By Margaret Byfield
February, 2006
Right now, Senate leaders are determining the
fate of every landowner in America. They are considering measures that will
change the current Endangered Species Act, a law that has failed to accomplish
its stated purpose during its 33 year enactment.
During this time less than 1% of the 1,304 threatened and endangered species
listed have been recovered. Only 6% are considered improving. Yet virtually
every county in the nation is home to one of those protected. Lack of funding or
regulatory power cannot be blamed for the Act’s failure.
The program has cost landowners their security and in many cases their
livelihoods, taxpayers billions of dollars, and the economy lost revenue as
entire communities have been destroyed. All of these costs have caused increased
prices for food, lumber, housing, fuel and other necessities.
The 33 year failure should prompt major reconsideration as to whether the law is
a worthy venture. However, environmentalists are fighting hard against the
suggestion. There is good reason. The Endangered Species Act is one of the best
federal land use laws on the books which accomplishes a much more important goal
for the environmental movement.
Environmentalists presume to know how the human race should intermingle with nature. In order to force the rest of us to live within their world view it is essential that they own or control the worlds land base, something they are well on their way achieving. However, in our nation, America’s landowners stand squarely in their path. At least that was true before the Endangered Species Act was enacted.
We witnessed in 2001 how 1400 families in Klamath Falls, Oregon lost their farming operations because it was falsely believed two fish needed their water more. The Northwest timber industry was destroyed prior to this because the greens again falsely claimed spotted owls only live in old growth forests.
Environmentalists are gleeful at these results. It is progress if thousands of families and entire communities are destroyed under the ESA without any justice to make them whole. They believe the private landowner who productively uses the natural resources deserves such fate. In fact, Democratic leaders recently argued on the House floor that landowners asking for compensation of property lost through the ESA, amounted to a new entitlement.
Every day more and more Americans are coming to understand the
ESA is less about species and more about control of land and resources. In a
poll conducted by Human Events last year, they asked a group of scholars to rank
the ten most harmful government programs. The ESA was ranked fifth.
If you travel through the beautiful farm and ranching communities across
America, and ask those most affected by the law, you will hear that landowners
believe the law should be repealed. However, few who work inside the beltway
have the courage to mention such ideas, fearing the doors of access will close.
As a result, landowners have suffered stifling regulations, lost income and
productivity, and the dramatic erosion of their property rights under the
command and control structure of a law that has failed miserably.
To compound this failure, the government owns over 45% of America, yet 80–90 %
of the listed species are believed to be on private land, as noted in a press
release by House Resources Chairman Richard Pombo. It appears the species
themselves are trying to tell Congress something. Private landowners do a better
job at ensuring a healthy, productive habitat then government or environmental
land trusts.
Consider the billions of dollars spent on federally owned lands, hundreds of thousands of government employees dedicated to their management, and volumes of regulations applied, one should expect it to be the perfect environment for endangered species. Apparently the animals disagree.
Consider also the work of the environmental land trusts that
have been berating America’s natural resource industries for years. The
world’s wealthiest foundations and individuals fund them. One should expect
their contributions to have impacted the species they claim to defend.
The ESA debate, however, shines the light on a much larger problem. Private
property in America is shrinking. The government and land trusts are purchasing
more and more land each day. One program alone, the Land and Water Conservation
Fund, was given 70 million last year for land acquisition and species
conservation. The Secretary of Agriculture gave 1.6 billion for conservation
programs in 2005 targeting private lands. This is above and beyond the budget of
the Fish and Wildlife Service, which is responsible for the endangered species
program.
What is not being bought directly is targeted for inclusion in
conservation easements, taking the dominant estate away from the landowners.
Other pockets of private property are simply controlled through endangered
species, wetlands, greenlining, smart growth and hundreds of other inventive
programs, all quietly stripping away the private landowners rights.
Although the House claims it addressed landowners concerns when they passed the
“Threatened and Endangered Species Act of 2005” last September, by including
an “aid” provision for landowners, it fails to fix the Acts fundamental
flaws. The “aid” process itself will likely become one more bureaucratic
program small landowners will be unable to maneuver.
As the ESA debate moves to the Senate even less is expected. Senator Mike Crapo’s ESA improvement bill filed at the end of last year is case and point. Landowners will be handled through a collaborative process, where a special committee will decide what is best for their land. The noose is already around the landowner’s neck, but now a committee of appointed ones will decide how tight to pull.
If environmentalists and politicians really cared about the
animals, they would get rid of the Act and give landowners the freedom to do
what they do best – produce necessary resources while taking care of the land
and all who inhabit it. After all, God trusted mankind with this task.
However, it appears stealing American’s land and destroying their livelihoods
will continue to be lawful under the Endangered Species Act. This is, after all,
the only true success environmentalists can claim. It is not about the animals.
It never has been. It has always been about who will own the land.
Permission to reprint is granted in whole or in part with
attribution
to Stewards of the Range. Copyright 2006