Endangered Rights

R. E. Smith Jr.

New York Times editors, with their usual willful disregard for facts that favor conservative (read: mainstream America) moderation by the Bush administration to creeping bureaucratic authority, will defend the indefensible. Even bad law, to them, is good if the administration attempts to subdue it.

A recent Times editorial denounces current efforts by more rational people to slow the damage wrought by the Endangered Species Act of 1973; another sounds-good law perpetrated during the Nixon administration. But the ESA has evolved into a costly, useless and counterproductive legal tangle. Now, essentially usurped by self-serving government agents, leftist environmental lawyers and judges, this law has failed in its purpose. Worse, it’s used to stop legitimate development and take away landowners’ rights to their property.

The intent of the law was to identify animal—expanded even to plants—species that seem to be losing numbers, take action for their “recovery” and remove them from the list. Congress in its usual failure to think out the consequences of its acts, set no limits or priorities on the government activities and didn’t define success. The results were predictable. Every imaginable species from weevils to whales is a potential suspect for what Richard Pombo, chairman of the House Committee on Resources, called a “huge ‘TO DO’ list.”

After more than 32 years of controversy and confusion, evaluation shows that this law is expensive and ineffective. The Government Accounting (an oxymoron) Office reviewed how the Interior Department’s U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service spends our money on “recovery.” Only 10 of nearly 1300 species, so far identified, have been removed from the endangered list. FWS has a priority system, but it’s out of whack with spending. It’s no surprise to learn that “not a single plant or animal with the highest recovery priority was among the 20 species receiving the most recovery dollars” The GAO review revealed that “the vast majority (more than 99 percent) have not improved under implementation of current law,” reported Chairman Pombo.

However, presumably wiser people at the Times editorial board say, “It (ESA) is a fundamentally sound statute with wide public support and a demonstrable record of success.” Somebody is lying to us.

And should anyone think that bureaucrats and their activist supporters are honestly trying to help species “recover,” the GAO report found that “federal, state, and private parties” have probably spent hundreds of millions of tax dollars based on “erroneous data.” Many listed species, in fact, aren’t really “endangered.”

Driving this bio-political scheme is the concept of “statutory critical habitat.” Government employees decide what land or water conditions are necessary for these plants and animals to maintain desired numbers, and woe be unto the owners of property meeting such criteria. Once an environmentalist reports an endangered species—most only of academic interest to a few biologists—occupying your property, forget about plans you may have to use it for your benefit. Essentially, it becomes a federal reserve, with no reimbursement to you. Sure, you may fight it in court, but that’s very expensive. And, ironically, your taxes pay for government lawyers and experts to oppose you.

Leftist environmental groups have used this law not only, in effect, to take property from individuals, but to damage an entire segment of our economy. Remember not long ago on the West Coast when environmentalists used the ESA to essentially shut down the timber industry? Claiming old growth timber was critical habitat for the spotted owl, they prevented harvesting in these areas, thus putting people out of work, devastating life in entire towns, and increasing the price of lumber to consumers.

Times editors like this socialist idea. As they put it: “By forcing a better balance between commerce and nature, it (ESA) has often constrained human behavior in ways that lead to a healthier environment for everyone.” In other words, American landowners will be compelled by government to limit the rightful use of their property if its agents determine a listed plant or animal occupies the property. We’ve heard this foreign and abhorrent ideological demand before.

“You must give up your individual rights for the good of all, comrade.”

And the editorial conclusion that this taking process leads to a “healthier environment” is ridiculous. Reduced populations of certain plants and animals don’t lead to an unhealthy environment; in fact, fluctuating populations is common in the ever-changing cycles of the natural world. Is our environment less healthy because passenger pigeons no longer darken the skies? Their extinction has nothing to do with the health of our environment. But the reverse is true. Many wild animals carry diseases that threaten our health.

The New York Times editors say that those of us who oppose this draconian and unconstitutional law conduct “guerrilla warfare.” Well, I say, when confronting people who threaten to take our property we must fight them. One step we can take is to demand that Congress repeal or severely restrict the Endangered Species Act.