|
Endangered Species Hit List (Note: This list of almost three dozen victim stories is part of the ESA article authored by Julie Kay Smithson that is archived at both www.PropertyRightsResearch.org and at www.AshevilleTribune.com Farmer Fined for Shooting Non-Native Wolf That Threatened Livestock North Carolina farmer Richard Mann thought he was shooting a large dog that was threatening his cattle. But when he came back the next day to bury the animal, he was confronted by federal wildlife officials who charged him with killing a red wolf - a federally protected species. Mann was fined $2,000 and required to perform community service by building "wolf houses" and feeding the wolves. Afterwards, he filed suit against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) claiming that the federal government had no constitutional authority to prevent residents from protecting themselves and their property. The red wolf, which is not even native to the state, was introduced by the FWS to the area in 1984 as part of an experiment to see how well the animals adapt to the environment. There is considerable scientific debate about whether the red wolf is a distinct "species" that merits special protection. In fact, many wildlife experts believe that it is a cross between a gray wolf and a coyote. Whatever the red wolf is, federal officials assured farmers that the wolves would stay in the boundaries of the wildlife refuge and if by some chance the wolves would wander, the government would retrieve them. But just in case, the North Carolina legislature passed a law specifically allowing residents to kill the red wolves if they believed the animals posed a threat to their lives or livestock. Mann claims the state law allowed him to shoot the animal. Federal lawyers argue that FWS regulations protecting red wolves take precedence over the state's legislation protecting landowners. The Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is considering whether the federal government has the constitutional right to override state and local laws protecting property owners. Source: Pacific Legal Foundation Fish and Wildlife Service and CNN Conspire to Deny Elderly Couple Their Rights In 1993, ten vehicles of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Agents (FWS) with a CNN camera crew in tow raided the ranch of Paul and Erma Berger, an elderly Montana couple the government claimed had killed federally protected eagles. Paul Berger, who is 71 and suffers from high blood pressure, was coerced to allow the lead agent to enter and search his home - not knowing that the search warrant did not include the house or that the agent was wearing a hidden CNN microphone. Informants told the government that the Bergers were using pesticides to poison endangered species, including eagles, which were threatening the couple's livestock. No evidence was found that the Bergers were harming the wildlife. But federal agents, eager to show something to the CNN cameras, accused them of violating federal laws protecting eagles. During the humiliating ordeal, the Bergers were threatened with imprisonment while agents did on-camera interviews attacking the couple's integrity. A jury acquitted the Bergers of all charges except for improperly using a pesticide - a misdemeanor. The Bergers sued the federal government for violating their Fourth Amendment guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure. They argued that it was unconstitutional for federal agents to have allowed the CNN camera crew to enter their homes during the raid and film the event. In May 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled for the Bergers. The court held that the Fourth Amendment does not allow the police to bring along the press or any other third party that is not part of the law enforcement mission. Source: Pacific Legal Foundation Regulations Deny Elderly Handicapped Woman Access to Home John Taylor, an 80-year-old resident of Mount Vernon, Virginia, can not build a small modular home on his lot to accommodate his wheelchair-bound wife because the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) says it harms a bald eagle nest located 90 feet away. The FWS says it would allow Taylor to construct the home but only if he agrees to several onerous conditions: 1) Contribute money to a salmon restoration plan because eagles like to eat salmon; 2) Build two eagle platforms; 3) Contribute money to a bald eagle exhibit. In addition, Taylor would not be permitted to mow his lawn or allow children to play on his lot between the months of November and July. "There are a dozen houses around that nest," said Taylor. "I don't know why my government singled me out - especially since I have done everything I can to protect that nest." The FWS's demands are also questionable since the agency recently announced that the bald eagle is no longer endangered. In March 1999, Taylor filed a lawsuit against the agency seeking just compensation for the loss of his property under the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment. Source: Defenders of Property Rights Government Bureaucrats May Put Small Town Out of Business to Protect Rare Bird The East End of Long Island, New York is a popular vacation spot but it is also a popular breeding area for a bird called the Atlantic Coast piping plover - a "tourist" that many Long Islanders wish would go away. The plover has been listed as an endangered species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) since 1986. Every year between late March and early September, plovers migrate to Long Island to breed. This happens to coincide with the busy tourist season. To accommodate the bird, local officials are forced to adhere to an onerous and expensive set of regulations. Gary Veglianti, the mayor of West Hampton Dunes, says that in one case a plover had made a nest 10 feet from a road and the FWS recommended that the road be closed to everyone except essential people. "What do I do," asked Veglianti, "get some Nazi traffic cop to stand there and decide who's essential and who isn't?" What's worse is that the plovers' migration occurs during peak beach season and the road is the only way in or out of the village. There's no way the road could be shut down. "Some of these recommendations are too much," observed Veglianti. But the FWS has told Veglianti that if he doesn't follow their recommendations they might put him in jail for violating the Endangered Species Act. West Hampton Dunes has had to spend $7 million over three years for plover protection, not including the lost revenue due to building restrictions. Source: Insight Magazine Playing Cupid for Love-Starved Turtles Efforts to ease traffic congestion in the growing community of Hampstead, Maryland have been thwarted by federal regulations protecting the endangered bog turtle. Hampstead officials desperately want to build a five-mile bypass road to ease traffic congestion on its main street. During the weekday mornings and evenings, the street is jammed with commuters and without a bypass, according to one businessman, the traffic will be "backed up two miles below Hampstead." Helen Utz, director of the Carroll County Chamber of Commerce, says it is critical that the bypass get built so prospective businesses will not be deterred by the traffic from locating in the county's industrial park. But researchers have discovered 18 bog turtles in a wetland that lies in the path of the proposed bypass. The four-inch turtle was listed as a threatened species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in 1997. The bypass project is now on hold because Dr. James Howard, a university biologist who has studied the turtles at the request of the state of Maryland, has recommended that engineers build a bridge across a small stream instead of filling it so that turtles could use the stream to travel from one bog to another. Howard also wants to extend his investigation for at least one more year to determine if there are other turtles dwelling in wetlands along the proposed bypass route. If there are other turtles, they too may be given special protection. Howard says the turtles need protected "corridors" so that they can breed with turtles from other bogs. If the turtles can't mate with other populations, he argues, they will become in-bred. Frustrated at having to delay the much-needed bypass so a biologist can play cupid for a bunch of turtles, local officials are understandably exasperated. Says Julia Gouge, president of the Board of County Commissioners, "It's becoming one of the most ridiculous situations we have seen." Source: Washington Times Mine Owner Found Guilty of Harming Rattlesnakes with Four-Foot Fence Since 1990, Jay Montfort of Fishkill, New York has been trying to expand a gravel mine on his own land. But the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has been finding one excuse after another not to give Montfort the permission he needs to expand. Montfort believes "the motivation for such abusive tactics appears to be the desire of the state" and a local conservation group, Scenic Hudson, to acquire his property for a land trust. For four years, the rationale was that Montfort's mine would threaten a den of rattlesnakes that dwell near the property. Rattlesnakes are protected under New York's endangered species law. DEC officials claim that a four-foot, wire-mesh fence Montfort built around his property to protect his employees was illegal because it reduced the snake's habitat by about 20% and would inflict "physiological stress" on the snakes. In early 1999, a New York state judge ruled that Montfort's fence did pose a threat to the snakes. Montfort will do as he has been doing for nine years now and appeal yet another unfavorable decision. Source: Property Rights Foundation Two Elderly Women Robbed of Retirement Money by Salmon Protection Regulations For seven years, Viola Allen, an ailing 72-year-old widow, has been desperately trying to sell her 8-acre property in Lynnwood, Washington so she can finally have enough money to move out of her rapidly deteriorating home. But local environmental activists are stopping Viola from selling the land she has owned for 44 years because they claim that a tiny stream in a ditch going through the property is vital for Puget Sound chinook salmon, a federally-protected species. The problem is: There has never been salmon in the "stream." This controversy began in 1992 when Viola and her neighbor, 82-year-old Delila Gribble, agreed to sell their combined 18-acre property to Diana Clay, a Lynnwood housing developer, who planned to build a 51-house subdivision on the parcel. It took over two years just to resolve an annexation dispute between the City of Lynnwood and the county before approval was finally given for the annexation in 1996. That's when a local environmental group, Citizens for a Natural Habitat (CNH), stepped in to stop the project. CNH activists claim that the tiny stream called Tunnel Creek that runs through Viola's and Delila's properties is vital to the survival of endangered salmon. This is hard to believe given that Tunnel Creek is a ditch that is completely dry in the summer and has but a tiny trickle of water in the winter. Several studies have determined that Tunnel Creek is not capable of supporting salmon. CNH activists offer no credible research to justify their claim. The Washington Department of Fisheries, for instance, issued a formal opinion that Tunnel Creek is not and could never be a salmon-bearing stream. Yet CNH ignores these findings. After the City Council approved the development, CNH filed a lawsuit in county court on April 19, 1999 to block the project, insisting that the stream is important for salmon preservation - but again offering no proof. While other developments have been planned and built in the area during the dispute, the ladies have been stuck paying a soaring tax bill. Although they get monthly payments from Clay that partially compensate them for the property, it is not enough. Delila says "If this doesn't get settled, I'm going to be in the poorhouse." Viola says the tax bill on her property, valued at $591,000, is $2,900. Things are especially dire for Viola. She suffers from emphysema and must stay on oxygen all day but her house is in such poor condition that every time it rains - which happens quite a bit in the Pacific Northwest - her basement floods. The resulting mildew makes her medical condition even worse. Source: Diana Clay 75-Year-Old Woman's Plan for Quiet Retirement Dashed by Endangered Species Act For nearly ten years, Lani Odenthal and her husband Bob worked hard to develop their 80-acre golf course in Okanogan County, Washington into a beautiful, prosperous resort. After Bob passed away in 1998, 75-year-old Lani had no desire to run the Sunny Meadows resort anymore and decided to sell it and live the rest of her life in quiet retirement. In the spring of 1999, that plan was shattered when the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) ordered the local irrigation company, Skyline Ditch, which served Sunny Meadows and its neighbors, to stop releasing water. Lani's once-lushly-green oasis is now virtually useless as it is now marred by dying brown grass, receding ponds and weedy flower beds. Citing new Endangered Species Act regulations adopted in early 1999, NMFS alleges that the irrigation provided by Pacific Northwest water companies, such as Skyline Ditch, harm salmon because it diverts water from streams and rivers vital to salmon survival. NMFS adopted these strict regulations despite serious scientific concerns over whether such regulation of the salmon's freshwater habitat will significantly improve their survivability rates. What is certain, however, is that the denial of vitally-needed water to farmers and other small businesses, such as Lani's golf resort, is having catastrophic consequences. Soon after Lani decided to sell Sunny Meadows in November 1998, a woman living in the area who frequented Sunny Meadows offered her $1.3 million for the resort - certainly enough for a comfortable retirement. But after the irrigation company cut off the water supply on NMFS's orders, the prospective buyer informed Lani that she couldn't invest when water rights were in doubt. Stuck with a property she couldn't sell, Lani had to shut down Sunny Meadows as she can no longer offer the golfing, fishing and hiking that once made the resort so popular. To make ends meet, she sold her motor home and other personal belongings. Still, Lani doesn't know if she can pay the rent for her apartment. Lani says that although her late husband was the kind of man who could find the bright spot in any situation, "I'm just glad he isn't alive to see it today." Source: K.C. Mehaffey, Okanogan County Farm Bureau Florida Man Stuck With Useless Property Because of Federally-Protected Bird South Florida contractor William Jesberger thought he was taking advantage of a great business opportunity when he purchased two residential lots for $20,000 in order to custom build houses. But in 1992, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) refused his application for a building permit because his land was considered vital habitat for the Florida scrub-jay bird which is legally protected as a threatened species by the FWS and the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission. "You can't build on scrub-jay property and the county is assessing property value lower every year because of that," says Jesberger. Jesberger's ultimate dream has turned into a nightmare. He cannot sell his property because it is deemed a "white elephant." As one realtor aptly stated, "I do not know of any builder that would even want a lot like this as a gift." The lots are completely worthless and Jesberger has been warned to not touch anything on his property or he will be arrested and fined. Overall, there are 480 lots involved. Jesberger wants to file a class action lawsuit to seek just compensation because "it would be too costly as an individual to go in and sue." Unfortunately, no one else wants to join him; he is the only one that dutifully attends all the meetings on the scrub-jay. Jesberger's case to this day remains at a standstill - he cannot build on his property or sell it as long as the FWS deems it scrub-jay habitat. Source: William Jesberger New Jersey Man Loses Land So Owl Might Keep Options Open For 17 years, Jeffrey Dautel has been paying taxes on a lot he owns in a picturesque lakeside neighborhood in Sparta, New Jersey. The lot is 1.27 acres in size, and Dautel wanted to build his own house on a small part of the land. Because the lot is near a lake, he needed a wetlands permit to build there. However, a small part of his land that fell under the wetlands designation was deemed wetlands of an "exceptional resource value" by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). This is because Dautel's property is allegedly vital to the northern barred owl, an endangered species in New Jersey. It's debatable that the barred owl should even be considered an endangered species given that there are a lot of them. Indeed, there are so many in the Pacific Northwest that they are becoming a menace to the spotted owl, a federally-protected species. In reality, there are no barred owls living on Dautel's property. Even the DEP concedes that. Nevertheless, the DEP reasons that Dautel cannot build his house because some day the barred owl might stop in for a quick snack. Although Dautel cannot build a house on his lot, the town still expects him to pay taxes. Dautel's situation could be remedied with a strong dose of the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits the government from taking a person's property without just compensation. But Dautel does not want to sue because he is fearful of angering the bureaucrats who will decide the outcome of his case. He is still working with the DEP in hopes of reversing their earlier decision. Source: Jeffrey Dautel Legal North Carolina Business Ruined After Fish and Wildlife Service Raid When North Carolina businessman Earl Peck opened his exotic foods distribution business in 1993, little did he know that what began as a promising entrepreneurial venture would turn into a regulatory nightmare that has yet to end. Peck prided himself on filling a wide variety of orders from restaurants all over the country as well as from individuals seeking exotic meats. He sold alligator, rattlesnake, emu, lion and even camel meat. Everything was perfectly legal. He registered his business, called International Home Cooking, with the North Carolina Secretary of State's Office, which told him all he needed was an inspection by the county health department, which he dutifully obtained. All the meat he sold he purchased from established suppliers that submitted to inspections either by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) or the state. He advertised his business openly in newspapers and even sent a flier to the White House chef. His business was a great success with sales reaching $100,000 by 1995. Then in November 1995, Peck sold some black bear meat to a man claiming to be a contractor. But after Peck accepted payment from the man, cars swarmed into the parking lot and a half-dozen men jumped out. Peck was surrounded, thrown against a car and frisked. He thought he was being robbed. As it turns out, the men - including his alleged customer - were United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) agents who were investigating him for allegedly selling bear meat illegally. They drove to Peck's home and spent four hours ransacking his house, seizing business files and downloading files from his computer. He was told that his offense carried a penalty of $20,000 and/or five years in prison. Peck doesn't understand how he could have broken any law since he purchased the black bear meat from a legitimate South Dakota supplier that was USDA-inspected. Neither is the state of North Carolina certain that he broke a law. The North Carolina Wildlife Commission points to a state law that forbids the sale of bear and deer meat - although that law was ostensibly aimed to stop poaching of bear and deer native to the state. On the other hand, the North Carolina Department of Agriculture, which inspects meat, found that there was nothing illegal in Peck's business. In May 1996, the U.S. Attorney's office sent Peck a letter informing him that he wouldn't be prosecuted due to "insufficient federal interest." But that was not enough to save Peck's business. He was forced to shut down after the 1995 raid because he still could not get a definitive answer from state officials over what he can sell. Source: Earl Peck Couple Loses Timber So Government Can Play Cupid The state of Oregon's Board of Forestry has forced Alvin and Marsha Seiber to set aside 37 acres of commercially-harvestable forestland to protect the northern spotted owl. The state is not offering any compensation. The Seibers have been prevented from harvesting for more than a year now. The Seibers filed suit against the state alleging that their property rights had been violated. In defending its actions, the state argued that the Seibers had to accept the restrictions on the use of their property because they made the decision to harvest timber and are thus obligated to accept any restrictions the state may choose to impose on private timber operations. The state also argued that since the state may one day decide to lift the restrictions on timber harvesting, the Seibers can not claim that they suffered a permanent taking of their property that would justify compensation. Additionally, the state argued that since the Seibers could still use the other 163 acres of their 200-acre plot, they didn't deserve compensation for the regulatory taking of nearly 20 percent of their land. But it seems the state and environmentalists involved in the case weren't just satisfied with making the argument that government has the right to compel private property owners to protect wildlife at the owners' expense. Oregon officials and the Audubon Society argued in their legal brief that the Seibers should be prevented from harvesting timber because they do "not have the right to prevent the reproduction of a species that is in danger of extinction." The Seibers' lawyers argued in court that the state of Oregon's claim that the Seibers and other private landowners have an affirmative duty to set aside their property for wildlife preservation whenever the government says they should without compensation blatantly violates the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment protection of private property. The lawyers observed that a perverse consequence of the state's dangerously broad interpretation of its power to protect wildlife would be to encourage property owners to destroy forests that could conceivably serve as habitat for the northern spotted owl. Source: Pacific Legal Foundation Audubon Society Says Private Landowners Must Bear Cost of Conserving Wildlife In 1993, the Oregon Board of Forestry forced the Boise Cascade Corporation to set aside 56 acres of commercially-harvestable timberland as a preserve for the northern spotted owl without paying compensation. Boise Cascade filed suit seeking compensation for this effective loss of their property between 1993 and 1997. An Oregon trial court and jury ruled in favor of Boise Cascade and awarded the company compensation for the regulatory taking of its property. The state of Oregon appealed the decision. The state argued that it couldn't be required to pay compensation to private landowners because it is not responsible for the spotted owl's movements. Since the "spotted owl is a wild animal" and "moves according to its [own] will," it is not an agent of the state of Oregon so the State of Oregon cannot be held liable if the federally-protected owl, with all of its accompanying Endangered Species Act regulations, takes up residence on someone's land. Property rights lawyers handling the case argued that having forced Boise Cascade to allow the owls to live on its property, the state can not escape liability for a loss in property value because it does not control the owl's movements. The state and the Audubon Society also asserted the sweeping notion that private landowners have a duty to protect the habitat of any wildlife the state deems worthy of protection. As justification for making this legally-suspect argument, the Audubon Society offered as examples existing laws protecting wildlife such as prohibitions on canning salmon, trapping beaver or killing deer. However, the analogy was flawed because while those laws prevent property owners from killing or capturing wildlife, property owners still have the right to prevent wildlife, such as beaver, from entering their property and damaging it. Boise Cascade Corporation merely sought to exclude the owls from its property. It never sought to kill the birds. In 1998, the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled for Boise Cascade, holding that the state had denied Boise Cascade "the only economically viable use of approximately 56 acres of merchantable timber." Source: Pacific Legal Foundation Campaign to Stop Illegal Immigration Hampered by Endangered Species Act 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 the last two years, Operation Rio Grande, the agency's high-tech interdiction effort, has 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. However, if environmentalists have their way, all of these gains will be negated. 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 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 jaguarundi, 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 Club. Not so, says the Border Patrol. Border Patrol assistant chief Rey Garza says that, "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. By installing 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." The 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. Source: U.S. Border Patrol Florida Woman Forced to Pay $100,000 for Futile Effort to Save Protected Bird 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 all lined up when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (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 Species Act. What Cragg didn't understand is 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 months. To get construction resumed, the 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." Source: Anita Cragg
Federally-Protected Bird Costs Elderly Woman Her Retirement Investment In 1973, Margaret Rector bought 15 acres of land on a busy highway west of Austin, Texas as a retirement investment. In 1990, the Golden-Cheeked Warbler was listed as endangered, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) classified Rector's property as suitable habitat. Her land, located in the fastest-growing part of the county, is now unusable. Its assessed value fell from $831,000 in 1991 to $30,000 in 1992. USFWS says she might be able to get a permit to develop the property, but this would require her to finance extensive studies and to mitigate any impact on the Warbler. However, Rector views this as an option available only to large corporations engaging in multi-million-dollar developments. Source: Competitive Enterprise Institute State Department of Fish and Game Gives Retirement Home to Critters Doug Bernd purchased some land 20 years ago as a retirement investment. But unfortunately for Bernd, the city of Poway, California had different ideas. The city decided to make his retirement "nest egg" a home for endangered species, effectively lowering the real value of the land. The city of Poway, in conjunction with the California Department of Fish and Game, advised Bernd that he could use 10% of the total acreage of his parcel of land. This 10% covers everything from roads to a home. The problem is that the road currently on his land already takes up more than 10% of the acreage. The city and the Department of Fish and Game also advised Bernd that he must mitigate at a rate of two-to-one for any land used beyond the 10%. In other words, if he wanted to use two acres of his land above the specified 10%, he would have to give four acres of his land to Poway or purchase another four acres and give it to the city. Bernd does not understand why this is happening to him. "I spent two years in the service of this country, came home, got married and lived the American dream," he said. "[I wanted to] have kids and work and then retire with my grandkids. Now this has taken away all my hope and dreams." Local environmentalists are making things difficult for Bernd as well. "A local environmentalist told me that I'm selfish for wanting to use my land and [I] should give it to the creatures." Source: National Center for Public Policy Research Casualties of the Northern Spotted Owl In 1979, Barbara and Dick Mossman mortgaged their farm to buy a new International log truck to start their own logging business in the Pacific Northwest. Initially, the Mossmans experienced hard times, losing virtually everything except their truck and a few other goods during the 1980-1981 recession. In 1986, however, they landed a good job hauling logs in Forks, Washington - at the time the logging capital of the world. Things gradually improved for the Mossmans. They got rid of their debt, restored a good credit rating, started a modest savings account and bought a four-acre farm. Then in June 1990, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) declared the Northern Spotted Owl an endangered species. Since the owl was found virtually anywhere there was logging, the timber industry collapsed. The Mossmans' business was no exception. In 1990 alone, their revenue dropped by 33%. By October of 1991, less than 18 months after the USFWS ruling, the Mossmans went out of business. Because they were self-employed, they could not apply for unemployment benefits. As a result, the Mossmans had to sell their boat, trailer, welder, tools and motorcycles to get the cash they needed just to make ends meet. That was not enough, though. In the spring of 1992, they received a foreclosure notice on their farm. The electricity was turned off, leaving the couple without heat, lights and water. The Mossmans were unable to respond to collection notices and deputies began knocking on the door with lawsuits in hand. However, Barbara says the most degrading thing of all "was being forced to walk into a public assistance agency, after 13 years as independent truckers, and ask for a voucher for food, because we were hungry." Barbara has since become a spokeswoman for the thousands of other families whose lives were ruined by this reckless application of the Endangered Species Act. "I am not interested in pointing a finger of blame," says Barbara. "What I am interested in is a commitment from the Members of Congress that they will change this cruel and vicious law, so that no other families, no other community will have to endure the pain we in the timber community have been forced to endure." Source: Barbara Mossman Federal Efforts to Protect Endangered Bird Leads to $10 Million Worth of Flooding In January 1993, the city of Temecula, California suffered over $10 million in flood-related damages because federal regulators, more concerned about protecting an endangered bird, refused to allow proper maintenance of the flood control system. A small bird called the Least Bell's Vireo lived just downstream from the Murrieta Creek flood control facility. Eager to expand its habitat, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) refused to allow the Riverside County Flood and Water Conservation District the right to remove vegetation and other debris from control channels. It seems the USFWS wanted to use the flood channel to make a home for the bird. Riverside County Commissioners and county engineers testified before Congress that their inability to remove the debris led to a clogging of the channel, which resulted in flooding that seriously, damaged businesses and homes. Ken Edwards, the chief engineer of the flood control agency, said "Ironically, after the flooding, federal authorities allowed the maintenance to take place." Source: Field Hearing of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources, April 26, 1995 Salmon Protection Sacrifices $30 Million in Agricultural Productivity Citing the need to protect salmon, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) denied an application for irrigation water withdrawals from the Columbia River system by the Inland Land Company (ILC). ILC had proposed irrigating 20,000 acres, which would produce $30 million worth of crops each year. The state approved the eastern Oregon irrigation application, but NMFS said the company could not put new irrigation intake pipes into the Columbia River unless it found ways to replace the water during the dry years. Environmentalists are suing in state court to block the project. Columbia River Association executive director Bruce Lovelin says the denial of irrigation rights completely fails to take into account the economic needs of the region's businessmen and farmers. Source: National Center for Public Policy Research Woman Shoots Bear to Protect Property; Gets Fined On May 8, 1997, Juanita Swanke of Red Lodge, Montana shot and killed a 220-pound Grizzly Bear to protect her horse. When Swanke saw the bear chasing her horse in its corral, she quickly picked up her .22 rifle. Initially, she shot around the bear in an attempt to scare it off. But when this failed, she realized she would have to shoot the bear in order to stop it. Swanke took aim at the Grizzly's gluteal region in an effort to superficially wound it. This only enraged the bear, however, leaving Swanke no choice but to kill the animal. Swanke feels terrible about the whole incident, but felt she had no choice. Despite her efforts to avoid killing a bear which obviously posed a serious threat to her and her property, a federal magistrate court fined Swanke $1,350. Source: Resource News from Across the Big Sky, August 1997 US Fish and Wildlife Service -- Shoot the Geese to Save the Snails Brandt Child planned to build a campground on his property in Three Lakes, Utah. Neighbors in southern Utah had used the area for recreation for some time. But Child's plans soon came to a screeching halt. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) declared a pond on Child's land to be a prime habitat for the endangered Kanab Amber Snail. They fenced off the area, ordered people off the pond's banks, and forbade Child to work in the area. In addition, since the land was Child's, the USFWS informed him that if he failed to report a problem he could be held accountable. Shortly thereafter, Child realized that a flock of domestic geese had taken up residence at his pond. If any of the geese were to partake of the unsuspecting snails, Child could have faced a $50,000 fine for each snail eaten. USFWS then ordered the Utah Department of Wildlife and Resources to shoot the geese, remove their stomachs, and forward the contents of their stomachs to USFWS to determine the number of snails eaten by the geese. But when a Utah Department of Wildlife agent arrived to kill the geese, there were so many photographers and journalists present that he decided not to kill the geese. Eventually, it was determined that the geese did not harm the endangered snail population and the snails continue to thrive. Meanwhile, Child has not been compensated for his loss of property. Source: National Wilderness Institute Resource magazine Couple's Home Imperiled by Beetle Protection Mr. and Mrs. Richard Bannister wanted to take steps to prevent erosion that placed their beach home in jeopardy. Unfortunately, foot-dragging by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) delayed the project, resulting in the loss of a 15-foot section of the Bannisters' property. The reason for the DNR delay? Concern for the welfare of the Puritan Tiger Beetle. The Bannisters merely wanted to construct a stone revetment, or face, at the base of a 60-foot cliff in their backyard. They intended to grade the top to a more moderate slope and plant grass. They were told by the DNR, however, that any action they took should "not entail destroying [Puritan] Tiger Beetles." While the Bannisters wasted time and money wrestling with bureaucrats, their home was put at greater risk when a 15-foot section of their property crumbled into the beach. Source: National Wilderness Institute New York Businessman Spends Eight Years and $2 Million to Get Mining Permit Jay Montfort of Fishkill, New York has been trying for eight years to get permission to expand a gravel mine on his own land. Montfort, whose ancestors have been businessmen and farmers in the area for 300 years, owns a company that manufactures concrete block, a popular building material. Montfort happened to own a parcel of property which could largely supply the gravel he needed for his business operations. The town of Fishkill judged Montfort to be in compliance with its zoning requirements and approved the expansion of his Sour Mountain gravel company. Trouble soon appeared, however, in the form of the state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). Immediately after filing his permit application with the DEC, Montfort got bogged down in a complicated and time-consuming process that has yet to end. His Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was rejected as incomplete in April 1993 - nearly six months after the state was legally required to issue an opinion. Finally, after Montfort resubmitted his EIS, the DEC approved it in 1995. But then the DEC, in league with local conservation groups, came up with new and more costly reasons to delay the project. Just when it seemed he was nearing the end of the tortuous application process, the DEC told Montfort he would have to start the process all over again because a den of rattlesnakes was "discovered" on an adjoining property owned by a conservationist group. The snakes, a protected species, were not even on Montfort's land. Furthermore, in his previous impact statements he had addressed any potential impacts his mine would have on the snakes which everybody knew already existed in the area. Nevertheless, the DEC told Montfort he would have to spend several years studying the snakes before a decision could be made on his proposed mine expansion. Montfort says "the motivation for such abusive tactics appears to be the desire of the state" and the local conservation group, Scenic Hudson, to acquire his property for a land trust. Montfort is not giving 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 itself has already cost Monfort more than $2 million. Source: Carol LaGrasse, "The Property Owner's Experience" Environmentalists Oppose New Bridge That Would Save Lives Two 70-year-old bridges that adjoin Ventura and Santa Barbara counties in California are in desperate need of replacement. According to California Department of Transportation officials, one of the bridges has an accident rate twice the statewide average for rural two-lane highways. But environmentalists, concerned about trees and a small parcel of land containing a quarter of an acre of wetland, are vehemently opposed to replacing the aged structures. According to a member of the Sierra Club, the removal of any wetland area could affect a number of endangered species and upset the migratory patterns of some species. In this case, they are concerned about the Yellow Warbler. But should not the safety and well being of humans be considered? Of course it should, said Chuck Cesena, a California transportation planner. According to Cesena, one of the bridges has a dangerous curve and a sharp dropoff, which can be hazardous for unsuspecting motorists. "We've had a number of motorcycles launched from there," he said. "They tend to end up in an avocado grove." Cesena says that the environmental impact of replacing the bridges has been grossly overestimated by opponents. The Sierra Club claimed that a new bridge would affect up to one mile of the creek. However, Cesena says that only 500 feet around the projected bridge would be affected. When he asked the Sierra Club newsletter editor who spread the rumor of the exaggerated length why he didn't bother to check out the facts, the editor responded that he didn't have time. Eventually, the county governments approved the Department of Transportation's plan. However, in January 1998, the state Coastal Commission struck down the request, citing the Sierra Club's concerns over the negative impact on the Yellow Warbler. Source: The National Wetlands Coalition Montana Man Fined For Shooting Attacking Grizzly in Backyard In September 1989, Montana sheepherder John Shuler discovered four Grizzly Bears on his property. He went outside and fired warning shots that scared off three of the animals. Returning to his house, he found another one blocking his path. The huge beast reared on its hind legs in an obviously menacing manner. In self-defense, Shuler shot and killed the animal. However, officials with the Department of the Interior fined Shuler $5,000, arguing that he couldn't claim self-defense because he purposely entered a "zone of imminent danger." That zone was his backyard. For more than eight years, Shuler fought this outrageous fine. Finally, on March 17, 1998 a federal judge found the Interior Department's fine to be unjustified since Shuler's life was clearly endangered by the Grizzly. Source: Mountain States Legal Foundation Federal Efforts to Protect Grizzly Bear Ruin Economy of Montana Community Ten years ago, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) proposed a plan to increase the Grizzly Bear population in the area around Libby, Montana. Concerned citizens immediately organized themselves into a coalition and demanded the government's assurance that the increased bear population would pose no threat to people or hurt the economy. In 1990, the USFWS and the United States Forest Service (USFS) officially stated that increasing the Grizzly Bear population from about four to 90 bears would not negatively affect the economy of Libby. Libby took the government at its word. But just one month later the USFWS changed its position, stating that human activity would infringe on the projected Grizzly Bear population. As a result, the USFWS closed 56% of the county roads and severely restricted the logging and mining activity on which the local economy depended. One of the first victims was the saw mill in Libby. It was forced to close, throwing 600-700 people out of work. Since Lincoln County, where Libby is located, has only 15,000 people, the closure of the saw mill alone severely affected the local economy. That was just the beginning, however. Bruce Vincent, a Libby resident, says the USFWS has cost the county more than 1,800 jobs. Double-digit unemployment is the norm and the Food Bank ran out of food, unable to meet the demand. Incredibly, the USFWS refused to admit that its efforts to augment the Grizzly Bear had affected Libby's economy - although the USFS did admit as much. It wasn't until March 1998 that the USFWS belatedly admitted that its policies probably had a negative impact on the economy. Source: Bruce Vincent Couple Loses Business to Deer For more than 17 years, Patty and Findley Ricard ran a flourishing nursery business on Big Pine Key in the Florida Keys. In order to protect their property from the ravenous Key Deer, the Ricards built a fence around a three-acre tract. The fence was properly built. "All of a sudden," says Patty, "the state's Department of Community Affairs said that we weren't allowed to have a fence and we had to tear it down." When the Ricards asked why, officials responded that the fence blocked the unfettered movement of the Key Deer and caused increased auto traffic on the adjoining road. Eventually, the Ricards were asked by the state to move to a less environmentally-sensitive location. But due to the excessive land regulation in the Keys, it was impossible for the Ricards to find a buyer for their property. Protracted negotiations and threats of condemnation of their property ensued. After Findley had a heart attack, the Ricards gave up and sold their property to the state "for half of what we paid for it" says Patty. Ironically, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service took over their property and left the fence standing. Source: Sean Paige, "Almost Paradise," Insight, April 6-13, 1998, p.10 Endangered Species Law Ruining Nevada Miners Royce Hackworth owns Hackworth Drilling Company, a company that specializes in exploratory gold mining in Elko County, Nevada. Once one of the world's leading gold-producing areas, Elko County's economy has been severely damaged by federal environmental regulations that has driven many companies out of business. Hackworth's company is no exception. A main culprit has been the U.S. Forest Service's (USFS) enforcement of species-protection regulations as part of the Humboldt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Ostensibly to protect the Goshawk, the USFS has prohibited mines from doing any work within 1000 feet of the bird's nest. Since the Goshawks nest in a particular location anywhere from three to six months, a company trying to drill has at best a mere three months to work (That assumes the USFS doesn't find another endangered species to protect in the three-month period). What is ironic, however, is that there is no evidence that mining harms the Goshawk. In fact, according to Hackworth, the Goshawk may actually thrive when living near Man. Hackworth says that authoritative studies done by researchers commissioned to assess the impact of human activity on the Goshawk found that the bird had more fledglings when living near mines or other human activity than in the wilderness. However, the USFS ignores any evidence that Man could actually be beneficial to the bird. Due to these and other onerous restrictions, Hackworth's business has suffered considerably. Between 1988 and 1997, the company's revenues fell from $6.8 million to $2.5 million. Hackworth has had to reduce his work force from 78 to 30 employees and the future looks bleak. Hackworth says he has already written off this year and next in terms of earning a profit. Source: National Center for Public Policy Research {Note: In the opinion of The National Center for Public Policy Research, it is not proven that the Goshawk necessarily benefits by proximity to Man, but independent researchers have concluded that human activity does not necessarily harm the bird.] Man Threatened with $15,000 Fine for Endangering Protected Species Not on His Property The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has threatened to fine a Utah man $15,000 for farming his land and allegedly posing a risk to the Utah Prairie Dog, a protected species. The only problem is that there are no Utah Prairie Dogs on his property. Originally, the USFWS told the man that he should hire an outside expert to determine if any Utah Prairie Dogs were present. The expert prepared a report which indicated that there were no Utah Prairie Dogs, so the farmer proceeded to work his land. But the USFWS told him that they will fine him anyway. The USFWS reasons that since it is theoretically possible for Utah Prairie Dogs in the surrounding area to migrate onto the property, they have the right to issue a fine for harming a potential habitat. Source: Mountain States Legal Foundation Flood, Deaths Blamed on Endangered Species Act Delays in repairing California's Feather River levee system due to Endangered Species Act (ESA) regulations contributed to a severe flood that caused three deaths and forced 32,000 people to flee from their homes. For six years prior to the 1997 flood, the Army Corps of Engineers and local flood control officials had warned that the levee in the town of Arboga needed repairs. The Corps of Engineers report specifically stated that "Loss of human life is expected under existing conditions (without remedial repairs) for major flood events." Despite this warning, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service insisted that lengthy studies had to been done to determine the impact repair work would have on the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle - a protected species. The Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle lives in elderberry bushes. Since 43 bushes would be cleared away on the levee, federal regulators forced local officials to spend $10 million replanting 7,500 elderberry stems on an 80-acre site. In addition, the local flood control authority, California Reclamation District 784 (RD 784), complained it was prevented from performing necessary maintenance tasks such as clearing brush and controlling rodents that burrow in the earthen dams because of ESA regulations. Officials also objected to the requirement that they build a wetland within 600 feet of the levee over concerns that water from the 17-foot-deep pond would seep into the levee and weaken it. When the levee broke on January 2, 1997, 25 square miles of property and habitat were flooded. Ironically, the 80-acre plot of newly-planted elderberry bushes was also destroyed. RD 784 officials and local congressmen said that the ESA red tape that delayed the vital repair work for so long contributed to the collapse of the levee. Source: Testimony of Rep. Wally Herger before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Resources, April 10, 1997 Over a Hundred Mine Workers Lose Jobs Because of Turtle In September 1996, the Mountain Pass mine in the Southern California desert, operated by the Molycorp Company, was the target of a SWAT-style raid by federal agents over an alleged violation of the Endangered Species Act. The mine's egregious offense: A few months before the raid, a waste water pipe burst during routine maintenance, spilling thousands of gallons of fresh water into the desert. The Bureau of Land Management viewed this as a threat to the Desert Tortoise, a protected species. Susan Messler, an accountant at Molycorp, said that armed government agents - complete with badges, helmets and flak jackets - charged onto the mine's property to let them know that the fresh water they had accidentally spilled in the desert is considered a toxic waste. That was only the beginning of the mine's troubles. After a dead tortoise was discovered on the property, all 300 of Molycorp's employees had to attend a "Desert Tortoise worker education class" even though it was never shown that any of the mine's employees were responsible for the tortoise's demise. To prevent harm to any other tortoises, employees were required to drive no faster than 15 miles per hour and stay at least 100 feet away from the tortoises. Heavy equipment could not be operated unless an authorized government biologist was present to make sure no tortoises were in the way. More serious, though, were the $6.2 million in fines the government assessed on Molycorp. Says Messler, "We probably didn't make that much money in a five-year period." As a result, the mine has had to lay off one-third of its employees with more cutbacks on the way. Source: "American Investigator," America's Voice Immigrant Threatened With Jail for Farming His Land Taung Ming-Lin, a Taiwanese immigrant, bought land in Kern County, California on which he planned to grow Chinese vegetables for sale to southern California's Asian community. Lin says the county told him the land was already zoned for farming and that no permit was needed. When Lin began farming, his tractor allegedly disturbed the habitat of the endangered Tipton Kangaroo Rat. It is also alleged that Lin's tractor ran over some of the rats. As a result, Lin was charged with federal civil and criminal violations of the Endangered Species Act. Lin, who speaks no English, suffered a stroke shortly after being charged. Yet, that did not sap his spirit. He declared, through an interpreter, that he had done nothing wrong and fought the charges. The criminal charges carried penalties of up to a year in jail and a $100,000 fine. Fortunately for Lin, neighboring farmers started a fund-raising effort on his behalf. In a May 1995 settlement, the charges were dropped on the condition that Lin make a $5,000 donation toward endangered species protection. Said Lin, "One-half of me is relieved. The other half says I never made a mistake." Source: National Wilderness Institute Lake Who-Can-Use-It Lake Koocanusa is a large reservoir in northwestern Montana that straddles the U.S.-Canadian border. When it was built in the 1970s, the Army Corps of Engineers promised the residents of Libby, Montana and the Canadians that they could use it for fishing and tourism. Eventually, salmon and other fish species thrived in the lake. As it gradually became a tourist attraction, the lake started generating significant income for Libby - which it desperately needed due to the collapse of the mining and timber industry. The demise of these industries was largely due to Endangered Species and Clean Water regulations. However, in 1992, just as things started to look good, the salmon was listed as a protected species. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service decided to conduct a 50-year experiment where they would increase the volume of water on the Columbia River by releasing large amounts of water upstream. They wanted to know if the increased water volume would help the salmon. These water releases included Libby and Lake Koocanusa 800 miles away from the Columbia. Now, every summer - during the height of the tourist season - so much water is released from Lake Koocanusa that the shoreline recedes to 300 feet from the docks. Much of the lake is a mudflat that, ironically, leaves the spawning grounds of the salmon and other fish exposed. Not surprisingly, the tourism industry has taken a dive since no one wants to fish in a mudflat. In another ironic twist, it seems that the federal government's efforts to save the salmon are threatening the White Sturgeon, another protected species, which dwells below Lake Koocanusa. The White Sturgeon needs low water in summer and high water in spring to thrive. But the government holds back water in the spring to release it in the summer - the exact opposite of what the sturgeon requires. Libby resident Bruce Vincent says there is a lot of "teeth-gnashing" going on among the federal regulators. Vincent says this tragedy is an all-too-typical result of federal environmental policy. "They suffer from a serious tunnel vision in which they take one species at a time. What they fail to realize is that species don't exist in a vacuum. What you do to help one species will invariably impact another." Vincent says that since nobody, human or fish, can use the lake anymore, the bumper sticker around town now refers to it as "Lake Who-Can-Use-It." Source: Bruce Vincent Regulation Leaves Birds Homeless Regulations can leave even birds in the cold. Construction of such simple structures as bird houses, bird feeders and flag poles can be forbidden without a permit if within eye shot of a river designated as a Wild and Scenic River. "When the Lower Wisconsin Riverway Law was implemented, no structures were allowed that were visible from the Wisconsin River," said one Wisconsin property owner. "This included flag poles, bird houses, bird feeders, etc. [However,] I was granted a permit to put up a 22x14 inch bird feeder on the condition that I plant a fast growing tree in front of my house. [Later,] I was threatened with fines of $1500 per day for erecting a flag pole. After two American Legion and one VFW [honor] squads were present for the flag pole dedication, the state attorney general quickly ruled that flag poles were not structures." |