The House of Representatives Roll Call Vote on H.R. 3824, "The Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005" (TESRA)
 
 
 
(Note: The score stands at property rights takers 1, property rights and resource provider cherishing folks 0. Contrary to 'popular opinion,' this ESA 'reform' legislation is worse than the original ESA. It is fervently hoped that enough savvy Senators will stand up and bury this monster. TESRA is not good for property rights. Don't listen to the obligatory whining from GangGreen -- they're likely part-authors of the bill, no matter how indignant they appear to be for the media. Please see additional pertinent information below the vote count. If a lot of people don't get the Senate to stop TESRA, look forward to many more Victim Directories: http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/2005/articles05/victimsdirectoriesfrms.htm)
 
 
 
September 29, 2005
 
 
 
Final vote results for Roll Call 506
 
(Republicans in roman; Democrats in italic; Independents underlined)

      H R 3824      RECORDED VOTE      29-Sep-2005      5:12 PM
      QUESTION:  On Passage
      BILL TITLE: Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act

  Ayes Noes PRES NV
Republican 193 34   3
Democratic 36 158   8
Independent   1    
TOTALS 229 193   11


---- AYES    229 ---

Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Beauprez
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cuellar
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hinojosa
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Schmidt
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

---- NOES    193 ---

Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldwin
Bass
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boucher
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Castle
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Ehlers
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Hinchey
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kirk
Kucinich
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pelosi
Platts
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sбnchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Simmons
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velбzquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu

---- NOT VOTING    11 ---

Boswell
Culberson
Davis (FL)
Fattah
Gutierrez
Harman
Hobson
Lee
Paul
Payne
Towns

 
 

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll506.xml

 

Current House Floor Proceedings

Legislative Day of September 29, 2005 

109th Congress - First Session 

 

http://clerk.house.gov/floorsummary/floor.html

 

The House Resources Committee

http://resourcescommittee.house.gov

 

Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005

 

CBO Score for TESRA http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/issues/more/esa/TESRA/cboscore_hr3824HR.pdf 

 

H.R. 3824, TESRA (Committee Print-Post Markup) http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/issues/more/esa/TESRA/HR3824_Committee%20Pri nt_xml.pdf

 

Post Mark-Up Amendments http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/archives/109/full/092205committeeaction.htm 

 

TESRA Background & Need http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/issues/more/esa/TESRA/background&need.ht m 

 

Summary & Analysis (Updated) http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/issues/more/esa/TESRA/summary_hr3824.pdf 

 

Section by Section (Updated) http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/issues/more/esa/TESRA/section_by_section.pdf 

 

Modernizing the ESA


Report: Implementation of  The Endangered Species Act of 1973  http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/issues/more/esa/implementationreport.htm

 

Victim Directories

http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/2005/articles05/victimsdirectoriesfrms.htm

 

=====

 

Not Yours To Give

 



Colonel David Crockett
U.S. Representative from Tennessee


Originally published in "The Life of Colonel David Crockett,"
by Edward Sylvester Ellis.

 


One day in the House of Representatives, a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:

"Mr. Speaker, I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.

"Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:

"Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.

"The next summer, when it began to be time to think about election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly.

"I began: 'Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and ... "


"Yes I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine, I shall not vote for you again."

"This was a sockdolager...I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

" ’Well, Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest.…But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power -- and misinterprets it -- is the more dangerous the more honest he is.'

" 'I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.’

“ ‘No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?’

" ‘Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.'

" ‘It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. '
No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.' "The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.'

" 'So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.'

"I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawnskin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

" ‘Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.'

"He laughingly replied; 'Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.'

" ‘If I don't’, said I, 'I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.'

" ‘No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.’

" 'Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name.’

" 'My name is Bunce.'

" 'Not Horatio Bunce?'

" 'Yes.’

" 'Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.'

"It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him, before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

"At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.

"Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.

"I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him -- no, that is not the word -- I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

"But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted -- at least, they all knew me.

"In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

" ‘Fellow-citizens, I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.’"

"I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

" ‘And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.

" ‘It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.'

"He came upon the stand and said:

" ‘
Fellow-citizens, It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.'

"He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.'

"I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.'

"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday.

"There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. Y
ou remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men -- men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased -- a debt which could not be paid by money -- and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000,  when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."

 

http://www.juntosociety.com/patriotism/inytg.html

 

=====

 

Repeal Endangered Species Act
 
 
 
(Note: Please consider this fact -- both times the text of the "ESA Reform" bill was "leaked," the ONLY place it was located on the Internet was at the Center for Biological Diversity's website (which is not a government website). CBD has filed countless lawsuits, ostensibly "on behalf of" various and sundry "endangered species." CBD founder, Kieran Suckling, tells the world how awful it is that cows poop in streams and continues to ignore the FACT that the bodily functions of all animals -- including all wild animals, endangered or not -- are released when "nature calls," whether mid-stream or not. Please think about the fact that CBD has had the bill text published on its website before any other location on the Internet, including the Pombo Committee site. Please ask yourself why this is so. Please ask Pombo's office staff, too. Please think about the fact that this bill has "strong bipartisan support," understanding that special interest groups, Wildlands Project implementers, etc. often call the shots when Congress critters make moves. Please think about all this and then visit PropertyRightsResearch.org and click on the ESA and Wildlands Project buttons. H.R. 2834, which you may now read here: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/issues/more/esa/TESRA/hr3824.pdf is not property rights friendly. It is the reauthorization of the ESA and uses Language Deception to make the reader think it is less harmful to America's property rights and gutted resource providers. Repeal -- complete and total -- of the ESA is the only good thing to do. Bob Fanning has hit the nail squarely on the head. It is my fervent hope that many, many others join him and me. Just look at who's co-sponsoring this: Pombo, Walden, Radanovich, Cubin, Gibbons, McMorris, Henry Brown, Graves, Cardoza, Berry, Ross, Baca, Bennie Thompson, and Costa)
 
 
 
September 1, 2005
 
 
 
By Robert T. Fanning, Jr. rtfanning@att.net
 
Pray, Montana
 
The Billings Outpost
 
Billings, Montana
 
866-311-6397 or 406-248-1616
 
Fax: 406-248-2414
 
 
To submit a Letter to the Editor: editor@billingsnews.com
 
No feudal nobleman would ever concede that the feudal system is obsolete.

Legal fees are awarded in more than 90 percent of litigation to environmental organizations when they “prevail” in their Endangered Species Act suits against the federal government. “Prevailing” can be a simple as the judge ordering more “studies.” These monies fleeced from the U.S. taxpayer are a source of funds that fund, motivate and inspire extremists who abuse and “milk” the Draconian “Endangered” Species Act for all it’s worth.

Jobs and job enticements are awarded to “former” federal employees who join, or plan to join, the extremists’ “environmental organizations” after “retirement” - and serve to ensure a formal system of bribery and corruption.

Misuse of sportsmen’s excise taxes to blackmail, bribe, extort and coerce state fish and game agencies destroys individual and states’ rights and ensures corruption at the state level.

Grants sought and “institutes” formed by academia ensure corruption and rubber-stamped, agenda-driven science from scientists whose minds and souls were purchased by extremist NGOs. Those scientists who don't “play ball” are blackballed and censored and marginalized.

Corrupted academicians are the “expert witnesses “ paraded before the courts and – with help from a like structured “major media” – the court of public opinion, to hoodwink America.

Rep. [Richard] Pombo [R-Calif.] will never “fix” the ESA with “reform.” All he is doing is preserving and perpetuating the same game for those who make a living exploiting it and wildlife.

The ESA is nothing more than the urban majority imposing its political will on the rural minority under the pretext of “rule of law.” The same scam was used by England on the people of Ireland in the genocides of 1650 and 1849.

Dr. Robert Taylor predicted on Jan. 11, 2000, before an audience of 600 attending the Predator Management Symposium in Billings, that the wolf program would end in violent human bloodshed.

Dr. Taylor has witnessed and fought the systematic and premeditated destruction of America by the ESA since the spotted owl scam targeted the logging industry a quarter-century ago.

A super majority of the Montana Legislature voted that wolf recovery is run by “law breakers” and asks for federal emergency disaster relief for communities destroyed by wolf introduction and the ESA.

Rep. Pombo’s “ESA reform” guarantees that Dr. Taylor will see his prophecy come true. The blood will be on the “reformers’” hands. Oliver Cromwell was a “reformer” too.

Complete REPEAL of the unconstitutional ESA is the only solution.

 
 
 
 
Very Important Comments (highly recommended reading):
 
-----
 
Rachel Thomas badger04@earthlink.net edited comment (apparently dated September 20, 2005):
 
....as you know, the ESA bill was finally made available to us yesterday -- all 73 pages. It was made available [at] about 10 AM and they wanted everyone to throw support behind the bill that day, before anyone had time to read and analyze the total bill.
 
-----
 
September 21, 2005, Leo Schwartz vlrc@ntelos.net comments:
 
I don't want to appear to throw cold water on anyone's efforts, but I am still very suspicious about what Mr. Pombo is doing and what will finally come out of this. You are absolutely correct -- this is all too fast and rushed with not enough time to consider and analyze the current proposal. I hope we have not been victims of "good cop, bad cop" tactics. Considering the recent near-betrayal, I don't trust Mr. Pombo to fight for us when the compromising starts in Congress. Even if I am wrong on this point -- and I hope my concerns are unjustified -- once it is out of his hands there will be a loss of control.
 
After all the years of tyranny under this un-Constitutional Act, my initial reaction is there is no justification to push through a bill [that] does not totally protect private land from federal action. I may be seen as being ungrateful, but [I] keep coming back to the same point: binding down our elected representatives with the chains of the Constitution and their Oaths of Office.
 
-----
 
September 21, 2005, update from Bob Fanning rtfanning@att.net, regarding signing the Property Rights First [ESA] Letter:
 
As a kid I learned that half of taking tests had to do with the knowledge you had and the other half had to do with knowing how to take a test. I learned early that "your first instinct is the correct answer." The fact of the matter is that we have incrementally been herded into a camp by herders that will point to the fact that we have compromised and come to "consensus," thus lending validity to their position -- and eradicating, dismissing and marginalizing our arguments as being those of an "extremist lunatic fringe." With the recent Supreme Court ruling regarding eminent domain, combined with the new improved/legitimized version of the ESA, my view of the future of America is black. I would much rather be remembered as being someone who fought this Alamo to its conclusion screaming for the repeal of the Draconian and un-constitutional ESA that we can prove in public hearings is the vehicle for green Fascism. By signing on to this new version of oppression we are validating it and agreeing to live under it without a fight. Once it is crammed down the public's throat, it will be "rule of law." Bankruptcy lawyers call it a "cram down plan." The 3rd circuit court outlawed "cram down plans" in the Combustion Engineering case http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/05D0236P.pdf (pages 1 and 40) Congress, in consort with the greens, are using this "cram down plan" on those who dissent to muzzle us forever. The victims in both Combustion Engineering and with the "reformed ESA" are the "future claimants." I only know about the ESA as it pertains to wolves being used as a bio-weapon against our fellow American citizens. I guarantee that very soon the fight will lead to civil disobedience and bloodshed. The repulsive thing of this is that our side of the issue never got a day in court or a chance to be heard. Standing rigid and non negotiable is how the other side got the power it has. Why is it so tough to understand for those who have lost so much and have so much to lose in the future?
 
-----
 
September 21, 2005, edited comments from studied ESA expert Helen Franklin PacificTimber@aol.com:
 
I studied the Endangered Species Act for years and wrote papers, blogs and articles in hopes that one day the Act would be repealed -- or that others could more effectively fight it. 
 
Who had access to the proposed changes and why was the document held in secret? I got better information from the Center for Biological Diversity, and I knew I could trust them, because they read.
 
Pombo received plenty of material from us over the last few years ... 
 
[T]hese would have been my recommendations:
 
The ESA applies only to federal lands, unless you're in the federal nexus. "Federal authorization" is what puts private landowners in the federal nexus.
 
Remove all federal authorization from the Act entirely and private lands are protected, plain and simple. 
 
It's a very bad idea to include State Governors in Section 6(c). Doing so would remove all powers from the State legislatures. There is nothing wrong with Sec. 6(c); it should be left as originally written. The thing that's wrong with 6(c) is that the Secretary of the Interior has been out of compliance. Shorten all dates for agency compliance, and if the work isn't done, the species in question should not be listed. 
 
The ESA was subject to NEPA until one listing was NEPA challenged in the early 1980s. Shortly thereafter, all federal agencies wrote themselves a policy statement that NEPA was no longer necessary. NEPA really gets us nothing but more process. Yes, we get to comment on the Social Assessments listed in 40 CFR 1508, but I've yet to see it considered -- or that it would matter at any level of significance.  
 
Critical Habitat Designation needed to be gone. It's a good change. 
 
Local governments already have the option of requesting to be included in the federal process (not that it has ever made a difference).
 
Tribes are in the federal nexus. They wanted to be there. No special language should be written into the Act for them.
 
Another simple change would have been to define the word "take" to mean kill, and kill only.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' interpretation of the Migratory Bird Act has had greater adverse effect on the use of private property than the ESA.  
 
I read the panic responses from the so-called protectors of private property... 
 
It doesn't help us when those who read the least end up writing the most. and harder to believe they get as much attention as they do.
 
-----
 
September 21, 2005, Julie Kay Smithson propertyrights@earthlink.net comments:
 
Regarding "Pombo bill would rip the heart out of the Endangered Species Act:"
 
Both the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and "Defenders" [Defenders of Wildlife] are setting up a smokescreen. There's nothing they want more than for this bill to pass. CBD may have even written part or all of the darned thing. This is all a ruse, this whining -- but notice how much major muzzled media press it's getting. That ought to run up a whole raft of Red Flags! Think of Brer Rabbitt saying, "Put me anywhere but in the briar patch" -- when that's Exactly where he wanted to go! We got a late start, but are learning quickly about Language Deception, as per the below URLs.
 
 
 
Mr. Pombo has alienated his own local Tracy, California, constituents for years (and redistricting/redrawing of political boundary lines) saved him from the wrath of those few left with farms in an area that now has:
 
1. Pombo farms, owned either by his family or friends.
 
2. Housing/development.
 
3. Parks -- virtually all the former farms (read, competition) have been swallowed by Parks.
 
So, suspicions and not gratitude swirling 'round Pombo are not only justified, they are valid.
 
An elected official can champion property rights -- so long as they are his and his family's/friends' and not care about those of others. He is likable and disarming, but so are many people involved in implementing The Wildlands Project.
 
I did not sign the ESA letter because I did not agree with it, especially the part about reform.
 
I composed my own and sent it.
 
I cannot, and will not, support this bill http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/issues/more/esa/TESRA/hr3824.pdf because it is still reauthorizing the ESA, albeit in a slightly different form. Now there is copious language that mentions:
 
Endangered species (73 times)
 
Threatened species (72 times)
 
Candidate species (20 times)
 
Monitor species (2 times)
 
The Plan (10 times)
 
and if all that doesn't raise any Red Flags -- are any of you wondering how powerful a control tool "candidate species" are? -- the Secretary (that is the Secretary of the Department of Interior, and APPOINTED, not elected, position -- anyone remember Bruce Babbitt and all the swaths of "critical Babbittat" and "national monuments"? not to mention the "current Secretary" and her global "4 C's" program, which is NOT GOOD FOR PEOPLE) is mentioned a hefty 136 times!
 
Anything with as much "bipartisan support" as this and being shoved at us for "instant support" must held be suspect.
 
Dissect this bill, strictly in terms of Language Deception, and then look at it and see how much is left that is beneficial to private property.
 
I have, and it's not much.
 
For many months I have heard much about repeal versus "reform and strengthen" when referring to this legalese.
 
What has happened to those who were so stridently in favor of repeal?
 
Now many of them are caving in and suggesting that we should "try to find things we can live with."
 
Hey, folks! We were told in 1999 that no one could -- and no one ever had -- defeated USFWS when it decided to "study" for a proposed "wildlife refuge."
 
Guess what? We don't have one here, and we didn't use the recommended "hire an attorney" route. We did what was heretofore unthinkable: we relied on getting our story -- the truth about us -- out and the power of public outcry.
 
With FOX NEWS doing "Vanishing Freedom: Who Owns America" -- a four-segment one-hour story similar to 60 Minutes and featuring the Darby as one segment, we got support from all over America and Canada. We won!
 
Now we're being told that "we" "can't" repeal this property rights and resource provider decimating Medusa.
 
Where are the backbones? We need them NOW!
 
We CAN -- and we MUST -- repeal this!