|
"Invasive Species" Quizzes |
|
|
|
|
|
“Invasive
Species” Quiz No.1 |
“Invasive
Species” Quiz #2 |
|
|
|
| . | |
| . | |
| . | |
“Invasive
Species” Quiz No.1
(Note: This is fun AND will help you protect your property rights! I seriously flunked it, so have learned a lot. The answers follow immediately below -- like an open-book test! Short, but highly recommended for all and please do share widely.) February 23, 2005 1. What state passed an “Invasive Species” law -- with the full stakeholder cooperation of the green industries -- but whose industry now finds that 15 of its products, worth $18-20M in annual sales, are on the “Invasive Species” list? 2. Which three Federal agencies were involved in the case of a Pennsylvania landowner who was required to plant only native species (and to remove nonnative, “Invasive Species”) on his own private property to control erosion along the federally designated “Wild and Scenic” Allegheny River? 3. What major Congressional bill contains clauses that introduce new National Environmental Policy Act mitigation and inventory processes similar to those in the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act for regulation of “invasive” and native species on highway projects? 4. Though clearly harmful to human health, poison ivy, poison oak and poison sumac are not found on “Invasive Species” lists. Why? 5. True or False: Rainbow trout is listed as an “Invasive Species” by Federal agencies. 6. In what State was a commercial beekeeper prevented from placing a bee yard on public land because the honeybee is of European origin, thus an “Invasive Species”? 7. True or False: In 1999, tall fescue, birdsfoot trefoil, crownvetch, redtop and ryegrass -- for decades the primary species recommended for conservation use in the Northeast by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) -- were “no longer recommended” because they were suddenly considered “Invasive Species”. 8. Which Federal agency falsely states that perennial ryegrass, sweet clover and crownvetch are on State noxious weed lists? 9. What major university conducted a study and released it to the Associated Press, concluding that the flower seed industry was acting irresponsibly by selling “Invasive Species” seeds of Black-eyed Susan, cosmos, bachelor buttons, snapdragon, baby’s breath and others? 10. Under what statute are Federal agencies authorized to list or prohibit “Invasive Species”. ANSWERS: 1. Connecticut.
2. The U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (The USFS came up with the initial requirement.)
3. The Senate version of the Transportation bill, the House having removed the clauses. The bill did not pass in the last Congress (108th), but will be re-introduced in the current session (109th).
4. They are native to North America.
5. True.
6. Colorado.
7. True.
8. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
9. The University of Washington, Seattle.
10. None. All listings, prohibitions, etc., have emanated from President Clinton’s “Invasive Species” Executive Order No. 13112. It is vital that we stop “Invasive Species” from becoming law. Any clauses allowed to remain in the transportation bill, the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act, the Public Land Protection and Conservation Act and others, that refer to “invasive species” will encumber America with what is tantamount to ‘the next ESA’ if not removed or the bills defeated.
|
|
|
|
|
“Invasive
Species” Quiz #2
April
7, 2005 1.
What bill shoehorns "Invasive Species", an aspect of
international law, into U.S. law? 2.
What bill adds “Invasive Species” to the legal arsenal of
endangered species, wetlands, and critical habitat, thus causing
expensive delays and cancellations of needed government projects and,
in time, private projects as well? 3.
What bill guarantees increased tonnage of sediment, pesticides,
phosphorous and nitrates into the Chesapeake Bay and other coastal and
inland bodies? 4.
What bill explicitly elevates “Invasive Species” to the level of
habitat conservation and water quality for Federally-funded statewide
planning? 5.
What bill explicitly elevates “Invasive Species” to the level of
habitat conservation and water quality for Federally-funded local
planning? 6.
What bill invites enviro-lawyers to blackmail government into using
tax dollars to fund “further environmental studies” on “Invasive
Species” by State and Local enviro-groups? 7.
What bill obliges Vermont and Maryland to mitigate their State Flowers
at construction sites, to be replaced by “native” species
designated by radical enviro-groups? 8.
What bill specifically adds “Invasive Species” to wetlands and
brownfields under its “Environmental Restoration” title, ushering
the EPA into the regulatory domain of plants and animals? 9.
What multi-$Billion bill allows up to 20% spending under its
“Pollution Abatement” and “Environmental Restoration” titles
to be spent on “Invasive Species” mitigation and plant
inventories? 10.
What bill diverts funding from construction, funneling it instead to
enviro-groups who implement the Biodiversity agenda through
“Invasive Species”? Bonus
Question (5 points; choose one): How do you want the government to
spend your tax dollars over the next six years in legislation promoted
to be for capital improvement projects? a.
on native plant inventories b.
on “Invasive Species” mitigation c.
to subsidize enviro-groups d.
on legal fees to defend construction plans e.
to build highways Answers: 1.
The Senate version of the new 6-year, near-$300B transportation bill:
the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity
Act of 2005, known as SAFETEA 2005. (The House has removed all
“Invasive Species” language from its version of the bill: The
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, known as TEA LU.)
2.
SAFETEA 3.
SATETEA 4.
SAFETEA 5.
SAFETEA 6.
SAFETEA 7.
SAFETEA 8.
SAFETEA 9.
SAFETEA 10.
SAFETEA Bonus
Question: e. building highways is the only correct answer. The newest Big Scare
by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and their partners in
government is called “Invasive Species”. Senate Bill SAFETEA 2005
embeds “Invasive Species” into U.S. law. You
can stop “Invasive Species” from becoming “the next ESA” by
simply telling your Senators that all “Invasive Species” language
MUST be stricken from SAFETEA. Explanations: 1.
SAFETEA codifies "Invasive Species". Using
closed-door tactics, a few clauses are sneaked into a huge, seemingly
unrelated bill. 2.
SAFETEA introduces “Invasive Species” into Federal law. Endangered
species, critical habitat and wetlands are already part of the plethora of
American environmental law through the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
and the Clean Water Act (CWA). Both laws have been used extensively by
environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to cause $Billions
in delays and cancellations of both private and government projects,
including highway construction. A look at history and current NGO
master plans reveals “Invasive Species” to be “the next ESA”. 3.
A perverse consequence of “Invasive Species” in SAFETEA is that it
will have the exact opposite effect of its stated purpose, which is to
protect the environment. One example is the case of the Chesapeake Bay
watershed. Crownvetch (the State Conservation and Beautification Plant
of Pennsylvania), birdsfoot trefoil, tall fescue and ryegrass were
proven through decades of empirical research and practical experience
to be superior for roadside erosion control. The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) now lists these plants as “Invasive
Species” and has informed State DOTs that once “Invasive
Species” authority has been granted, their use will be prohibited.
By forcing State and Local agencies to use substandard species,
pollution in all U.S. watersheds will increase dramatically. 4.
The point here is the inclusion of “Invasive Species” in statewide
planning via SAFETEA. 5.
Same as No. 5, but for local
planning. 6.
Environmental NGOs have discovered that they can use Federal
environmental law to finance themselves through blackmail litigation.
By filing for injunction on a project, they effectively force Federal,
State and Local governments to give them grants for further
environmental impact studies. NGO legal teams use the ESA, CWA and the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) as tools for
government financing. Adding “Invasive Species” provides these
NGOs another revenue stream. 7.
This is another unforeseen consequence of SAFETEA. Vermont’s State
Flower is red clover. Maryland’s is black-eyed Susan. Both are
listed as “Invasive Species”. Neither is harmful. 8.
SAFETEA endorses the pseudoscience of “Invasive Species” under
this subtitle. By including “Invasive Species” under
“Environmental Restoration”, the inference is that the environment
can only be healthy if populated by (restored to) species that were
present prior to 1492. Enter the EPA. 9.
SAFETEA does limit the amount spent on “Invasive Species”, but
note that even a percentage of $Billions is still a lot of money –
money specifically used to fund enviro-groups. 10.
A pie can only be divided so many ways. SAFETEA underwrites
enviro-groups by diverting funds, which would otherwise be employed
for highway construction, to on-site "pre-construction
studies". State Departments of Transportation (DOTs) are ill
equipped to undertake this additional environmental assessment. Only
such enviro-groups as The Nature Conservancy and its lesser State and
Local counterparts have positioned themselves to do this. State
DOTs must, by default, contract to these groups. Further
Reading: See below to
reference "Invasive Species", junk science and deliberate
scare tactics. Enjoy the quizzes. Learn how enviro-groups use the
political system -- and “Invasive Species” -- to fund themselves
and control your life. Read the works of Inhofe, Crichton, Sagoff and
others that point out the dangers. Empower yourself to help keep
“Invasive Species” from becoming “the next ESA”. |
|
|
|
|
|
Further
Reading: Arnett,
Beers and Grau, 2003 testimonies. For an excellent comparison
of the views of "Invasive Species" advocates and
skeptics. Former Reagan Assistant Interior Secretary G. Ray
Arnett, former U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologist James M.
Beers, and agriculturalist Fred V. Grau, Jr. at the House Resources
Committee website. http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/archives/108/fcwo/04_29_03.htm Arnold, Ron, Undue Influence: Wealthy Foundations, Grant Driven Environmental Groups and Zealous Bureaucrats That Control Your Future. Connect the dots; a compelling read. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/093957120X/qid=111 2750145/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/103-7785494-9655057?v=glance&s=books Crichton,
Dr. Michael, State of Fear. For entertaining, yet educational
reading. Substitute “Invasive Species” for “Global Warming”
and make the connection. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0066214130/102-5560791 D'Agostino,
Joseph, Decreasing Invasive Species May Increase Invasive
Government, Human Events, May 9, 2003. "IS" warnings
from R.J. Smith and Sen. Inhofe. http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=479 E&PW
Committee Staff, Political
Activity of Environmental Groups and Their Supporting Foundations,
September 2004. A brief expose of abuse by NGOs and foundations. http://epw.senate.gov/repwhitepapers/Political.pdf E&PW
Committee Staff, Grants
Management at the Environmental Protection Agency: A New Culture
Required to Cure a History of Problems, September 2004. http://epw.senate.gov/repwhitepapers/Grants.pdf Gould,
Stephen Jay, An Evolutionary Perspective on Strengths, Fallacies,
and Confusions in the Concept of Native Plants, 1997.
Intellectual skeptic’s take. http://www.doaks.org/Nature/natur002.pdf Inhofe,
Senator James, An Update
on the Science of Climate Change, Senate Floor Statement, January
4, 2005. http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=230406 Inhofe,
Senator James, Partisan
Environmental Groups, Senate Floor Statement, October 4, 2004. http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=227788 Inhofe,
Senator James, The Science
of Climate Change, Senate Floor
Statement, July 28, 2003. http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=230594 target="_blank" Lomborg,
Dr. Bjorn, The Skeptical
Environmentalist. Statistician exposes the junk science of
modern day environmentalism. Think “IS” while reading Chapter 27,
Biodiversity. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521010683/102-5560791-9086522 Pimentel,
Dr. David, et al, Environmental
Costs Associated with Non-Indigenous Species in the United States,
Cornell University, June 12, 1999. White paper widely used to claim
$138Billion cost to U.S. economy.
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Jan99/species_costs.html
Sagoff, Dr. Mark, Do Invasive Species Threaten the Environment? April 4, 2005. Masterful yet brief; refutes all “IS” arguments. A must-read. http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/2005/articles04/do_invasive_species Sagoff,
Dr. Mark, What’s Wrong with Exotic Species? Institute
for Philosophy and Public Policy, Autumn 1999. Early refutation of
Clinton Executive Order 13112. http://www.puaf.umd.edu/IPPP/fall1999/exotic_species.htm Theodoropoulos,
David, Comments on the NISC Draft Management Plan, The
No White List Coalition, December 17, 2004. Critical analysis of
National Invasive Species Council proposal. http://www.geocities.com/nowhitelist/nisc.html
|
|