The Government Is Controlling
Private Property to Save Frog Species Not Seen in 50 Years
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is seeking to
protect the dusky gopher frog on the Endangered Species List by designating
over 1,500 acres of private property in St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana as a
“critical habitat” for the embattled amphibian. But here’s the kicker: The
frog hasn’t been seen on the land in question for over 50 years.
The federal government has the ability through the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) to designate land as “critical habitat” subjecting it
to additional regulations. But the government can’t simply claim that
private property is “critical habitat” without first conducting an economic
analysis to determine the economic impact. If the analysis shows that the
cost of creating a critical habitat burdens the property owner and outweighs
the perceived benefit to the endangered species, the land can be exempted
from the regulation.
In the case of the St. Tammany property, the economic
analysis produced by the USFWS revealed that the “designation could preclude all development
on the land, causing the landowners to lose as much as $36 million.” Meanwhile,
the land is not actively benefitting a single dusky gopher frog. But the
plans to make the land a critical habitat proceed. This is a federal land
grab at its worst. And, unfortunately, the courts are complicit.
Oral arguments were heard in a U.S. district court last
week regarding the situation. U.S. Department of Justice attorney Mary
Hollingsworth noted that the property in dispute is a good prospective breeding
ground for the frog and is “in very good shape and could be used today if the
frogs were there.”
But, as noted earlier, the intriguing thing is that the
frogs aren’t there – and they haven’t been seen there or anywhere in Louisiana
for 50 years. Moreover, calling the land suitable for the frog is debatable
at best. Pacific Legal Foundation lawyer M. Reed Hopper noted that “this land does not include the physical and
biological features that are critical for the dusky gopher frog, so it’s
no surprise that there aren’t any frogs on the property.” The government
wants to effectively restrict use of private land that could cost the landowners
millions to protect a creature that doesn’t live, and possibly could not
even survive, there.
Unfortunately, the court’s decision allows this inanity
to proceed. Pacific Legal Foundation reported that a federal judge “reluctantly” upheld
the designation of this unsuitable area as
“critical habitat.” The judge acknowledged the ESA appears to go too far
but suggested that is a matter for Congress to address and not the courts.”
The Foundation called the action by the USFWS to not follow its own rules an
“irrational decision.”
An “irrational decision” is a good way to put it. Moreover,
it’s outrageous that the
government could restrict development of
private property and cost a family $36 million dollars, not to mention
the cost in jobs and economic activity of not productively using
the land. And the deeper issue of excessive government intervention shouldn’t
be forgotten. M. Reed Hopper says
it well:
“Essentially this is sort of a test
case for the Fish & Wildlife Service. This is the first time they’ve ever
extended their authority this far, and if they get away with it here, they’re
likely to do it in the future.”
Though the frog may be little, through the Endangered
Species Act, this amphibian is trashing private property rights that should
be protected under the Constitution, potentially costing people millions,
and setting a dangerous precedent for the future.
Related Posts
-
CommentThis is the kind of federal government abuse that has to stop. It’s time to revisit the endangered species act and remove those species who are damaging our economy.Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader
No comments:
Post a Comment