• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

30 years of Endangering People and Animals is Enough!

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Liberty Belle

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,818
Reaction score
4
Location
northwestern South Dakota
Endangered Species Act: 30 years of Endangering People and Animals is Enough!
Posted by Senior Editor on 2005/3/20 8:43:34
By Peyton Knight

Animals and humans have suffered the menace of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for three long decades. During this span, over 1,300 species have been listed as threatened or endangered under the Act’s guidelines. According the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the ESA is responsible for recovering a mere ten of them.

That amounts to a pitiful recovery rate of less than one percent. When you take into account credible studies that show these ten recoveries had little or nothing to do with the ESA, the “success” rate plummets to zero.

Saving zero of over 1,300 species is hard work and sacrifice under the Endangered Species Act. After all, you don’t achieve a zero percent success rate without breaking a few eggs. When the Northern Spotted Owl was listed under the ESA in 1990, tens of thousands of Americans in the Pacific Northwest lost their jobs and their livelihoods. Billions of dollars were sapped from the regional economy. Private property was taken from landowners. Such is the toil and hardship associated with saving an owl that, as it turns out, isn’t endangered and never needed saving.

Crucial military preparation and training operations have fallen victim to the ESA’s relentless pursuit of imperfection. The Pentagon regards Camp Pendleton in Southern California as one of the best places to train U.S. marines due to its unique terrain and coastline. In fact, Camp Pendleton is the only amphibious training base on the West Coast. Alas, it is also home to the California gnatcatcher, the San Diego fairy shrimp, the tidewater goby, and more than a dozen other species listed as “endangered” or “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act. As such, our men and women in uniform must tread lightly, or not at all, in certain areas that used to be their training ground—lest they find themselves subject to penalties and fines.

Dodging bullets may prove easier than avoiding fairy shrimp “vernal pools,” or “puddles of water” to the layman. An inadequately trained military is a small price to pay when you’ve got a zero-for-1,300 streak on the line. Even during a time of war.

The Endangered Species Act does not discriminate. Just ask the family and friends of the four firefighters who were killed in 2001. Federal bureaucrats fiddled while the inferno around them burned. These four heroes were fighting the infamous Thirty Mile Fire in Washington’s Okanogan National Forest when the blaze bore down on them and encroached on their emergency fire shelters. Their only salvation was the nearby Chewuch River, which could supply water to helicopters for a flame-dousing airdrop. Oh, if it were only that easy.

According to the Endangered Species Act, the Chewuch was home to a several endangered fish and, therefore, ladling water from the river might, could, possibly imperil a few of the little buggers. While paper pushers back East fretted over how to satisfy the ESA’s requirements, these four brave men and women were snuffed out by the deadly fire. The good news is there are plenty of humans to go around. Fish, on the other hand, well, they’re abundant too. But who are we to question the supremacy of the Endangered Species Act?

Congressman Richard Pombo (R-CA) has stated: “It is no secret the ESA has been used by extremists to restrict, seize, and devalue private property rights, as well as halt important government projects. In fact, this is what most ‘green’ obstructionist groups relish most about the Act.”

Whatever intentions were behind the ESA when it was conceived in 1973 are of little consequence. Intended results mean nothing when compared to actual results. The ESA exists solely as a land-use and power tool, whereby radical environmentalists and their allies in government can take property and force their whims on the public. As Rep. Pombo points out, “The ESA has become the preeminent law of the land; in its implementation, it takes precedent over all else.”
Included in that “all else” is common sense. The Endangered Species Act punishes property owners for fostering an environment that is suitable for species habitation. You read that right. The ESA is so backwards that it creates a perverse incentive for landowners to actually rid their property of species and habitat for fear of government confiscation of their land or property rights.

“The incentives are wrong here,” notes biologist and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Regional Director Sam Hamilton. “If a rare metal is on my property the value of my land goes up. But if a rare bird is on my property the value of my property goes down.”

Stolen property, lost jobs, shattered livelihoods, broken dreams, billions of dollars, and lost lives. This is a pretty steep price for a law that has failed to save species. Can’t America do better? Isn’t it time to repeal the Endangered Species Act and start over?
 

Cal

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
3,598
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern SD
Absolutely right LB! We need to keep on our elected officials.
 

CattleQueen

Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2006
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
Location
The Cowboy State
Got this today on my email. The articles are from the Wyoming Livestock Roundup. Please comment by Monday, April 10, 2006!
---------------
The US Fish & Wildlife Service is proposing to delist the northern gray wolf in Wyoming, Montana, Idaho and parts of Utah, Oregon & Washington. YOU have until Monday, April 10, to submit your comments. Harriet Hageman, attorney for the Wyoming Wolf Coalition, told me last week it is VERY important that we comment, because the FWS receives thousands of comments from environmental groups, and they can get into legal situations if they don't follow the majority of the comments. Give the FWS a more balance view. Please take a few moments to read the attached short article and to comment. Please forward this to the people on your email list. Thank you.

Echo Renner
Meeteetse, WY

-------------
Article:
Wolf Delisting Comment Period Nearly Over

By Echo Renner

The US Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) proposes to establish a distinct population segment of the gray wolf in all of Wyoming, Montana and Idaho, the eastern one third of Washington and Oregon, and a small part of north-central Utah. They also propose this distinct population to be removed from the List of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). “The threats to the wolf population in the Northern Rocky Mountains (NRM) distinct population segment have been reduced or eliminated as evidenced by the population exceeding the numerical, distributional and temporal recovery goals each year since 2002,” according to the Federal Register.

It goes on to say, “The states of Montana and Idaho have adopted state laws and state wolf management plans that would conserve a recovered wolf population within their boundaries into the foreseeable future. However, we have determined that Wyoming State Law do not provide the necessary regulatory mechanism to assure that Wyoming’s share of the recovered wolf population will be conserved if the ESA’s protection were removed.”

Wyoming’s Statutes and Wolf Management Plan classify the gray wolf as a ‘trophy game animal’ inside the National Parks and the adjacent wilderness areas, and as a ‘predator animal’ elsewhere in the state. The FWS rejected Wyoming’s plan in January 2004, insisting that Wyoming give up its dual classification and protect the gray wolf as a ‘trophy game animal’ throughout the state. Wyoming continues to receive pressure to forfeit the ‘predator animal’ status. See attached article “Holding Strong…”

The FWS is accepting comments only through the close of business on Monday, April 10. Comments can be emailed to [email protected] and should include “RIN No. 1018-AU53” in the message subject line, or mailed to US Fish & Wildlife Service, Western Gray Wolf Recovery Coordinator, 585 Shepard Way, Helena, MT 59601. Mailed comments must be postmarked by April 10. For more information, contact Ed Bangs, FWS Western Gray Wolf Recovery Coordinator at (406) 449-5225 ext. 204.

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

Holding Strong Against Broken Promises In Wolf Delisting

By Echo Renner

“Wolves are having a more severe impact on our wildlife than the federal government admitted to when they were introduced into the Yellowstone National Park a decade ago,” said Harriet Hageman, attorney for the Wyoming Wolf Coalition. “They have multiplied faster, have spread further, and have impacted our livestock industry in ways that the US Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) and wolf advocates intentionally downplayed,” she added. “The FWS made two important promises to the citizens of Wyoming – that the wolves would be limited numerically to about 100 per state for Wyoming, Montana and Idaho, or 300 total; and that they would be limited geographically to the national parks and contiguous wilderness areas,” explained Hageman. “In identifying and describing the anticipated wolf impacts, the FWS made it clear that wolves were “undesirable” in the vast majority of the state and that they would implement an effective management and control program to ensure that we didn’t suffer the consequences of their “experiment.” “Now, there are over 1,000 wolves in the three states, and the FWS refuses to limit their territory.”

Hageman, attorney with Hageman & Brighton, P.C. in Cheyenne, and her law partner Kara Brighton, spoke at the Wyoming Sportsmen for Fish & Wildlife (SWF) state convention in Cody on March 31.

“The FWS Wolf Recovery Plan, Environmental Impact Statement and Final Rule state that the first time a wolf kills livestock, the wolf will be moved. The second time livestock is killed, the wolf/wolves will be lethally removed, but this is not happening.” Hageman cited a situation in the summer of 2005 near Farson, where 30 sheep were killed at one time by wolves. Despite the fact that the sheep were all killed in the same area on the same night, wildlife officials would confirm only one as a wolf kill, they identified 14 others as “probably” killed by wolves, but had “no idea what happened to the other 15.” Hageman said, “By reaching what was an utterly ridiculous conclusion, they were able to avoid carrying out their responsibilities, they were able to distort the true impact of wolves, and they were able to mislead the public about what the wolves are doing. They were also able to prevent that livestock producer from being compensated for his losses.” The FWS is also reluctant to move wolves, “because there is nowhere to put them.” They have saturated the area.

The FWS has approved Idaho and Montana’s wolf management plans. In February, the Idaho Department of Fish & Game proposed the removal of 43 wolves in the Lolo Elk Management Zone, and keeping the population low for the next five years to allow the decimated elk population to recover. The green Defenders of Wildlife bombarded the Game & Fish Department with over 42,000 form comments arguing against the proposal to prevent the FWS from approving the State’s plan. “That is what they get with their approved management plans. They have sold their souls to the devil,” said Hageman. “They don’t allow controlled hunts or aerial hunting of wolves in Idaho and Montana. It will be a minimum of five years before they allow any hunting in those states, and that is with an approved plan.”

The gray wolf is the 11th most expensive species the FWS has dealt with in terms of the Endangered Species Act. “This wolf experiment has cost too much in terms of money and wildlife,” said Hageman. “Margot Zalen, one of the primary federal attorneys behind the introduction of the wolves, told me the government wants to turn wolf management over to the states, because they can’t afford them anymore.”

Wyoming’s Statutes and Wolf Management Plan classify the gray wolf as a ‘trophy game animal’ inside the National Parks and the adjacent wilderness areas, and as a ‘predator animal’ elsewhere in the state. The FWS rejected Wyoming’s plan in January 2004, insisting that Wyoming give up its dual classification and protect the gray wolf as a ‘trophy game animal’ throughout the state. That includes areas the FWS itself identified as being “undesirable” for wolf presence because of conflicts with humans, wildlife and livestock. The State of Wyoming, Park County and the Wyoming Wolf Coalition filed suit to direct the FWS to accept the plan and proceed with delisting. They believe the FWS rejected the plan based on public relations concerns rather than the ‘best science available,’ which is required by the Endangered Species Act.

“The FWS wants Wyoming to take over the wolves,” said Hageman. “What we get is the financial and environmental responsibility, but no authority to manage them. If the federal government can’t afford to manage them, how can Wyoming possibly afford it?” she questioned. “Wyoming’s legislature will be receiving a lot of pressure to get rid of the ‘predator status’ in our plan,” said Hageman. “We need to push back. Our legislature has put us in a perfect position. Watch and see if the FWS keeps their promises to Idaho and Montana. If not, we need to tell the FWS we’re not going to take over responsibility for the problems they have created.”

The wolf population in Wyoming, Idaho and Montana is over 1,000 wolves. One wolf kills about two prey animals per month, just for food. “That’s 24,000 prey animals killed each year just for food,” commented Hageman. “The prey base in Yellowstone National Park is severely declining. I think the FWS is concerned. They don’t want to be in charge of wolf management when people start figuring out there’s no wildlife left. They want to turn wolf management over to the states, so the states are responsible, that’s why they’re pushing Wyoming.” She continued, “The FWS wants Wyoming to drop it’s ‘predator animal’ status. I say, when they give real on-the-ground authority to Idaho and Montana to manage wolves the way they need to be managed, then we can consider dropping our predator status. The federal government has to be held accountable.”








:!: :!: :!:
 

T3023

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 26, 2006
Messages
214
Reaction score
0
Location
texas
Liberty Belle said:
Endangered Species Act: 30 years of Endangering People and Animals is Enough!
Posted by Senior Editor on 2005/3/20 8:43:34
By Peyton Knight

Animals and humans have suffered the menace of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for three long decades. During this span, over 1,300 species have been listed as threatened or endangered under the Act’s guidelines. According the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the ESA is responsible for recovering a mere ten of them.

That amounts to a pitiful recovery rate of less than one percent. When you take into account credible studies that show these ten recoveries had little or nothing to do with the ESA, the “success” rate plummets to zero.

Saving zero of over 1,300 species is hard work and sacrifice under the Endangered Species Act. After all, you don’t achieve a zero percent success rate without breaking a few eggs. When the Northern Spotted Owl was listed under the ESA in 1990, tens of thousands of Americans in the Pacific Northwest lost their jobs and their livelihoods. Billions of dollars were sapped from the regional economy. Private property was taken from landowners. Such is the toil and hardship associated with saving an owl that, as it turns out, isn’t endangered and never needed saving.

Crucial military preparation and training operations have fallen victim to the ESA’s relentless pursuit of imperfection. The Pentagon regards Camp Pendleton in Southern California as one of the best places to train U.S. marines due to its unique terrain and coastline. In fact, Camp Pendleton is the only amphibious training base on the West Coast. Alas, it is also home to the California gnatcatcher, the San Diego fairy shrimp, the tidewater goby, and more than a dozen other species listed as “endangered” or “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act. As such, our men and women in uniform must tread lightly, or not at all, in certain areas that used to be their training ground—lest they find themselves subject to penalties and fines.

Dodging bullets may prove easier than avoiding fairy shrimp “vernal pools,” or “puddles of water” to the layman. An inadequately trained military is a small price to pay when you’ve got a zero-for-1,300 streak on the line. Even during a time of war.

The Endangered Species Act does not discriminate. Just ask the family and friends of the four firefighters who were killed in 2001. Federal bureaucrats fiddled while the inferno around them burned. These four heroes were fighting the infamous Thirty Mile Fire in Washington’s Okanogan National Forest when the blaze bore down on them and encroached on their emergency fire shelters. Their only salvation was the nearby Chewuch River, which could supply water to helicopters for a flame-dousing airdrop. Oh, if it were only that easy.

According to the Endangered Species Act, the Chewuch was home to a several endangered fish and, therefore, ladling water from the river might, could, possibly imperil a few of the little buggers. While paper pushers back East fretted over how to satisfy the ESA’s requirements, these four brave men and women were snuffed out by the deadly fire. The good news is there are plenty of humans to go around. Fish, on the other hand, well, they’re abundant too. But who are we to question the supremacy of the Endangered Species Act?

Congressman Richard Pombo (R-CA) has stated: “It is no secret the ESA has been used by extremists to restrict, seize, and devalue private property rights, as well as halt important government projects. In fact, this is what most ‘green’ obstructionist groups relish most about the Act.”

Whatever intentions were behind the ESA when it was conceived in 1973 are of little consequence. Intended results mean nothing when compared to actual results. The ESA exists solely as a land-use and power tool, whereby radical environmentalists and their allies in government can take property and force their whims on the public. As Rep. Pombo points out, “The ESA has become the preeminent law of the land; in its implementation, it takes precedent over all else.”
Included in that “all else” is common sense. The Endangered Species Act punishes property owners for fostering an environment that is suitable for species habitation. You read that right. The ESA is so backwards that it creates a perverse incentive for landowners to actually rid their property of species and habitat for fear of government confiscation of their land or property rights.

“The incentives are wrong here,” notes biologist and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Regional Director Sam Hamilton. “If a rare metal is on my property the value of my land goes up. But if a rare bird is on my property the value of my property goes down.”

Stolen property, lost jobs, shattered livelihoods, broken dreams, billions of dollars, and lost lives. This is a pretty steep price for a law that has failed to save species. Can’t America do better? Isn’t it time to repeal the Endangered Species Act and start over?



Here cut paste this for ya :D

Unconstitutional origins of the Endangered Species Act

By redefining Article 6 of the US Constitution, all globlists now have to do is ratify international treaties that, in total, subvert the Constitution and put all power into their hands.


The Endangered Species Act of 1973, the granddaddy of all these anti-human US laws, derives its authority and power from five international treaties, the most prominent being the Western Convention. Section 2, paragraph (4) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 states;

"the United States has pledged itself as a sovereign state in the international community to conserve to the extent practicable the various species of fish or wildlife and plants facing extinction, pursuant to-

The usurpation of the US Constitution

The UN-administered Western Convention has provided the hammer for denying landowners of their property rights in the US by superceding the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution:

....No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. (bold and italics added for emphasis)

As it was originally written, the Constitution was the supreme law of the land. The laws of the United States had to be "in pursuance thereof," or subservient to the Constitution. Likewise, treaties could only be made "under the Authority of the United States." Since the authority of the United States comes from the sovereign people who delegated it to the US Constitution, treaties also had to be subservient to it.


...all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land...
 

Latest posts

Top