Do I hear an open season on

[Valigator]

Associated Press

July 20, 2006, 11:24 AM EDT



LITTLE ROCK, Ark. -- A federal judge Thursday temporarily halted construction on a $320 million irrigation project in eastern Arkansas, ruling that changing the way farmers water crops in the region may disturb the habitat of the ivory-billed woodpecker.

Although scientists haven't proven that the woodpecker exists, U.S. District Judge William R. Wilson said that, for purposes of the lawsuit, he had to presume that it does. He said federal agencies may have violated the Endangered Species Act by not studying the habitat fully.

``When an endangered species is allegedly jeopardized, the balance of hardships and public interest tips in favor of the protected species,'' Wilson wrote. ``Here there is evidence the IBW may be jeopardized.''

Aquifers beneath eastern Arkansas soybean, cotton and rice fields are running dry and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers last year began construction on the Grand Prairie Irrigation Project 14 miles from where the bird was spotted. Scientists say the bird's home range is 17 miles.

Workers last year began building a pump station to draw 158 billion gallons from the White River per year. Had construction not been stopped, the station could have been completed next year.

A Justice Department lawyer said during a hearing in the spring that a one-month delay would cost the corps as much as $264,000 and a six-month wait would cost up to $3 million.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers conducted a study that said the project would not significantly destroy the ivory-billed's habitat, but the environmental groups said the study was too narrow and failed to comply with the Endangered Species Act.

The National Wildlife Federation and the Arkansas Wildlife Federation argued the project will kill trees that house the birds and that noise from the pumping station would cause them stress.

Until Sparling's reported sighting Feb. 11, 2004, the last known sighting of the bird was in north Louisiana in 1944.

(Now I dont know about ya'll but this article struck me as the world was going insane this am)
You can bet if anyone finds one of these birds there will be an open season on them. In Florida property owners are embattled over a bird called the Florida scrub-jay. The state has red-tagged properties that are even considered their habitat, meaning you cant even as much buid a garden shed on them, let alone sell your property. We have landowners literally looking to wipe these birds out on site. This protection has endangered the bird, not protected it, its unofficially an open season on the scrub jay and enviornmentalist....shaking my head

[multibeard]

OR, do you mean an open season on woodie wood pecker!!

I think we need the open season on the judges first.

[Valigator]

Take your pick....anyone of them will do....

[fabsroman]

I think it all starts with the politicians. However, if Florida is going to red tag certain properties such that they cannot be built upon, then they should pay the owner the FMV of the property assuming that it could be built upon.

It sucks to see a species go, but it also sucks to see such stupidity. Plus, killing the birds will only make it harder for the landowners to ever sell because the birds will never come off the endangered species list. That is another stupid maneuver.

[M.T. Pockets]

Putting an animal on the endangered species list like this can be hard on it.

I met an old logger who said if the logging crews saw some type of owl in the forest they'd kill it and bury it deep. Because if the environmentalists knew it was there they'd make them stop logging. It was easier to kill them and shut up about it and keep logging.

I'm not defending them killing these endangered owls, just pointing out the possible results of overprotecting a species.

[Valigator]

That was my point exactly, what the state will do to a business or a property owner is nothing short of extortion....persons have no desire to get mixed up in that mess......

[Valigator]

Fabs your dreaming, that might be the logical thing to do are even give the developer or homeowner exemptions for maintaining a habitat...but NO the state says we will remove the red-tag if you agree to purchase a set amount of land someplace else...you think I am kidding...here goes...

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."

[Valigator]

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.

[Valigator]

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."

[Valigator]

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.


So the Moral of the Story, just like the old logger said, " kill it and bury it deep..."

[fabsroman]

Again, the state should buy the land from the property owner and make it park land. Yeah, I know it isn't reality, but that is how it should be. Again, politicians getting in the way of logic. Protecting a species should be a society cost (i.e., passed on through the taxpayers), it shouldn't be an individual cost.