My anti-ESA 'reform' screed - Purported species 'protections' have resulted in incinerated forests, decimated agriculture, logging, mining, ranching and recreation on government-controlled lands
 
 
September 26, 2005
 
 
By Julie Kay Smithson
 
London, Ohio
 
 
 
946 words.
 
 

 

Questions have been received regarding my anti-ESA and anti-ESA 'reform' stance. I encourage readers to share this article, hoping that it more fully explains why I -- and many others -- stand in support of total ESA repeal, opposed to 'reform' -- and nothing less.

 

The ALRA (American Land Rights Association, formerly the National Inholders Association) does not speak for the majority of property owners. Nor does it speak for the majority of resource providers, recreationists, consumers, etc.

 

Neither do I.

 

However, after more than seven years of immersion in property rights and resource providing issues -- by default, thanks to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife 'Service' and its 73 'partners' -- I've learned enough to understand the machinations of government.

 

I now know why citizens must wax far more vigilant about turning the kids (elected officials) loose in the candy store (treasury) -- the kids don't know when to stop grazing!

 

We are each entitled to our own opinions. I arrived at mine after no fewer than eight detailed readings of H.R. 3824.

 

"The Many Facets of the Endangered Species Act," updated version, is excellent background information and is highly recommended reading: http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/articles6/many_facets_of_the_endangered_sp .htm

 

My 'screed,' as some are wont to call it, is neither a 'lengthy discourse,' 'informal piece of writing' or 'fragment.' Au contraire! 

 

It is correct that I am anti-ESA reform, but I am also blatantly and boldly anti-ESA, which is the reason for advocating nothing less than Full Repeal.

 

There were those in the 1960s and early 1970s that didn't believe such legislation would ever happen -- and a few of them, at least, were concerned about the bill's 'original intent,' even then -- but the impossible happened.

 

Three decades later, what do we have to show for it? Your answer may well determine how much you value property rights and being a responsible consumer of American products -- made with responsibly utilized American resources. 

 

Few would have taken seriously the dire warnings about the massive job exodus from America -- but few doubt it today. How much of that can be directly connected to the ESA? Several thoughtful and thorough readings of H.R. 3824 may illustrate why this new version will simply grease the skids for more of the same.

 

While my views may differ from those of others, I like my produce grown in Ohio, Florida, Texas, California, etc., and choose buy lumber from a local mill -- and pay a little more -- rather than buy imported boards from Lowe's. 

 

There is a palpable connection between the cessation of more and more resources originating in America, and the ESA. Do you like it? I don't! 

 

The Regulatory Victim Directories, published by the National Center for Public Policy Research's (NCPPR) John P. McGovern Center for Environmental and Regulatory Affairs, should be must-reads for all those interested in this subject. The first four are available here: http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/2005/articles05/victimsdirectoriesfrms.htm 

 

The fifth Victim Directory is due out any day. If TESRA is passed, future editions of this directory are ensured.

 

Not one to get exercise by jumping to conclusions, flying off the handle, etc., I shan't start now. Readers may rest assured that anything originating with yours truly has been thoroughly researched. If it has not, it will not be submitted for their perusal.

 

The words of bill supporters disappoint, as some choose to follow a path that is neither good for us nor good for flora and fauna. If ever there was a "self-fulfilling prophecy," this continued foray into the theft of property rights and unenvironmentalism -- in one form of Language Deception or another -- is it.

 

Responsible private owners and resource providers have forgotten more about the care and nourishment of nature than many idealistic but misguided, self-proclaimed 'environmentalists' ever will.

 

One example: the Spandex and cross-trainer shoe crowd regularly bicycles, jogs and runs on our rural roads (weather permitting, of course).

 

Some of these recreationists participate in annual 'stream clean-ups' -- never considering that farmers and homeowners in rural locales do this every day, which is exactly why there isn't a hundredfold more trash when that annual day arrives.

 

It is why the scenery out here is so beautiful, and why the wildlife -- and the food being grown under the 'guise' of crops -- is so abundant and healthy, feeding "both me and thee."

 

Property rights and resource providing exist, not in spite of us, but because of us.

 

I cannot fathom support can be rallied for a piece of unconstitutional legislation, in ANY form, that has created many more victims than successes, and has measured its success in the number of government, NGO-created jobs and job security for 'environmental' attorneys.

 

Purported species 'protections' have resulted in incinerated forests, decimated agriculture, logging, mining, and ranching. Recreation, which was once enjoyed on government-controlled lands, often must seek out privately owned lands due to the closure of vast areas to “protect” certain species.

 

Machiavellian modus operandi and Hegelian Dialectic have possessed the key to the steamroller, because actually 'saving' something 'endangered' would, in and of itself, lessen job security. It may be asked if I believe that money is the root of all evil. No, but I recognize that the addiction to power is a fact and a driving force and has a direct connection to the widely revered “funding sources.” Isn't it past time to stop being the pavement and remove the steamroller's key from its ignition?

 

Brian, some members of the BlueRibbon Coalition and others, I do appreciate your differing view, but will not buy it for myself, feeling that, as a property rights or actual species steward, it contains more "empty calories" than the earlier version (original ESA).