Assuming that personal freedoms take precedence to extinction, sure. But some of us don't follow that. So we'll just have to agree to disagree there

Todd

The alternative is that endangered species on private land are offered essentially no protection.

Animals are traditionally considered public property, no matter whose land they may be on at the moment. It's illegal for you to shoot a deer out of season on your own land, for example. Plants are tougher, as they are traditionally considered part of the parcel on which they sit, and so can be dealt with by the landowner in any way he pleases.

I sympathize with your concerns for landowners' rights, Ben, but these rights often conflict with the greater good. Why should a handful of landowners have the power to remove an entire species from everyone's natural heritage? It's just as if they were dumping toxic chemicals or starting forest fires on their own land: the effects go beyond the limits of their property, and so become the concern of us all.

A proper balance must be struck in protecting the rights of the individual and the welfare of the group. I surely don't envy those whose job it is to find and maintain that balance.

The alternative is that endangered species on private land are offered essentially no protection.

Animals are traditionally considered public property, no matter whose land they may be on at the moment. It's illegal for you to shoot a deer out of season on your own land, for example. Plants are tougher, as they are traditionally considered part of the parcel on which they sit, and so can be dealt with by the landowner in any way he pleases.

I sympathize with your concerns for landowners' rights, Ben, but these rights often conflict with the greater good. Why should a handful of landowners have the power to remove an entire species from everyone's natural heritage? It's just as if they were dumping toxic chemicals or starting forest fires on their own land: the effects go beyond the limits of their property, and so become the concern of us all.

A proper balance must be struck in protecting the rights of the individual and the welfare of the group. I surely don't envy those whose job it is to find and maintain that balance.

If I owned a piece of land with a particularly pitcuresque cliff or waterfall on it, no one could keep me from dynamiting it and "removing it from the natural heritage." I think we have a right to encourage people not to "remove things from the natural heritage," but we don't have the right to compel them to do so. If we want people to behave in a particular way, we should pay them to do so, but we shouldn't punish them if they don't agree.

Native wildlife and fish on your property don't belong to you -- they're owned by the State, even in Texas.

http://tlo2.tlc.stat...00.htm#1.011.00

It's kind of ironic. The reason we have the ESA in the first place because so many folks like you figure they can do whatever they want on "their property."

A waterfall is not a species. The analogy here would be if you had the last waterfall on Earth on your property, and there was no way to ever create another one.

A waterfall is not a species. The analogy here would be if you had the last waterfall on Earth on your property, and there was no way to ever create another one.

Eloquently put. Thanks.

A waterfall is not a species. The analogy here would be if you had the last waterfall on Earth on your property, and there was no way to ever create another one.

Conservation minded people can and should have genetic stocks of these animals rather than expecting private individuals to maintain those stocks in the wild. And, if conservation minded people expect a private individual to alter the land use to preserve a species, then the private individual should be compensated handsomely for doing so.

I mean, your analogy holds true if the last desert pupfish on earth lives on my land. But that's frequently not the case.

Native wildlife and fish on your property don't belong to you -- they're owned by the State, even in Texas.

http://tlo2.tlc.stat...00.htm#1.011.00

It's kind of ironic. The reason we have the ESA in the first place because so many folks like you figure they can do whatever they want on "their property."

There's no reason to adopt the tone that you're adopting here.

The fact of the matter is, ESA or no, I pretty much can do whatever I want on "my property," as you put it. Things like the ESA, however, make it much more likely that people are going to fail to report incidences of threatened species and do whatever they wish anyway, since it's easier to sell "4 bedroom on 10 acres" than it is to sell "4 bedroom on 10 acres with onerous land use restrictions."

Hey, I'm the type of person you need to convince, and you're not going to do so with posts like the above.

I'd like to remind everyone not to get too worked up. People can have very different, strong opinions based on the same evidence and observations. The discussion is good because almost everyone agrees that the ESA needs adjustments. So please don't make snarky remarks, or be quick to see snark in other people's comments.

Hey, I'm the type of person you need to convince, and you're not going to do so with posts like the above.

I seriously doubt that I'd be able to convince you to change your mind over an internet forum anyway. Now, along a river or over beers (or both!), maybe...

If it's not megafauna, most folks aren't going to know that they have a T&E species on their property. I've shown enough landowners rare fish, bats, and salamanders and gotten either a "well I'll be, I've never seen THAT before" or a "why, that's just a baby bass." The supposedly onerous land use restrictions are for the most part a myth. The amount of private land that is subject to any sort of ESA-related use restrictions is tiny, especially when you compare it to other restrictive laws enacted by states, municipalities, or even community groups. Do you have some personal experience otherwise? I'd love to hear about it...

The ESA provides some teeth to keep critters that are on the brink of extinction from disappearing. Like it or not, as a country we have considered protecting rare and endangered wildlife important enough that, through our elected representatives, we have enacted laws that facilitate this. The original discussion in this thread regarded a couple of errors by TVA. Perhaps we should start a new thread on property rights and the ESA (and while we're at it, why not include all other federal laws and the use of eminent domain, also)?

With best regards,
Dave

The rest of the discussion aside, if TVA were a private company rather than the government, the fines levied by the EPA for the recent incidents would come out of the paycheck of actual decision-makers at the company and its managers would have incentives to preserve their land value. Government is consistently the worst polluter because all those incentives are missing. Most counterexamples you might cite of a private company causing a problem are bound to be examples of misuse of public rather than private land.

Native wildlife and fish on your property don't belong to you -- they're owned by the State, even in Texas.

That's great! I am glad to know that someone else on here shares the same type of humor that I do.

The fact and sad part of this story is I have met numerous people that do feel that wildlife and private property go hand in hand as far as ownership goes and the majority of them in the same token treat wildlife as if they are the last person to see and experience that organism, then by golly so be it!

Blake

I seriously doubt that I'd be able to convince you to change your mind over an internet forum anyway.

You'd be surprised. I come to this forum for information, and I've changed my mind about many things in the past based upon new information.

The supposedly onerous land use restrictions are for the most part a myth.

What's the myth, and what's the truth? Tell me, I'd like to know. Sounds like, to me, if you have to apply for an "incidental death" permit for any major changes in land use, that's a pretty onerous burden, one that would likely knock a substantial bit of value of a property.

The amount of private land that is subject to any sort of ESA-related use restrictions is tiny, especially when you compare it to other restrictive laws enacted by states, municipalities, or even community groups.

This line of argument assumes that I find restrictive laws enacted by states, municipalities, or HOA's or community groups permissable but not the restrictions under the ESA. That's a poor assumption, as I haven't stated that, and we haven't even established a comparable baseline for comparison.

The ESA provides some teeth to keep critters that are on the brink of extinction from disappearing. Like it or not, as a country we have considered protecting rare and endangered wildlife important enough that, through our elected representatives, we have enacted laws that facilitate this.

This sort of strikes me as the "if you don't like it, tough noogies" line of reasoning, when, in fact, that's not the case. The ESA exists at the whim of the body public, and, if it were to be widely seen as overly onerous, it could certainly be repealed. Surely, you agree that there was a public backlash to Kelo and public use, right? What I'm talking about is theoretical ways that the ESA could be improved to better achieve its stated goals. I'm not advocating dumping motor oil in the Edwards Aquifer or anything.

The rest of the discussion aside, if TVA were a private company rather than the government, the fines levied by the EPA for the recent incidents would come out of the paycheck of actual decision-makers at the company and its managers would have incentives to preserve their land value. Government is consistently the worst polluter because all those incentives are missing. Most counterexamples you might cite of a private company causing a problem are bound to be examples of misuse of public rather than private land.

I'd agree with that.