Many Facets of The Endangered Species Act (updated version 09-13-05)
version published in May 2002
Julie Kay Smithson email@example.com
While we are familiar with the enforcement of the ESA in America, the Act and its enforcement have expanded to include species found anywhere on the planet. By specific exclusion as a species, human populations have become victims of the ESA.
International Agreements and the Origins of the ESA
Congress passed the
Endangered Species Preservation Act (ESPA) in 1966. This law allowed
listing of only native animal species as endangered and provided
limited means for the protection of species so listed. The Departments
of Interior, Agriculture, and Defense were to seek to protect listed
species, and insofar as consistent with their primary purposes,
preserve (protect) the habitats of such species. Land
acquisition for protection of endangered species was also authorized.
Species Conservation Act of 1969 (ESCA) was passed to provide
additional protection to species in danger of "worldwide
extinction". Import of such species was prohibited, as was their
subsequent sale within the U.S. This Act called for an international
ministerial meeting to adopt a convention on the conservation of
A 1973 United Nations
conference in Washington D.C. led to the signing of the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
(CITES), which restricted international commerce in plant and animal
species believed to be actually or potentially harmed by trade.
Later that year, the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) was passed, which combined and considerably strengthened the provisions of its predecessors.
The ESA is arguably one of the most recognized acronyms in rural America. First written in 1973 using its current title, it has undergone numerous revisions. This "law of the land" contains more facets than the Hope Diamond and may have its purported curse as well. Mere mention of a landowner having "possible habitat" for a protected, threatened, or endangered species wreaks immediate havoc, both emotionally and economically.
The ESA was amended
in 1976-1982, 1984 and 1988, and actually expired in the early 1990s,
but has been kept alive through Congressional funding on an annual
The United States' international commitment of America's resources under treaties and "other international agreements" has its roots in 16 U.S.C. 1351. An Executive "international agreement" is not ratified by the Senate.
The ESA began with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918* between the United States, Great Britain and Canada. This treaty usurped powers reserved to the States. The Migratory Bird Treaty has even been expanded several times.
Some treaties, such as the Western Hemisphere Treaty (Treaty of Tordesillas), have no enforcement clause and are merely good faith treaties that impose no obligation or burden upon anyone.
U.S. v. Pink 315 US 203 (1942), which used treaties to undermine constitutional safeguards, should raise significant, related issues.
If international matters are raised and held to, the matter of which treaty or International Agreement is being applied, comes into play. Legal arguments can and should arise from the implementation and enforcement of the ESA against private property owners.
The Ute Mountain Ute Nation did an excellent job of challenging and defeating the ESA. The Ute Mountain Ute Nation did not sign any of treaties or international agreements -- thus, the ESA does not apply to their lands in the southwest quarter of Colorado.
Many definitions contained in the ESA come directly from UN and IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature) glossaries, including but not limited to CITES definitions.
A few definitions
from the ESA are necessary in order to understand the complexities of
the Act itself:
The ESA definition of an endangered species is "Any species which is in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
''conserve'', ''conserving'', and ''conservation'' mean to use and the
use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any
endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the
measures provided pursuant to this chapter are no longer necessary.
Such methods and procedures include, but are not limited to, all
activities associated with scientific resources management such as
research, census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and
maintenance, propagation, live trapping, and transplantation, and, in
the extraordinary case where population pressures within a given
ecosystem cannot be otherwise relieved, may include regulated taking.
The term ''critical
habitat'' for a threatened or endangered species means -
(i) The specific
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the
time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of section 1533 of
this title, on which are found those physical or biological features
(I) Essential to the
conservation of the species and
(II) Which may
require special management considerations or protection; and
(ii) Specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it
is listed in accordance with the provisions of section 1533 of this
title, upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are
essential for the conservation of the species.
"threatened" classification is provided to those animals and
plants likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of their ranges [Section 3].
includes any species or subspecies of fish, wildlife, or plant; any
variety of plant; and any distinct population segment of any
vertebrate species that interbreeds when mature. Excluded is any
species of the Class Insecta determined by the Secretary to constitute
a pest whose protection under the provisions of the Act would present
an overwhelming and overriding risk to man [Section 3].
The term ''fish or
wildlife'' means any member of the animal kingdom, including without
limitation any mammal, fish, bird (including any migratory,
nonmigratory, or endangered bird for which protection is also afforded
by treaty or other international agreement), amphibian, reptile,
mollusk, crustacean, arthropod or other invertebrate, and includes any
part, product, egg, or offspring thereof, or the dead body or parts
thereof. ["any mammal" could this be expanded to include
The term ''take''
means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.
[This definition is especially meaningful from the context of those
human species who have been "harassed, harmed, pursued, wounded,
etc." by the implementation of the ESA.]
While we are familiar
with the enforcement of the ESA in America, the Act and its
enforcement have expanded to include species found anywhere on the
planet. By specific exclusion as a species, human populations have
become victims of the ESA.
The full 49-page text of the Act may be found at http://www.house.gov/resources/105cong/reports/105_c/esa73_pdf
The listing process
was originally planned to protect both species and their habitat. U.S.
and foreign species lists were combined, with uniform provisions
applied to both (Section 4).
"endangered" and "threatened" were defined
prohibitions were applied to all endangered animal species, which
could apply to threatened animals by special regulation [Section 9].
provided to acquire land for listed animals and for plants listed
under CITES [Section 5]; and U.S. implementation of CITES was provided
All Federal agencies
were required to undertake programs for the conservation of endangered
and threatened species, and were prohibited from authorizing, funding,
or carrying out any action that would jeopardize a listed species or
destroy or modify its "critical habitat" [Section 7].
amendments were enacted in 1978, 1982, and 1988 although the overall
framework of the 1973 Act remained basically unchanged.
As with most other Federal regulations, a species is proposed for addition to the lists (50 CFR Part 17) in the Federal Register. The public is offered an opportunity to comment, and the rule is finalized (or withdrawn). Species are selected by the United States Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) for proposed rules from a list of 'candidates.'
To become a candidate, FWS relies largely upon petitions, FWS and other agencies' surveys, and other substantiated reports on field studies.
The Act provides very
specific procedures on how species are to be placed on the list (e.g.,
listing criteria, public comment periods, hearings, notifications,
time limit for final action) and may be found at 50 CFR Part 424.
Selection from the list of candidates for a proposed rule is based
upon a priority system (September 23, 1983, Federal Register).
Species may be active
candidates from a number of sources. FWS has its own biologists who
are monitoring the status of some species. Other agencies [The Nature
Conservancy, The Center for Biological Diversity -- formerly known as
the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity -- and others] have
similar staffs that can report when a species seems to be at some risk
to its continued existence. Informal letters and various reports are
also submitted to FWS from the States and private groups and
individuals. There is also a formal petition process available under
Anyone can petition
to have any species -- as defined in the ESA -- listed.
In the years since
its inception, this process has expanded to include "possible
habitat?" and has often used the "critical habitat"
designation to halt human use of large blocks of land. In a 1998 memo,
Donna Darm, the acting regional administrator of the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS / NOAA agency) wrote: "When we
make critical habitat designations, we just designate everything as
critical without analysis of how much habitat a (population) needs,
what areas might be key, etc. We just say we need it all."
"This has been
our assumption of their attitude all along," said Chuck Garner,
manager of the Kennewick Irrigation District in the mid-Columbia Basin
of Washington State. He gave district directors copies of the comments
at a board meeting. "They just go in without showing any
scientific evidence of what habitat is critical; they just list
everything," Garner said.
Some species have
been "emergency listed" in order to stop road improvements.
For example, the bull trout near South Canyon Road at Jarbidge,
Nevada, was the "sacrificial lamb" used to close the only
road for miles in a remote part of northeast Nevada. The bull trout
was "emergency listed" for this reason alone: to close a
road. Concerned citizens reopened the road on the fourth of July in
2000 in the face of threats of lawsuits and jail time.
Plant species are the
special province of the Smithsonian Institution, as directed by the
Secretary of Agriculture. The Smithsonian is to review plant species
that are or may become threatened or endangered, and recommend methods
adequate to conserve the species.
Much of what has
given the ESA its "black eye" with those impacted by it is
the methodology involved.
policy surrounding this law is often seen to pit one species against
others, or speciesism.
Lake Koocanusa is in
northwestern Montana and straddles the American-Canadian border. A
manmade lake built in the 1970s by the Army Corps of Engineers,
Koocanusa was promoted to increase fishing and tourism. A
"protected species" of salmon listed in 1992 has put another
protected species, the White Sturgeon, at risk.
The United States
Fish & Wildlife Service working with the National Marine Fisheries
Service, is conducting a "50-year experiment," using the
lake levels to discover if decreased lake levels in the spring will
help the salmon in the Columbia River, 800 miles downstream. This
effectively puts the spawning grounds of the sturgeon in eminent
danger by reducing lake levels at a time when the sturgeon most needs
higher levels. This is a prime, but far from isolated,
example of the Endangered Species Act violating the Endangered
In other highly
publicized stories, lynx fur and grizzly bear hair have been used to
falsify the boundaries of "critical habitat" for both
species, leading to the question: How many other "science-based
statistics" have been invented in order to "create"
Species Act has been selectively used to protect species other than
human and domestic. Many rural producers are descendants of war
veterans who settled and improved their lands after government
promises of land and water. Indeed, many veterans had deeds -- signed
by various U.S. presidents -- granting them and their "heirs and
assigns" land and water rights in perpetuity.
As prospects for
rural economic survival dwindle, a federal government or environmental
group buyout is touted as the only alternative. Resource providing and
resource extraction -- farming, ranching, logging, mining, and
commercial fishing -- are presented to the general public as
hurtful "to the environment" and obsolete careers. Tourism
and recreation are promoted as being better for all concerned.
Left out of the
equation are the facts: people, like any other species, need food and
shelter for survival. In order to have both, resource providing and
extraction must continue. Sending both to other countries does not
bode well for their economies or their environment.
there's no such thing as RURAL/CULTURAL terrorism?
A 2000 ESA hearing, sponsored
by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, actively
excluded testimony from landowners that
have seen their property values reduced or completely negated by
Victim stories are
legend. Thousands -- perhaps tens of thousands of families and
businesses -- have been forced to relocate and/or go out of
business due to this single statute. Here are but a few:
Fisher, third generation cattle rancher and owner of the Shield
"F" Ranch near Barstow, California
Dave Fisher has
become both the endangered species and the victim. His story is the
tip of the iceberg, as there are 1,400 ranch families who fell victim
to the ESA along with him.
In late 2001 the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) sent Dave a notice that if his 307
head of cattle were not removed from the 154,848-acre Ord Mountain
allotment in the California Desert within 5 days, they would be
impounded by the BLM. The BLM declared its lands and those under
private ownership in the affected area to be "critical
habitat" for the desert tortoise. It did not notify the 1,400
affected families in the area of its intent until after the ink was
Dave and his
neighbors tried to cooperate with the BLM. They appealed the original
BLM May 15, 2001 decision to the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA)
and won. That original decision was remanded back to the BLM because
it had failed to consult, cooperate and coordinate (CCC) with the
permittees as required by Section 8 of the Public Rangelands
Improvement Act and as required by the BLM's own regulations.
Dozens of appeals
were filed, protesting the BLM's September 7, 2001, decision.
The BLM did
not respond to even one of those appeals.
The desert tortoise
"protections" arose from a negotiated California Desert
Conservation Area (CDCA) lawsuit settlement between the BLM, The
Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), Public Employees for
Environmental Responsibility (PEER) and the Sierra Club. This
agreement empowered the BLM to partially implement the U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service's 1994 Desert Tortoise Recovery Plan recommendations
for livestock reduction and removal from critical habitat. Proven help
for the desert tortoise from cattle droppings (providing moisture and
shade) were not factors included in this decision. Dave suggested to
the California state BLM director that the director exchange Fisher's
ranch for another ranch. That offered solution was never acted upon.
Ironically, it was rancher stewardship of the land that attracted the desert tortoise in the first place.
Not until the Fisher
family drilled water wells on its own land did the desert tortoise
became prevalent in the California Desert Conservation Area. The
tortoise, in moving into a new habitat provided by ranchers grazing
cattle, attracted the attention of the environmental groups. It was
used it to pressure federal officials to push Fisher and his 1,400
ranching neighbors off the land.
This is an example of
ranchers who stayed within the system, cooperated fully with all
agencies involved and still -- without court order or decision --
became its victims. Threats of lawsuits against the Department of
Interior (DOI) by three powerful environmental groups seem to
have provided the directives for DOI/BLM actions.
Cragg, Florida builder
In 1992, Anita Cragg,
president of Space Coast Management Services, bought a housing
subdivision in Country Cove, Florida with the goal of building new
homes next to existing ones. She had the necessary building permits
and interested buyers lined up when FWS ordered her to stop all
development because it allegedly posed a hazard to the Florida
scrub-jay, a bird which is listed as threatened under the Endangered
What Cragg didn't
understand was how her planned development threatened the scrub jay
when there were no scrub-jay nests on the property.
Both the FWS and an
independent environmental engineer hired by Cragg could not find any
nests on her land.
However, when FWS
officials were surveying her land in 1993, they saw two scrub jays fly
onto her lots. Because Cragg's property had the potential to be
suitable scrub-jay habitat, the agency suspended construction for 18
To get construction
resumed, FWS forced Cragg to purchase four acres of land off-site to
compensate for the loss of every acre of potential habitat on her
property. That cost her $100,000. Cragg says her deal with the
government "didn't really help the scrub-jay because we weren't
hurting it in the first place."
Sovereign Nation's border
The U.S. Border
Patrol's aggressive efforts to stem illegal immigration and cut crime
along the Texas-Mexican border have been a resounding success. In just
two years, Operation Rio Grande, the agency's high-tech interdiction
effort, cut the number of illegal aliens attempting to cross the
border from 216,000 in 1996 to less than 160,000 in 1999 along a
200-mile stretch of the Rio Grande River. If it weren't for the
operation, Border Patrol officials estimate that there would have been
350,000 illegal aliens attempting to cross the border in 1999. In
addition, in just one year, crime in Brownsville dropped 45 percent.
"environmentalists" have their way, all these gains will be
The Sierra Club,
Defenders of Wildlife and the Audubon Society plan to file a lawsuit
to put a halt to the Border Patrol's use of critical interdiction
technology, which the groups claim pose a "threat" to
"endangered species." These groups argue that the agency's
use of high-powered lights, which prevent border crossings under the
cover of night, also disrupts the habits of the ocelot and jaguarondi,
two nocturnal-oriented wildcats on the endangered species list.
"We feel the
Immigration and Naturalization Service can accomplish its job without
the floodlight and fences and with far less intrusive technologies
that have no impact on wildlife," says Jim Chapman of the Sierra
Not so, Border Patrol. Border Patrol assistant chief Rey Garza says. "Taking away the lights will negate everything."
The Rio Grande River is pitch-black, making it an obvious haven for illegal aliens and drug criminals. Garza says that Border Patrol officers have been stabbed and shot trying to do their job on its murky banks.
permanent and mobile light fixtures along targeted sections of the
river, the Border Patrol's ability to catch criminals and illegal
aliens has increased dramatically. Says officer Garza, "The
lights have proven to be a powerful deterrent."
environmentalists' planned lawsuit especially frustrates Border Patrol
officials. They had already agreed to not place their high-tech
equipment in U.S. Fish and Wildlife sanctuaries in an attempt to
address environmental concerns -- even though those sanctuaries have
become refuges for illegal aliens.
Monfort, New York businessman with 300-year family history
Jay Monfort of
Fishkill, New York, began the permitting process in 1990 of trying to
expand a gravel mine on his own land. Jay owns a company that
manufactures concrete block. He also owns property that could largely
supply the gravel needed for his business. Fishkill, New York judged
Jay to be in compliance with its zoning regulations and approved the
expansion of his Sour Mountain gravel company.
After filing his
permit application with the state Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) Jay became ensnared in a process that continues
today. His Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was rejected as
"incomplete" in April 1993, almost six months after the
state was required by law to issue its opinion. After resubmitting his
EIS, the DEC finally approved it in 1995.
Then the DEC, in
collusion with local environmental groups, devised new and costly
reasons to further delay the project. At what should have been the end
of the process, Jay was told that he would have to start over again
because a den of rattlesnakes had been "discovered" on an
adjoining property owned by -- surprise! -- a conservation
group. The protected species of snakes were not even on Mr. Monfort's
property, and his previous EISs had already addressed potential
impacts on the snakes by his mine.
The DEC informed Jay
that he would have to spend several additional years studying the
snakes before a decision could be rendered on his proposed mine
"The motivation for such abusive tactics appears to be a desire
of the state" and the local conservation group, Scenic Hudson, to
acquire his property for a land trust.
Jay has not given up.
In January 1998 he filed a lawsuit demanding that the state issue a
final decision based on his original permit application. The permit
process alone has cost him more than $3 million.
better way to protect wildlife
"management" of both endangered species and other wildlife
has led to a delicate balancing act. A major reason for this,
according to Howard Hutchinson, executive director for the Coalition
of Arizona/New Mexico Counties, is that critical-habitat designations
for endangered species are often determined by "citizen"
lawsuits rather than being formulated by people who understand the
needs of the species. As a result, he says that decisions are
made by Justice Department lawyers based on agreements reflecting
Hutchinson cites an
example. As the result of a much-publicized "citizen" ESA
lawsuit filed by some of the same environmental groups involved in the
Klamath Basin crisis, protection of the Mexican spotted owl virtually
eliminated the timber industry in Arizona and New Mexico several years
serves on the spotted-owl recovery team, says the "resulting
growth of underbrush in the forests has not only led to this summer's
devastating wildfires, but has also had a negative effect on several
other species that have been declared endangered." And, says
Hutchinson, research has shown that because of the increase in timber
density the forests are retaining more water, thus decreasing the
amount of water in Southwestern streams by 30 percent. As a result, he
says, the Gila trout, Apache trout, spiked ace and loach minnow -- all
of which live in the streams and also were subjects of
"citizen" ESA lawsuits -- are suffering.
Even more bizarre
than this pitting of one species against another, say critics, is the
pitting of a species against itself. This is happening in the case of
the Coho salmon, one of the allegedly threatened fish that was the
subject of several of the lawsuits that forced the government to turn
off the irrigation water in the Klamath Basin.
According to the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS / NOAA agency) the
government agency that administers the ESA for marine and anadromous
(fish that migrate from the ocean to freshwater to spawn) species, the
salmon being protected in the Klamath River do not constitute a
species as properly defined. The NMFS says they are just one of 52
"distinct population segments" -- DPSs -- or "
evolutionarily significant units" (ESU) of salmon that are found
in Oregon, Washington state, Idaho and California. But one-half of the
52 ESUs are protected under the ESA. The Klamath River fish belong to
an ESU called the Southern Oregon/ Northern California Coasts Coho
salmon. It was listed as threatened under the ESA in 1997.
So what distinguishes
one ESU of salmon from another? A genetic difference? No. A difference
in the taste of the fillet on the dining-room table? Not even that.
According to a regulation promulgated in 1996 by Bruce Babbitt,
Clinton's secretary of the interior, a group of vertebrates qualifies
as an ESU if it "is markedly separated from other populations of
the same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological
or behavioral factors."
According to NMFS spokesman Brian Gorman, geography is the primary distinguishing factor.
Gorman says the
hatchery fish were not counted because, although they have been
released into rivers for at least 100 years, NMFS biologists recently
have concluded that the hatchery fish have different
"behaviors" and actually are a threat to the
"wild" fish. He claims the hatchery fish "diminish the
vigor" of the wild fish and make them easier for fishermen to
catch. He also says hatchery salmon reproduce less successfully in the
wild than "wild" salmon.
In 1998, Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife personnel were videotaped using
baseball bats to kill thousands of Oregon coastal Coho salmon at a
hatchery in the Alsea River basin. "There is a rationale for
killing the salmon," says Gorman. "Each hatchery can only
handle so many fish, so when the hatchery's capacity is reached, the
excess fish must be killed."
A similar parallel
could be drawn between bovine excreta and that of wild elk or
antelope. The head of the Tucson, Arizona-based Center for Biological
Diversity, Kieran Suckling, rages about domestic cattle defecating in
streams -- yet patently refuses to acknowledge that all wild
animals produce and drop scat on land and in streams.
Wildlife has been
existing, mostly in harmony, with private citizens for many years. The
partnership has benefited both: deer and many other avian and animal
species forage on the edges of land planted in grain. Species that are
of different successions -- early, mid and late -- are needed by
wildlife in order to flourish. Driving a species such as the American
Bison almost to extinction was a profound learning experience. The
passenger pigeon's demise was another. The twentieth century found
stewardship and land/water use progressing wisely in private hands.
It is certainly
possible for most species to have "possible habitat" in many
areas where they are not found. That theory holds true for both
endangered and healthy populations of humans, flora and fauna. The
ability to adapt -- stronger in some species than in others --
has perhaps encouraged diversity more than hindered it, since it
dictates progression or extinction.
educational process that humans are undergoing to better care for and
harvest renewable resources -- including timber, sustainable
harvest of game birds and animals as well as domestic -- points
the way toward a far different scenario than environmental extremists
have painted. Freedom of choice made possible by private ownership is
a viable alternative to today's ESA restrictions. Truly free
enterprise offers healthy, threatened and endangered species ways to
partner, which over-regulation and the locking up of millions of
acres can never accomplish.
the future of the ESA
organizations and unelected bureaucrats are using the ESA as a
leverage tool to end resource providing in America. This arbitrary and
capricious agenda is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If all grazing
permits are purchased by such as the Nature Conservancy -- thus ending
grazing on all Federally owned lands -- families will feel the loss in
their pocketbooks and on their dinner tables. A much larger percentage
of disposable income will go for food as prices go up and availability
With the remainder of
arable land and its water resources being placed off-limits to
resource production and extraction -- and human habitation --
food and water will soon achieve a place in the American psyche that
they have not held for two hundred years. The standard of living that
we take for granted will evaporate.
Protection of some
species at the expense of others is an artificial scenario, neither
practicable nor scientific. Past precedent shows beyond reasonable
doubt that the future of the ESA as currently structured and enforced
This Act is a
property rights destroying monster. It has wreaked havoc
throughout America and beyond, and cannot honestly claim even one
"success story." What the Endangered Species Act can claim
is the demise of thousands of rural communities and billions of
taxpayer dollars. It can claim many shattered lives, whether through
the stoppage of logging, farming, mining, ranching, or commercial
fishing in many areas, or the many recreational pursuits (including
hunting and fishing) that have been placed off-limits. It has been the
secondary reason for many destroyed families -- through stress,
divorce, suicide, ruined health or nerves, and even early
death. Rural and urban people alike must put this law where it
belongs: in the wastebasket. Not only has the ESA failed species
miserably; it has also failed the American people.
As an economic and
cultural change agent, it has no parallel.
Landowners who once
provided abundant species habitat have been and are being forced off
their land in record numbers. One need look no further than the
Klamath Basin of Oregon and California for proof. Property values are
gutted, families are wrecked, and once-thriving communities are turned
into rural ghettos. Species have not recovered anywhere. The ESA has
failed to "protect" any species, and has, in fact, been
a substantial contributing factor to actually making some species
become endangered that once enjoyed healthy populations.
There is currently a move afoot to "reform" and "strengthen" the ESA -- even to the point of codifying "invasive species" by inclusion of language.
Current ESA draft "reform" legislation even dovetails a version of Kelo v. New London, Connecticut, by use of a "50 percent clause" -- more than half of one's property must be removed from use before any compensation is considered or applicable.
How many people are content with losing half their property rights before any property compensation even comes into play?
Far from needing
reform or strengthening -- either of which further decimates property
rights -- this expired 'piece of work' that has Draconian and unconstitutional
roots must be uprooted and finished off, to never again make victims
of honest folk.
Julie Kay Smithson lives in rural Ohio. She has become a property rights researcher, author and speaker by default, due to the assault on prime farmland in her part of Ohio by an agency of the Department of Interior, United States Fish & Wildlife Service. Please visit http://www.PropertyRightsResearch.org to learn more about property rights, resource providers, consumers, and recapturing freedom.
Thanks to the National Center for Public Policy Research for its Victim Directories, which were of priceless help in the writing of this article. http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/2005/articles05/victimsdirectoriesfrms.htm