To Sign or Not to Sign November 20

To Sign or Not to Sign

November 20, 2005

By Julie Kay Smithson

propertyrights@earthlink.net

I have been asked by a friend the question: "... does Propertyrightsresearch.org endorse this?" -- "this" being the "ESA Coalition Letter being circulated by Ryan Balis for David Ridenour and Peyton Knight of the National Center for Public Policy Research http://www.nationalcenter.org (see the very bottom of this message for the NCPPR letter).

My answer:

I am "PropertyRightsResearch.org" -- and absolutely NOT. No endorsement, period.

This is not written lightly and was not arrived at without a great deal of thoughtful study and much reading. I ask that you consider it in that context.

The "Endangered" Species Act does not take private property for "public use" -- it has, is and any future forms of it WILL TAKE private property -- but for what? What percentage of the private property that has been taken under the current "Endangered" Species Act is available to the public?

When did "species recovery" become a "public use" and a reason for a taking -- whether that taking is compensated or not? Ask yourself: How much MORE LAND will become "needed" for "public use" to fulfill the directives of this Medusa, in ANY form

It does not take rocket science to know that it is a very small percentage. "Public use" is bandied about as a way to get people to accept the theft of their freedom. How many CLOSED signs do you see on federal lands that masquerade as "public" lands? If a lot more people don't stand up and demand nothing short of Total REPEAL of the "Endangered" Species Act, the company manufacturing those CLOSED signs is going to be making many, many more of them.

Complete repeal of the ESA is my goal; any capitulation is treason. Lest you think my words are too strong, consider, please, the Definition of Treason, taken directly from Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, Merriam Webster, 1988:

From the Latin for the 'act of handing over;' betrayed. 1. the betrayal of a trust: TREACHERY. 2. the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or his family.

I do not, have not and will NOT endorse ANYTHING that falls short of Total REPEAL of the "Endangered" Species Act.

There is no compromise here at PropertyRightsResearch.org -- and no conned senses, either.

Note that the bill's number (the House version was H.R. 3824) is not provided, nor any quotes from its text, just the recommendations of one organization seeking signatures on a "ESA Coalition" letter.

Something's being offered here, all right, but it looks to me like tasty Language Deception bait wrapped around a huge hook. That hook steals freedom, i.e., property rights.

Totally REPEAL the "Endangered" Species Act and regain the sanity that's been gone from Congress since the precursor to the "Endangered" Species Act -- the Endangered Species Preservation Act -- in 1966.

Arguments can be made on the "original intent" of these acts, but the fact remains that human resource-providing species are the ones that have been made endangered and rurally "cleansed" from the United States of America.

Go here: http://thomas.loc.gov/ put H.R. 3824 in the "Search Bill Text" box and put the dot in the Bill Number circle. Your results are time limited and will time out and you'll have to go back to Square One and repeat the process to study these in depth -- or you can print them or copy/paste them into a Word Document for comparison study.

The devil is in the details, and it is difficult to imagine that David Ridenour and others at the National Center for Public Policy Research have not read the details and seen the devil that lurks there.

For the sake of simplicity, let's do nothing but analyze the Definitions.

Definitions are, after all, all-important when an appointed official at such a high governmental level has the authority to interpret such Definitions.

You can analyze the entire bill text, but the Definitions alone make the bill BAD NEWS to most people.

I say most, because those in the stratosphere of government and private sector remain insulated from such regulations by virtue of another set of standards than the "general public."

There are 4 versions of Bill Number H.R.3824 for the 109th Congress (Note: Version 4 -- especially Sec. 3 Definitions -- is the one of most interest, since it is the version referred to Senate Committee. It will be confusing and you'll have to go back to Versions 1, 2 and 3, Sec. 3 Definitions to see what has been done, but the bolding below should prove just how bad the definitions alone really are. Dave Foreman can hand the Sec'y. of the Interior something he calls "scientific data" and the Sec'y. can determine his "scientific data" to be "the most accurate, reliable, and relevant..." -- consider the possibilities here. They are UGLY.)

1 . Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005 (Introduced in House) [H.R.3824.IH]
2 . Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005 (Reported in House) [H.R.3824.RH]
3 . Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House) [H.R.3824.EH]
4 . Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005 (Referred to Senate Committee after being Received from House) [H.R.3824.RFS]
In Version 4, here's Sec. 3 Definitions:

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

(a) Best Available Scientific Data- Section 3 (16 U.S.C. 1532) is amended by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (21) in order as paragraphs (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (13), (14), (15), (16), (17), (18), (19), (20), (21), and (22), respectively, and by inserting before paragraph (3), as so redesignated, the following:

`(2)(A) The term `best available scientific data' means scientific data, regardless of source, that are available to the Secretary at the time of a decision or action for which such data are required by this Act and that the Secretary determines are the most accurate, reliable, and relevant for use in that decision or action.

`(B) Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005, the Secretary shall issue regulations that establish criteria that must be met to determine which data constitute the best available scientific data for purposes of subparagraph (A).

`(C) In carrying out subparagraph (B), the Secretary shall undertake necessary measures to assure--

`(i) compliance with guidance issued under section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 2001 (Public Law 106-554; 114 Stat. 2763A-171) by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the Secretary;

`(ii) data consists of empirical data; or

`(iii) data is found in sources that have been subject to peer review by qualified individuals recommended by the National Academy of Sciences to serve as independent reviewers for a covered action in a generally acceptable manner.'.

(b) Permit or License Applicant- Section 3 (16 U.S.C. 1532) is further amended by amending paragraph (13), as so redesignated, to read as follows:

`(13) The term `permit or license applicant' means, when used with respect to an action of a Federal agency that is subject to section 7(a) or (b), any person that has applied to such agency for a permit or license or for formal legal approval to perform an act.'.

(c) Conforming Amendment- Section 7(n) (16 U.S.C. 1536(n)) is amended by striking `section 3(13)' and inserting `section 3(14)'.

(d) Conforming Amendment- Section 3 (16 U.S.C. 1532) is further amended in paragraph (18), as redesignated by subsection (a) of this section, by striking `Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands' and inserting `Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands'.

Here's Version One, Sec. 3 Definitions:

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

(a) Best Available Scientific Data- Section 3 (16 U.S.C. 1532) is amended by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (21) in order as paragraphs (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (13), (14), (15), (16), (17), (18), (19), (20), (21), and (22), respectively, and by inserting before paragraph (3), as so redesignated, the following:

`(2)(A) The term `best available scientific data' means scientific data, regardless of source, that are available to the Secretary at the time of a decision or action for which such data are required by this Act and that the Secretary determines are the most accurate, reliable, and relevant for use in that decision or action.

`(B) Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005, the Secretary shall issue regulations that establish criteria that must be met to determine which data constitute the best available scientific data for purposes of subparagraph (A).

`(C) In carrying out subparagraph (B), the Secretary shall undertake necessary measures to assure--

`(i) compliance with guidance issued under section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 2001 (Public Law 106-554; 114 Stat. 2763A-171) by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the Secretary;

`(ii) data consists of empirical data; or

`(iii) data is found in sources that have been subject to peer review by qualified individuals recommended by the National Academy of Sciences to serve as independent reviewers for a covered action in a generally acceptable manner.'.

(b) Permit or License Applicant- Section 3 (16 U.S.C. 1532) is further amended by amending paragraph (13), as so redesignated, to read as follows:

`(13) The term `permit or license applicant' means, when used with respect to an action of a Federal agency that is subject to section 7(a) or (b), any person that has applied to such agency for a permit or license or for formal legal approval to perform an act.'.

(c) Conforming Amendment- Section 7(n) (16 U.S.C. 1536(n)) is amended by striking `section 3(13)' and inserting `section 3(14)'.

(d) Conforming Amendment- Section 3 (16 U.S.C. 1532) is further amended in paragraph (18), as redesignated by subsection (a) of this section, by striking `Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands' and inserting `Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands'.

This is likely a much longer answer than you requested, but I must give you the reasons for my answer. Now you have them. It is my most fervent hope that these reasons will underpin your resolve that the only version of the "Endangered" Species Act that must come from all this is the FULLY REPEALED version: nothing less.

Sincerely,

Julie Kay Smithson

PropertyRightsResearch.org

propertyrights@earthlink.net

http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/articles6/many_facets_of_the_endangered_sp.htm

----- Original Message -----
From: Ryan Balis
To: Ryan Balis
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 12:59 PM
Subject: ESA Coalition Letter -- Please Sign

As you may know, the Senate could soon consider Endangered Species Act reform legislation.

In September, the House of Representatives passed ESA legislation that would, if passed by the Senate and signed by the President, offer significant new property rights protections under the ESA.

Below is a coalition letter that we're planning to send Senators. It explains why private property rights are vital to workable ESA reform.

I hope you will sign it, and by doing so, help restore Americans’ constitutional right to private property.

Please let Peyton Knight of my staff know that you wish to sign on by emailing him at pknight@nationalcenter.org or faxing to (202) 543-5975.

If you have any questions, please call (202) 543-4110 and ask to speak to Peyton.

Thank you very much for your kind consideration.

In freedom,

David Ridenour
Vice President
The National Center for Public Policy Research

November XX, 2005

Dear Senator:

The U.S. Supreme Court’s contentious decision in Kelo v. New London has brought the need to protect private property rights to the forefront of America’s civic debate. Citizens from coast-to-coast recognize the vital importance of being secure in the ownership and use of their homes, small businesses and family farms.

As you and your colleagues consider proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act, we hope you do so with a clear understanding of the crucial role that secure property rights plays in saving threatened and endangered species.

As you know, the ESA has failed miserably in its stated purpose: Recovering threatened and endangered species. In the three-decade history of the Act, less than one percent of the species listed as either endangered or threatened have recovered.

Failure comes at a steep price under the ESA. Not only have species populations suffered, but the Act has cost billions of dollars and deprived landowners of the use of their land and, often, their savings.

The Endangered Species Act has failed not because it isn't strong enough, expansive enough, or funded enough, but because its incentives are wrong.
Today, private landowners live in fear of the ESA. Those who harbor endangered species on their property or merely own land suitable for such species can find themselves subject to severe land use restrictions. To avoid such restrictions and the losses in property values that accompany them, many decide to preemptively "sterilize" their land to keep rare species away. Such preemptive sterilizations benefit no one – least of all the species the ESA was established to protect.

By one estimate, up to 90% of all endangered species’ habitat is found on private property. As such, punishing landowners for good stewardship can have extremely negative consequences for endangered and threatened species.

This perverse, anti-wildlife, incentive within the ESA would be all-but-eliminated if the ESA is brought in line with the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states that private property should not be taken for public use without just compensation. Property owners who have their property taken or who are denied the productive use of it due to federal species recovery efforts deserve 100 percent of fair market value in compensation for losses. If property owners receive this compensation, and are secure in their belief that they can be good environmental stewards without risking (at-times ruinous) financial losses, species will benefit.

Also, as a matter of simple fairness, law-abiding American landowners should be able to learn, within a reasonable time, whether a proposed use of their property would run afoul of the Endangered Species Act. Under the current ESA, after landowners apply to the Department of Interior for permission to use their property, they can be forced to wait years for a response – years during which they often are unable to use land they legally own, and on which they pay taxes.

This injustice could be prevented by establishing a time limit within which the Department of Interior must issue final decisions.

Secure property rights are a fundamental cornerstone of our liberty and are integral to our nation’s prosperity. Happily – if we as a nation would just recognize it – if we honor these fundamental rights in the ESA, endangered species will benefit.

So that it will work better for wildlife and people, the Endangered Species Act should be reformed to respect the Constitution. We urge you to keep this in mind as you begin your important work.

Sincerely,
XXX