacy of the ESA.

I don't much care about the EPA and what they have to say about anything

 

[M House]

I think people would probably be happier if we had more buffalo around. A buffalo is larger has more tasty meat than a cow and be hybridized into a smaller more manageable stock as well. From what I understand they have a more compatible grazing behavior for maintaining your land as well. Instead we got fat stationary gas bags for McDonalds.

 

[erowe1]

You're totally wrong here. Some animals simply don't have as much economic potential as a cow. Therefore, you're saying that animals without an economic use should go extinct, or that there's nothing we can do to stop them from going extinct.

I never said anything of the sort. You can't really believe that not having a law that is enforced by the government means "there's nothing we can do to stop them from going extinct."

As for whether animals without an economic use should go extinct, I'm not saying one way or the other if they should, it's not my call to make. I'm certainly saying that we shouldn't use government based means to stop them from going extinct. And whether they do go extinct without those means is not really something that's my concern, but for those who do consider it their concern, I'm sure there are all sorts of things they can do on their own dimes to further that cause.

And for those animals that do have economic potential, one of the best things we can do to ensure their survival is to get the government out of the way and allow people to exploit them for profit.

 

[erowe1]

I think people would probably be happier if we had more buffalo around.

If you think that, then you should be glad that it's legal to exploit the buffalo for profit. If the government got involved and outlawed killing buffaloes, then that incentive for keeping them around would disappear, and they'd probably go extinct.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I think people would probably be happier if we had more buffalo around. A buffalo is larger has more tasty meat than a cow and be hybridized into a smaller more manageable stock as well. From what I understand they have a more compatible grazing behavior for maintaining your land as well. Instead we got fat stationary gas bags for McDonalds.

you can thank the US government for murdering them in order to starve the indians. it wasn't capitalism that did that

 

[ChaosControl]

I'm going to be the odd one out, I support animal rights.
You should not be able to do whatever you want with them. No abusing animals, making them live in horrible conditions, etc.

The act isn't really constitutional though, so the federal government could not be involved without a constitutional amendment.

 

[MelissaWV]

Privately-owned game preserves/park land.

Oh, and we're all "endangered," we just don't admit it. An Ice Age, Global Warming, meteor, catastrophic tsunami, volcano, earthquake, or even a well-placed sneeze could wipe out certain species. Is it really the contention of these nutsos that no animal would ever go extinct if those awful humans would just disappear? Wouldn't that make humans extinct?

Once again the assumption is that, without the Government to do it, the people would just go out and shoot endangered species for fun and enjoyment until there are none left. I'll never understand that.

 

[BenIsForRon]

Endangered Species Act is just as much about habitat destruction as it is hunting.

If you live in an area where an endangered bird still lives, and your property is crucial for their survival as a species, you shouldn't be allowed to build a housing development or factory.