The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”

[pianoman9701]

There are animals which should go extinct (gasp from the crowd). Some would do so without the help of man and will eventually anyway. Whether they have an inability to adapt to changing natural conditions, such as the dusky Canada goose, or because there were just discovered in the middle of Tacoma yesterday and there are 4 of a certain toad remaining, there has to be some reason in making decisions which affect our society. Currently, I see little reason being used with regards to animals included in the ESA.

Where do you draw the line? Hypothetically, what if something changed and land owners' practices meant losing elk forever? I think it's a lot easier to make your comment if nothing you're interested in is affected.

Does that go for the landowner, as well? You seem to have a pretty easy time of saying that everything protected by the ESA is sacred and screw the landowner. The landowner who can't build is affected. Do you even care about private property rights?

I don't know where to draw the line. I do know that people use the ESA to stop private landowners from developing their own land. They're not doing it because they want the animals protected. They do it because they don't want the landowner to do what he wants with his property. It's obvious to anyone who wants to see it that from the two examples I gave, that I don't think we should be purposely trying to make species go extinct. And, with or without our help, some will.

I would be more in favor of stopping the taxpayer paid litigation that enviro-wacko groups use to sue the government. When they have to actually pay for the court system, I think they'd be less apt to use it frivolously, as they do now. I also feel that animals which are going extinct through no fault of man should not be used to tie the hands of private landowners. The Canada dusky goose is a prime example of this. Farmers in SW WA and NW OR should have relief from the millions of birds who winter here. But, they're not getting it because of one bird, one that very closely resembles 6 other sub species of Canada goose, that can't adapt to natural changes affecting its breeding grounds and has few instincts to avoid hunters, as all the other Canada geese do.

[buckfvr]

Pman is right, If we could take away the free money, and make it so the screwballs had to spend their own monies, this would come to a screamin halt.

I am sick of whackos..........to include our system that accommodates them.   

[pianoman9701]

If the government disallows a private landowner to develop his own land for whatever reason, then the only difference between that and the government actually seizing the private land is the piece of paper saying he owns it. He may own it, but without the ability to change it, it might as well be public land. There is one glaring difference: he still gets to pay the taxes to the same government which disallowed him to change it.

[idahohuntr]

If the government disallows a private landowner to develop his own land for whatever reason, then the only difference between that and the government actually seizing the private land is the piece of paper saying he owns it. He may own it, but without the ability to change it, it might as well be public land. There is one glaring difference: he still gets to pay the taxes to the same government which disallowed him to change it.

So are you opposed to zoning laws too? Or just when ESA law impedes development?

[wolfbait]

I wonder why the BLM didn't get a hold of the USFWS and have them turn a bunch of their Canadian wolves loose in Nevada? To obvious?

Scott Fitkin told one rancher who lost a calf to wolves, if they would have sold their land to WDFW they wouldn't be having any wolf problems. The BLM and their endangered tortis aren't looking to shiny right now.

[wolfbait]

EXCLUSIVE! THE BUNDY DAUGHTER SPEAKS OUT ON GOVERNMENT TERRORISM AGAINST HER FAMILY!
April 9, 2014
“Sorry this is long but applicable here. By SHIREE BUNDY COX:
I have had people ask me to explain my dad’s stance on this BLM fight.
Here it is in as simple of terms as I can explain it. There is so much to it, but here it is in a nut shell.
My great grandpa bought the rights to the Bunkerville allotment back in 1887 around there. Then he sold them to my grandpa who then turned them over to my dad in 1972.
These men bought and paid for their rights to the range and also built waters, fences and roads to assure the survival of their cattle, all with their own money, not with tax dollars.
These rights to the land use is called preemptive rights.
Some where down the line, to keep the cows from over grazing, came the bureau of land management. They were supposed to assist the ranchers in the management of their ranges while the ranchers paid a yearly allotment which was to be use to pay the BLM wages and to help with repairs and improvements of the ranches.
My dad did pay his grazing fees for years to the BLM until they were no longer using his fees to help him and to improve.
Instead they began using these money’s against the ranchers.
They bought all the rest of the ranchers in the area out with their own grazing fees.
When they offered to buy my dad out for a penence he said no thanks and then fired them because they weren’t doing their job.
He quit paying the BLM but, tried giving his grazing fees to the county, which they turned down.
So my dad just went on running his ranch and making his own improvements with his own equipment and his own money, not taxes.
In essence the BLM was managing my dad out of business.
Well when buying him out didn’t work, they used the indangered species card.
You’ve already heard about the desert tortis.
Well that didn’t work either, so then began the threats and the court orders, which my dad has proven to be unlawful for all these years.
Now they’re desperate.
It’s come down to buying the brand inspector off and threatening the County Sheriff.
Everything they’re doing at this point is illegal and totally against the constitution of the United States of America.
Now you may be saying,” how sad, but what does this have to do with me?” Well, I’ll tell you.
They will get rid of Cliven Bundy, the last man standing on the Bunkerville allotment and then they will close all the roads so no one can ever go on it again.
Next, it’s Utah’s turn. Mark my words, Utah is next.
Then there’s the issue of the cattle that are at this moment being stolen. See even if dad hasn’t paid them, those cattle do belong to him.
Regardless where they are they are my fathers property. His herd has been part of that range for over a hundred years, long before the BLM even existed.
Now the Feds think they can just come in and remove them and sell them without a legal brand inspection or without my dad’s signature on it.
They think they can take them over two boarders, which is illegal, ask any trucker. Then they plan to take them to the Richfeild Auction and sell them.
All with our tax money.
They have paid off the contract cowboys and the auction owner as well as the Nevada brand inspector with our tax dollars.
See how slick they are?
Well, this is it in a nut shell. Thanks”
http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2014/04/09/exclusive-the-bundy-daughter-speaks-out-on-government-terrorism-against-her-family/

Utah Counties File Lawsuit Over BLM Wilderness Policy
By PHIL TAYLOR of Greenwire

A new Interior Department wilderness policy fails to allow coordination with local counties, breaks the terms of a 2003 settlement and threatens the continued production of oil and natural gas on public lands, according to a lawsuit filed yesterday by Utah counties against the federal government.
More News From Greenwire

Congress' Failure to Pass Spending Bill Creates Chaos in Agencies
Supreme Court Decides -- Narrowly -- Against Hearing Enviro Search Case
Former NRC Member Says Renaissance Is Dead, for Now
Marines Trying to Get Afghan Farmers Hooked on Energy Crops
Humans 'Wired' for Terror Over Remote Radiation Threats
The legal attack is the first, but likely not the last, to challenge a secretarial "wild lands" order finalized last month that requires the Bureau of Land Management to take stock of wilderness-quality lands and consider barring activities that would impair sensitive habitats, archaeological resources or natural solitude.

John Swallow, Utah's chief deputy attorney general, yesterday told Greenwire that the state intends to file its own lawsuit challenging the BLM policy in the next couple of weeks.

Yesterday's complaint from Uintah County and the Utah Association of Counties claims Interior is exceeding its authority by establishing wilderness protections without the consent of Congress.

The 97-page complaint (pdf) accuses Interior of breaking the terms of a settlement reached in 2003 between then-Interior Secretary Gale Norton and former Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt (R), which ordered BLM to abandon a wilderness inventory initiated under the Clinton administration.

The lawsuit also alleges that top Interior officials had instructed regional BLM managers to reject nominations from oil and gas firms to lease lands that conservationists have proposed for protections under the "America's Red Rock Wilderness Act."

The Red Rock bill, which is opposed by the Utah delegation, seeks to designate as wilderness 9.4 million acres of federal land, including parts of Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument and areas adjacent to Capitol Reef National Park, Canyonlands National Park and the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area.

Lastly, the complaint charges Interior for using the wild lands order to subvert several resource management plans completed under the George W. Bush administration, which took several years to complete and involved broad input from the state and counties.

A BLM spokesman last night declined to comment on the complaint.

"The counties with BLM lands that are affected by this order have all gone to careful lengths to devise a plan for managing these lands," said Mark Ward, an attorney for Utah counties.

Ward said the wild lands policy flouts provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) directing BLM to manage its lands consistent with local plans. Instead, BLM has implemented "de facto" bans on oil and gas drilling and other multiple uses in areas proposed for wilderness protection, plaintiffs contend.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar over the past months has repeatedly pointed to separate provisions of FLPMA and a ruling by a federal appeals court that require the agency to keep a working inventory of wilderness lands and to manage some of those lands in their "natural state."

The lawsuit also takes a swipe at a set of oil and gas leasing plans recently completed as part of energy reforms BLM finalized last May that seek to head off future conflicts over public lands.

In January, BLM Director Bob Abbey approved six so-called "master leasing plans" covering 3.9 million acres in Utah that conservation groups say will ensure continued development but also safeguard hunting, fishing and other important uses of public lands.

But while the Utah leasing programs were finalized in early February, the BLM state director did not notify the counties until Monday afternoon this week, a day before the plaintiffs' amended complaint was due, the lawsuit contends.

"That was the result of secret negotiations by groups that sued BLM, under the cloak of settling [a separate] lawsuit," Ward said. "They proceeded to force these master leasing plans," which conform less with the existing resource management plans and more with the Red Rock bill, Ward said.

The lawsuit comes amid heated criticism from mostly Western Republican members of Congress, three Western governors, grazing groups and other public lands users.

That criticism has been countered by strong support from most Democratic lawmakers, several dozen local elected officials in Western states, conservation groups, hunters and outfitters.

Flawed arguments?

Conservation groups that support the wild lands policy said the counties' claims fall on shaky legal grounds.

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material  herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed  a  prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and  educational purposes only. For more information go to:
 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/03/23/23greenwire-utah-counties-file-lawsuit-over-blm-wilderness-60695.html

[AspenBud]

Does that go for the landowner, as well? You seem to have a pretty easy time of saying that everything protected by the ESA is sacred and screw the landowner. The landowner who can't build is affected. Do you even care about private property rights?

Do you hold the land owner above elk? Seriously, just because you don't hold one set of species at the same level as others does not make you anymore right than someone who does. I'm guessing if land owners were causing serious elk declines you would be out there howling at the world.

The truth is we live in a country, private property is not a nation within a nation unless you are a Native American. The government can, and has, scooped up private property for all sorts of reasons from road building, to defense, to animals under the ESA. Arguably people don't like that drilling off the coast could affect fish runs if a spill were to occur and some would like to see every single dam on the Columbia blown, but the government thinks otherwise on that too.

The Canada dusky goose is a prime example of this. Farmers in SW WA and NW OR should have relief from the millions of birds who winter here. But, they're not getting it because of one bird, one that very closely resembles 6 other sub species of Canada goose, that can't adapt to natural changes affecting its breeding grounds and has few instincts to avoid hunters, as all the other Canada geese do.

Of all the waterfowlers I know in southwest Washington, not one hunts on private land. Perhaps the farmers should do a little more to let people know they want the help and where to go. You also seem oblivious to the reality that hunter numbers in this state are tiny and goose hunters represent an even smaller subset and they can only shoot so many limits of geese.

This is like the argument that hunters could have taken care of bloated ungulate populations just as well as wolves. While there is a shred of truth to that, it completely overlooks the fact that there are many land owners who allow no hunting on their land whatsoever and thereby contribute to the problem...and there are more and more of them as time goes by as land gets bought up by people who don't want hunters on their land or sell the rights to for prices well beyond most peoples' reach.

[AspenBud]

EXCLUSIVE! THE BUNDY DAUGHTER SPEAKS OUT ON GOVERNMENT TERRORISM AGAINST HER FAMILY!
April 9, 2014
“Sorry this is long but applicable here. By SHIREE BUNDY COX:
I have had people ask me to explain my dad’s stance on this BLM fight.
Here it is in as simple of terms as I can explain it. There is so much to it, but here it is in a nut shell.
My great grandpa bought the rights to the Bunkerville allotment back in 1887 around there. Then he sold them to my grandpa who then turned them over to my dad in 1972.
These men bought and paid for their rights to the range and also built waters, fences and roads to assure the survival of their cattle, all with their own money, not with tax dollars.
These rights to the land use is called preemptive rights.
Some where down the line, to keep the cows from over grazing, came the bureau of land management. They were supposed to assist the ranchers in the management of their ranges while the ranchers paid a yearly allotment which was to be use to pay the BLM wages and to help with repairs and improvements of the ranches.
My dad did pay his grazing fees for years to the BLM until they were no longer using his fees to help him and to improve.
Instead they began using these money’s against the ranchers.
They bought all the rest of the ranchers in the area out with their own grazing fees.
When they offered to buy my dad out for a penence he said no thanks and then fired them because they weren’t doing their job.
He quit paying the BLM but, tried giving his grazing fees to the county, which they turned down.
So my dad just went on running his ranch and making his own improvements with his own equipment and his own money, not taxes.
In essence the BLM was managing my dad out of business.
Well when buying him out didn’t work, they used the indangered species card.
You’ve already heard about the desert tortis.
Well that didn’t work either, so then began the threats and the court orders, which my dad has proven to be unlawful for all these years.
Now they’re desperate.
It’s come down to buying the brand inspector off and threatening the County Sheriff.
Everything they’re doing at this point is illegal and totally against the constitution of the United States of America.
Now you may be saying,” how sad, but what does this have to do with me?” Well, I’ll tell you.
They will get rid of Cliven Bundy, the last man standing on the Bunkerville allotment and then they will close all the roads so no one can ever go on it again.
Next, it’s Utah’s turn. Mark my words, Utah is next.
Then there’s the issue of the cattle that are at this moment being stolen. See even if dad hasn’t paid them, those cattle do belong to him.
Regardless where they are they are my fathers property. His herd has been part of that range for over a hundred years, long before the BLM even existed.
Now the Feds think they can just come in and remove them and sell them without a legal brand inspection or without my dad’s signature on it.
They think they can take them over two boarders, which is illegal, ask any trucker. Then they plan to take them to the Richfeild Auction and sell them.
All with our tax money.
They have paid off the contract cowboys and the auction owner as well as the Nevada brand inspector with our tax dollars.
See how slick they are?
Well, this is it in a nut shell. Thanks”
http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2014/04/09/exclusive-the-bundy-daughter-speaks-out-on-government-terrorism-against-her-family/

Utah Counties File Lawsuit Over BLM Wilderness Policy
By PHIL TAYLOR of Greenwire

A new Interior Department wilderness policy fails to allow coordination with local counties, breaks the terms of a 2003 settlement and threatens the continued production of oil and natural gas on public lands, according to a lawsuit filed yesterday by Utah counties against the federal government.
More News From Greenwire

Congress' Failure to Pass Spending Bill Creates Chaos in Agencies
Supreme Court Decides -- Narrowly -- Against Hearing Enviro Search Case
Former NRC Member Says Renaissance Is Dead, for Now
Marines Trying to Get Afghan Farmers Hooked on Energy Crops
Humans 'Wired' for Terror Over Remote Radiation Threats
The legal attack is the first, but likely not the last, to challenge a secretarial "wild lands" order finalized last month that requires the Bureau of Land Management to take stock of wilderness-quality lands and consider barring activities that would impair sensitive habitats, archaeological resources or natural solitude.

John Swallow, Utah's chief deputy attorney general, yesterday told Greenwire that the state intends to file its own lawsuit challenging the BLM policy in the next couple of weeks.

Yesterday's complaint from Uintah County and the Utah Association of Counties claims Interior is exceeding its authority by establishing wilderness protections without the consent of Congress.

The 97-page complaint (pdf) accuses Interior of breaking the terms of a settlement reached in 2003 between then-Interior Secretary Gale Norton and former Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt (R), which ordered BLM to abandon a wilderness inventory initiated under the Clinton administration.

The lawsuit also alleges that top Interior officials had instructed regional BLM managers to reject nominations from oil and gas firms to lease lands that conservationists have proposed for protections under the "America's Red Rock Wilderness Act."

The Red Rock bill, which is opposed by the Utah delegation, seeks to designate as wilderness 9.4 million acres of federal land, including parts of Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument and areas adjacent to Capitol Reef National Park, Canyonlands National Park and the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area.

Lastly, the complaint charges Interior for using the wild lands order to subvert several resource management plans completed under the George W. Bush administration, which took several years to complete and involved broad input from the state and counties.

A BLM spokesman last night declined to comment on the complaint.

"The counties with BLM lands that are affected by this order have all gone to careful lengths to devise a plan for managing these lands," said Mark Ward, an attorney for Utah counties.

Ward said the wild lands policy flouts provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) directing BLM to manage its lands consistent with local plans. Instead, BLM has implemented "de facto" bans on oil and gas drilling and other multiple uses in areas proposed for wilderness protection, plaintiffs contend.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar over the past months has repeatedly pointed to separate provisions of FLPMA and a ruling by a federal appeals court that require the agency to keep a working inventory of wilderness lands and to manage some of those lands in their "natural state."

The lawsuit also takes a swipe at a set of oil and gas leasing plans recently completed as part of energy reforms BLM finalized last May that seek to head off future conflicts over public lands.

In January, BLM Director Bob Abbey approved six so-called "master leasing plans" covering 3.9 million acres in Utah that conservation groups say will ensure continued development but also safeguard hunting, fishing and other important uses of public lands.

But while the Utah leasing programs were finalized in early February, the BLM state director did not notify the counties until Monday afternoon this week, a day before the plaintiffs' amended complaint was due, the lawsuit contends.

"That was the result of secret negotiations by groups that sued BLM, under the cloak of settling [a separate] lawsuit," Ward said. "They proceeded to force these master leasing plans," which conform less with the existing resource management plans and more with the Red Rock bill, Ward said.

The lawsuit comes amid heated criticism from mostly Western Republican members of Congress, three Western governors, grazing groups and other public lands users.

That criticism has been countered by strong support from most Democratic lawmakers, several dozen local elected officials in Western states, conservation groups, hunters and outfitters.

Flawed arguments?

Conservation groups that support the wild lands policy said the counties' claims fall on shaky legal grounds.

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material  herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed  a  prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and  educational purposes only. For more information go to:
 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/03/23/23greenwire-utah-counties-file-lawsuit-over-blm-wilderness-60695.html

Thank you for continuing to prove my point that you are only worried about hunting as it relates to trying to gain support for your cattle and land cause. I'm sure if it came down to elk versus cattle and land we'd know where you stand.

[pianoman9701]

If the government disallows a private landowner to develop his own land for whatever reason, then the only difference between that and the government actually seizing the private land is the piece of paper saying he owns it. He may own it, but without the ability to change it, it might as well be public land. There is one glaring difference: he still gets to pay the taxes to the same government which disallowed him to change it.

So are you opposed to zoning laws too? Or just when ESA law impedes development?

Zoning laws apply to everyone equally and are something you're aware of when you purchase land. That's completely different from someone looking for something on someone's private land with which to stop them from doing what they want on it. I realize nothing's going to satisfy you, Aspen, either in this or any of the wolf conversations. I have little doubt you're a card-carrying member of one of the groups which use public taxpayer funds to sue the government. Is it the Defenders to which you belong? Sure sounds like it. A lot.

[idahohuntr]

Zoning laws apply to everyone equally and are something you're aware of when you purchase land. That's completely different from someone looking for something on someone's private land with which to stop them from doing what they want on it. I realize nothing's going to satisfy you, Aspen, either in this or any of the wolf conversations. I have little doubt you're a card-carrying member of one of the groups which use public taxpayer funds to sue the government. Is it the Defenders to which you belong? Sure sounds like it. A lot.

I see you are as ignorant of zoning laws as you are the Endangered Species Act. 

[idahohuntr]

EXCLUSIVE! THE BUNDY DAUGHTER SPEAKS OUT ON GOVERNMENT TERRORISM AGAINST HER FAMILY!
April 9, 2014
“Sorry this is long but applicable here. By SHIREE BUNDY COX:
I have had people ask me to explain my dad’s stance on this BLM fight.
Here it is in as simple of terms as I can explain it. There is so much to it, but here it is in a nut shell.
My great grandpa bought the rights to the Bunkerville allotment back in 1887 around there. Then he sold them to my grandpa who then turned them over to my dad in 1972.
These men bought and paid for their rights to the range and also built waters, fences and roads to assure the survival of their cattle, all with their own money, not with tax dollars.
These rights to the land use is called preemptive rights.
Some where down the line, to keep the cows from over grazing, came the bureau of land management. They were supposed to assist the ranchers in the management of their ranges while the ranchers paid a yearly allotment which was to be use to pay the BLM wages and to help with repairs and improvements of the ranches.
My dad did pay his grazing fees for years to the BLM until they were no longer using his fees to help him and to improve.
Instead they began using these money’s against the ranchers.
They bought all the rest of the ranchers in the area out with their own grazing fees.
When they offered to buy my dad out for a penence he said no thanks and then fired them because they weren’t doing their job.
He quit paying the BLM but, tried giving his grazing fees to the county, which they turned down.
So my dad just went on running his ranch and making his own improvements with his own equipment and his own money, not taxes.
In essence the BLM was managing my dad out of business.
Well when buying him out didn’t work, they used the indangered species card.
You’ve already heard about the desert tortis.
Well that didn’t work either, so then began the threats and the court orders, which my dad has proven to be unlawful for all these years.
Now they’re desperate.
It’s come down to buying the brand inspector off and threatening the County Sheriff.
Everything they’re doing at this point is illegal and totally against the constitution of the United States of America.
Now you may be saying,” how sad, but what does this have to do with me?” Well, I’ll tell you.
They will get rid of Cliven Bundy, the last man standing on the Bunkerville allotment and then they will close all the roads so no one can ever go on it again.
Next, it’s Utah’s turn. Mark my words, Utah is next.
Then there’s the issue of the cattle that are at this moment being stolen. See even if dad hasn’t paid them, those cattle do belong to him.
Regardless where they are they are my fathers property. His herd has been part of that range for over a hundred years, long before the BLM even existed.
Now the Feds think they can just come in and remove them and sell them without a legal brand inspection or without my dad’s signature on it.
They think they can take them over two boarders, which is illegal, ask any trucker. Then they plan to take them to the Richfeild Auction and sell them.
All with our tax money.
They have paid off the contract cowboys and the auction owner as well as the Nevada brand inspector with our tax dollars.
See how slick they are?
Well, this is it in a nut shell. Thanks”
http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2014/04/09/exclusive-the-bundy-daughter-speaks-out-on-government-terrorism-against-her-family/

Laws have changed since 1887.  I hope they arrest the entire family of squatters and take their ranch and bankrupt them.  I have little patience for people who steal from the public...whether its a corrupt politician or a corrupt rancher...hang em all.

[pianoman9701]

Zoning laws apply to everyone equally and are something you're aware of when you purchase land. That's completely different from someone looking for something on someone's private land with which to stop them from doing what they want on it. I realize nothing's going to satisfy you, Aspen, either in this or any of the wolf conversations. I have little doubt you're a card-carrying member of one of the groups which use public taxpayer funds to sue the government. Is it the Defenders to which you belong? Sure sounds like it. A lot.

I see you are as ignorant of zoning laws as you are the Endangered Species Act. 

I only expected as much from you.

[AspenBud]

If the government disallows a private landowner to develop his own land for whatever reason, then the only difference between that and the government actually seizing the private land is the piece of paper saying he owns it. He may own it, but without the ability to change it, it might as well be public land. There is one glaring difference: he still gets to pay the taxes to the same government which disallowed him to change it.

So are you opposed to zoning laws too? Or just when ESA law impedes development?

Zoning laws apply to everyone equally and are something you're aware of when you purchase land. That's completely different from someone looking for something on someone's private land with which to stop them from doing what they want on it. I realize nothing's going to satisfy you, Aspen, either in this or any of the wolf conversations. I have little doubt you're a card-carrying member of one of the groups which use public taxpayer funds to sue the government. Is it the Defenders to which you belong? Sure sounds like it. A lot.

I'll ask you your position on elk versus property rights in another way since you refuse to answer the question. If it were found that hoof rot in Roosevelt elk is caused by chemicals that weyerhaeuser uses and they were asked to stop using them and in turn told hunters to take a hike you would think that was okay right? I mean, it's their land right?

[AspenBud]

If the government disallows a private landowner to develop his own land for whatever reason, then the only difference between that and the government actually seizing the private land is the piece of paper saying he owns it. He may own it, but without the ability to change it, it might as well be public land. There is one glaring difference: he still gets to pay the taxes to the same government which disallowed him to change it.

So are you opposed to zoning laws too? Or just when ESA law impedes development?

Have you ever been in Vancouver, WA? Your answer lies there.

[pianoman9701]

If the government disallows a private landowner to develop his own land for whatever reason, then the only difference between that and the government actually seizing the private land is the piece of paper saying he owns it. He may own it, but without the ability to change it, it might as well be public land. There is one glaring difference: he still gets to pay the taxes to the same government which disallowed him to change it.

So are you opposed to zoning laws too? Or just when ESA law impedes development?

Zoning laws apply to everyone equally and are something you're aware of when you purchase land. That's completely different from someone looking for something on someone's private land with which to stop them from doing what they want on it. I realize nothing's going to satisfy you, Aspen, either in this or any of the wolf conversations. I have little doubt you're a card-carrying member of one of the groups which use public taxpayer funds to sue the government. Is it the Defenders to which you belong? Sure sounds like it. A lot.

I'll ask you your position on elk versus property rights in another way since you refuse to answer the question. If it were found that hoof rot in Roosevelt elk is caused by chemicals that weyerhaeuser uses and they were asked to stop using them and in turn told hunters to take a hike you would think that was okay right? I mean, it's their land right?

No, and I've stated so previously in this thread. I didn't refuse to answer any question. Elk are not included in the ESA. This thread is about abusing the ESA to forward eco-wacko goals. Poisoning the forests with sprayed chemicals, if that's what is indeed happening (you seem to already have the definitive answer for that question), would be something which affects wildlife adversely and shouldn't be tolerated. However, using the ESA to purposely prevent a private landowner from development of their property for no purpose other than to forward an organizations agenda is wrong. In addition, the law which allows people to sue the government with taxpayer money should also be abolished. It's ridiculous and causes frivolous lawsuits. Like I said before, it's obvious that you and Idahohuntr bow to the ESA and all of the great things you can do to manipulate society with it. I'm sure you'd have no problem using taxpayer money to sue the government, either. Discussing any of this further with either of you is pointless. Buh-bye.