Shouldn't the Endangered species act be considered unconstitutional?

[Anti Federalist]

If land is declared off limits due to an ESA or EPA ruling, then the land has been "taken" by government and all Fifth Amendment eminent domain protections must come into play.

That's how it would work if government still followed the constitution in any meaningful way.

Of course that's not the case anymore, and the Kelo v. New London decision pretty much destroyed any eminent domain protections at a federal level.

If government can seize your property to turn it over to developers, it can certainly seize it over a three assed snail darter.

And then turn it over to developers.

 

[charrob]

-isn't the more important question:

"Would you support an amendment to the Constitution to protect endangered species"?

 

[Anti Federalist]

-isn't the more important question:

"Would you support an amendment to the Constitution to protect endangered species"?

No

 

[charrob]

No

Why?

 

[Anti Federalist]

Why?

You enshrine in law the concept that animals have rights.

Too difficult to define. Whose definition of endangered species do you use?

 

[charrob]

You enshrine in law the concept that animals have rights.

Too difficult to define. Who's definition of endangered species do you use?

What do you mean? -have just signed on so have not yet read through this thread, so am not sure if you refer to former posts when referring to definitions?

 

[Anti Federalist]

What do you mean? -have just signed on so have not yet read through this thread, so am not sure if you refer to former posts when referring to definitions?

No, it has no bearing on any previous post.

Simply this: how do you define an endangered species?

Who decides that? EPA? UN? WWF? Other NGOs?

You've now opened a can of worms, that a whole legion of "regulators" will decide how you can use your property.

 

[EndDaFed]

I don't understand you, Ben. Maybe you can help clear up some of my misconceptions. Is your goal to protect endangered species? Or do you support this because you hate property ownership? I can't seem to tell. If you don't provide compensation to property owners it creates the incentive for property owners to kill endangered species. If a property owner buys some land and they find an endangered species that is not known to live in that habitat. From an economically rational perspective to preserve wealth is to do away with the problem of endangered species inhabiting the land. This is why many on the conservative side of the isle hate the EPA. It's not rational from the start. It's means run counter to its intended goals. The use of environmentalism these days is more about anti capitalism than it is about saving endangered species.

 

[charrob]

No, it has no bearing on any previous post.

Simply this: how do you define an endangered species.

Who decides that? EPA? UN? WWF? Other NGOs?

You've now opened a can of worms, that a whole legion of "regulators" will decide how you can use your property.

-well, if it's a bird it has nothing to do with property since the bird flies over many properties during a day. So who would decide that that bird's species is extinct? I would hope a panel of people who specialize in birds and in wildlife; the panel would have to be impartial in its decision on whether or not that species is, indeed, extinct and provide credible statistics and an explanation on how those statistics were obtained. Since I, personally, would support a constitutional amendment to support endangered species, I would therefore, also, support this panel of specialists to be employed by a government.

-if it's not a bird and, indeed, exists on your property, that presents another case. -so i'll use an example i used in another thread: Hundreds of years ago polynesians found Easter Island in the Pacific. It was a rich, plentiful island full of wildlife and forests. Through time the polynesians pillaged the island-- killing off even the last tree. Many years later (~ 1600's?) the british found the natives of Easter Island hungry, dying, and unable to even build a canoe to get off a desolate island because they had killed off that last tree.

Prior to the british finding them, there had been an argument with the people on Easter island: Joe Smith had on his property on Easter Island the very last tree. The people thought Joe should not be allowed to cut down that tree to make his new hut because that would allow more trees to begin populating the island again. However, Joe Smith said: "no. That last tree is on my property and i will do with it what i want." As a result, if the british had not rescued them, all would have perished due to Joe Smith's selfish decision.

So the question would be: should Joe Smith have had his way in cutting the tree on his property to build his hut, or, was there a "greater good" in the keeping of that last tree?

 

[Anti Federalist]

So the question would be: should Joe Smith have had his way in cutting the tree on his property to build his hut, or, was there a "greater good" in the keeping of that last tree?

Briefly - the bird issue.

Birds can nest and return to the same piece of property so yes, it can become an issue.

Joe should have been "allowed" to cut down his tree.

The "greater good" argument carries zero water with me.

Down that road lies the death camps, the killing fields, and the gulags.

The consequences of doing nothing are nowhere near as great as allowing government, in any form, to start acting for the greater good.

 

[EndDaFed]

Bad for Species, Bad for People: What’s Wrong with the Endangered Species Act and How to Fix It

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st303

Subjecting millions of acres and millions of human residents to land use regulations for a single protected species.
Yet, private landowners are the key to successful endangered species conservation, because 78 percent of these species are found on private land. However, because landowners are penalized for harboring species, many of them take actions to rid their property of the species either by killing them or by applying a “scorched earth” policy that makes actual or potential habitat unsuitable through such activities as plowing, prematurely cutting trees or clearing brush.

 

[charrob]

Joe should have been "allowed" to cut down his tree.
The "greater good" argument carries zero water with me.

So it's okay to let the entire population on the island perish, including Joe, in order to let Joe cut down his tree to build his hut?

 

[EndDaFed]

So it's okay to let the entire population on the island perish, including Joe, in order to let Joe cut down his tree to build his hut?

This makes no sense. If there is only one tree left than they are already fucked. It's based on the false premise that property rights lead to destruction of land which is not true. In fact the opposite argument could very well be made.

 

[Icymudpuppy]

There are good things in the Endangered species act, and bad things. Ideally, everyone would have enough knowledge of nature not to destroy habitat without needing government interference.

Unfortunately, most people are clueless. As a wildlife biologist self employed as a nuisance wildlife damage control operator, I find that very little private property is adversely affected by the endangered species act, and where it is, it is almost always justified. In the few instances where a restriction is wrongfully placed on a property owner, it can usually be overturned by getting experts to testify on the owner's behalf.

 

[BenIsForRon]

Because there is s certain strain of environmentalism that insists that the whole process be stopped and become static, eternally fixed at that point in time.

Of course, this is an impossibility.

That leaves the door open to a level of control over humanity that knows no end.

I'm talking about extinctions that are a result of human activity.

And if we don't protect extinct species, then what's the point of having wilderness areas in the first place. To go see squirrels and deer in the wild, when you can just stay in you living room and see the same fucking animals?

Honestly, why not? If something doesn't fit in, why try to force it to fit in? I know someone will be mad at me for saying it, but why try to force a breed to remain in existence? What's so much worse about something going extinct than something dying? Does anyone really miss the Dodo Bird? It feels like an awful thing to say, but even if evolution is a false theory, I don't see the problem with incompatible species disappearing.

The problem is that the species are incompatible with the current state of human development, which to put it simply, is "balls to the wall". The ESA is a first step in society attempting to live in closer harmony with nature. There are many more scientific, economic, and spiritual reasons to keep them around. I'm not going to go into all of them here.

I don't understand you, Ben. Maybe you can help clear up some of my misconceptions. Is your goal to protect endangered species? Or do you support this because you hate property ownership? I can't seem to tell. If you don't provide compensation to property owners it creates the incentive for property owners to kill endangered species. If a property owner buys some land and they find an endangered species that is not known to live in that habitat. From an economically rational perspective to preserve wealth is to do away with the problem of endangered species inhabiting the land. This is why many on the conservative side of the isle hate the EPA. It's not rational from the start. It's aims run counter to logic. The use of environmentalism these days is more about anti capitalism than it is about saving endangered species.

I'm totally for property ownership, just not property rights superseding all other rights. For example, its wrong to blow off the top of mountain to remove the coal when there will be thousands of generations yet to come that will own the mountain. It should be largely left alone.

Your other point is VERY valid, I actually meant to bring it up in an earlier post. Many land owners who wish to develop their land will actually hunt endangered animals if their property hasn't been declared protected yet. I've heard of property owners seeing a spotted owl on their property, then hunting it down so the feds leave them alone. I really have no clue what should be done about that.

Compensation in some form would help, but probably wouldn't eliminate the issue all together. Removing all protection would be the wrong thing to do, though, because you have the double whammy of criminal prosecution as well as increased public awareness once you do deem an area protected. This has extended the life on many species throughout the country.

 

[Anti Federalist]

So it's okay to let the entire population on the island perish, including Joe, in order to let Joe cut down his tree to build his hut?

Yes, for the reasons I stated.

 

[EndDaFed]

There are good things in the Endangered species act, and bad things. Ideally, everyone would have enough knowledge of nature not to destroy habitat without needing government interference.

Unfortunately, most people are clueless. As a wildlife biologist self employed as a nuisance wildlife damage control operator, I find that very little private property is adversely affected by the endangered species act, and where it is, it is almost always justified. In the few instances where a restriction is wrongfully placed on a property owner, it can usually be overturned by getting experts to testify on the owner's behalf.

How many of these property owners are compensated for the loss of use or value of their property? It's one thing to want to save a species. It's another to totally fuck someone over in the process of obtaining that goal.

 

[charrob]

Yes, for the reasons I stated.

very sorry, then i must respectfully disagree...

-------------------------------------

however, the case for this sort of intrusion on a property owner's rights must be proven and the owner must be fully compensated. for example, I am totally opposed to cases where people lose their property for shopping centers to be built. this is an abomination imo.

 

[Icymudpuppy]

How many of these property owners are compensated for the loss of use or value of their property? It's one thing to want to save a species. It's another to totally fuck someone over in the process of obtaining that goal.

Well, my dad is being paid $700/month by the EPA to keep 6 acres of his land in natural habitat for endangered birds. Part of that is rent, and the rest is for him to maintain that land by pulling noxious weeds, trapping invasive species like rats and starlings, etc. He can do that work himself, or pay a contractor to do it for him.

You just need to go talk to your local extension office.

 

[BenIsForRon]

Well, my dad is being paid $700/month by the EPA to keep 6 acres of his land in natural habitat for endangered birds. Part of that is rent, and the rest is for him to maintain that land by pulling noxious weeds, trapping invasive species like rats and starlings, etc.

You just need to go talk to your local extension office.

Ok, so the government does provide compensation when enforcing the ESA. I didn't know that. I wonder if it works that way in most cases.

I guess because you're dealing with a limited amount of acreage, it is feasible for tax payers to subsidize the protection of species on private property.