And this is who planned the wolf reintro??

[Michaelr]

US Fish and Wildlife Service -- Shoot the Geese to Save the Snails

Brandt Child planned to build a campground on his property in Three Lakes, Utah. Neighbors in southern Utah had used the area for recreation for some time. But Child's plans soon came to a screeching halt.

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) declared a pond on Child's land to be a prime habitat for the endangered Kanab Amber Snail. They fenced off the area, ordered people off the pond's banks, and forbade Child to work in the area. In addition, since the land was Child's, the USFWS informed him that if he failed to report a problem he could be held accountable.

Shortly thereafter, Child realized that a flock of domestic geese had taken up residence at his pond. If any of the geese were to partake of the unsuspecting snails, Child could have faced a $50,000 fine for each snail eaten.

USFWS then ordered the Utah Department of Wildlife and Resources to shoot the geese, remove their stomachs, and forward the contents of their stomachs to USFWS to determine the number of snails eaten by the geese. But when a Utah Department of Wildlife agent arrived to kill the geese, there were so many photographers and journalists present that he decided not to kill the geese.

Eventually, it was determined that the geese did not harm the endangered snail population and the snails continue to thrive.

Meanwhile, Child has not been compensated for his loss of property.

Source: National Wilderness Institute Resource magazine

 

[BuzzH]

I have to wonder about the credibility of that article...Geese with stomachs?

Perhaps the National Wilderness Institute Resource magazine editors dont realize geese have gizzards?

I wonder what else they dont know?

 

[Muledeer4me]

Oh brother ,more good stuff from our friendly environmental group's.

 

[1_pointer]

It was the US Fish and Wildlife Service, not an independent environmental organization.

Now you know how dangerous the SSS principle can be!! That is why many ranchers in No. UT are being proactive and managing for the benefit of sagegrouse, in hopes that it won't be listed as an endangered species. To me, that seems like a safer bet in the long run.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 02-06-2003 15:12: Message edited by: 1_pointer ]</font>

 

[ELKCHSR]

Managing or not, this man lost all rights to his property, which legally has now been for all practical purposes, but stolen by the government and some of you will still bury your head in the sand and say that this type of nonsense does not happen.

 

[1_pointer]

Do you know anyone who's had their property 'bought' by the gov. for a new highway? This isn't new. It has been awhile, but I don't think the constitution garantees ownership of property. Not saying it's right, but as many on here espouse, if it's legal what's the problem?

 

[ELKCHSR]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Do you know anyone who's had their property 'bought' by the gov. for a new highway? This isn't new. It has been awhile, but I don't think the constitution garantees ownership of property. Not saying it's right, but as many on here espouse, if it's legal what's the problem? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
There is a huge difference between them outright buying it for a freeway and legislating it as a non-use area. One is that the individual is compensated for their property; the other is not. I don't see how you can even mix these two up. This is the same stuff I saw in Washington on a huge scale with the spotted owl and any thing that resembles an Eagle tree. The gov. officials don't have to expend vast quantities of money to buy up this land which is then taken off the tax roles, and put on the tax doles, it is still left in private ownership with the stipulation that they can now do nothing with it. If you owned any thing, and put it in this context, you would see very plainly how wrong and unjust it really is...

 

[sdgunslinger]

The US Constitution does in fact ban the taking of private property without just compensation .

It is one thing that SHOULD separate us from the hordes of socialistic and totaliarian governments .

 

[1_pointer]

SD- Define 'just compensation'? Was the land taken away? I have a lot in the middle of a town, next to a grade school, across the street from a church and beside the firehouse and I want to build a strip bar there instead of a house. Can I? Nope. Should I be able to?

Elkchsr- If the gov. wants to seize my house (BTW the guy still owns the land) I'd bitch and moan abit, but I'd still just have to buy another house.

 

[sdgunslinger]

Are you saying your lot is worth more as a building site for a strip joint

, or as a home site ?

 

[1_pointer]

Neither. But its my property the government shouldn't be able to tell me what I can do on it right?

 

[sdgunslinger]

Article V.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

There ya go , 1 pointer . Twist it around however you want .

I do think though , that if the govt. ever seizes a house you own , there will be more than a little bitching and moaning . I think there will be great wailing and gnashing of teeth ...........

 

[danr55]

SD, Legally speaking, the land was not siezed and it does not fall subject to "public use". It is little different than zoning regulations. But let's expand this a bit.

In Culver City California, there was a Helicopter factory. This factory was owned by Summa Corporation who had other plans for the land. They intended to sell the helicopter factory, move it to Arizona and build a huge condo development on the land. One of the ideas for that condos was to cut a channel to the ocean and create a marina. Naturally the condos, on a marina, in Southern California would be worth a fortune.

They bought all the land from Lincoln Blvd. to the coast(about 1 mile), they got a coastal Commission study that said it was sizmically sound, they sold the helicopter factory and moved it to Arizona, they started clearing land to build condos. All of a sudden, the Sierra Club said what about the mud worm? Seems this area known as Ballenas Creek Drainage was home to a little known mud worm that didn't live anywhere else in the world. I don't think I need to go farther.

The State of California and the USFWS told Summa Corp they could do anything they wanted with the land, but they could not dig a channel to the ocean and they could not affect the eco effect of that drainage because of a mud worm.

When Summa sued, that courts ruled that the govt. had not taken the land for public usage but had "modified" the zoning regulations in the best interest of the public and in accordance with federal statute. So...............What's a guy gonna do? Summa lost almost $4,500M and my stocks plunged into the sea. So now, instead of living the life of luxury I'm still working for a living.

 

[ELKCHSR]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Elkchsr- If the gov. wants to seize my house (BTW the guy still owns the land) I'd bitch and moan abit, but I'd still just have to buy another house. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So if all your eggs are in one basket and you were expecting to make a living with this investment, and by all practical purposes, your investment is sound and legal, you sink all your money into it, only to be told that now you can't do it at all and matter of fact by mandate, your property for all practical purposes is nearly worthless.
Besides, where do you think it is right in the first place, even if you can afford it, for this to happen in the first place? I could see it if you lived in a communist country, but it shouldn't happen here...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Neither. But its my property the government shouldn't be able to tell me what I can do on it right? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not to the extent they think they can and do!!!
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is such a good find SD...
Good post Dan!!!

 

[1_pointer]

For one, I am not so short sighted that I would sink my life savings into one thing. That's just asking for trouble and not a smart decision. I agree that the US is the best place on earth and if my biggest hardship in life is losing a house or some property I'd consider it a pretty good life. Losing my wife would be orders of magnitude worse.

Again, the property was not taken. Just as zoning laws prohibit certain uses on certain lands, so does the ESA. Personally, I don't think that is all that bad.

 

[BigHornyRam]

Pointer,

Do you rent or own a home? Ever own a business? Have you ever had to employ someone and make payroll? Own any investments like real estate, stocks, ect? Give us a little backround on how you are so wise to the world.

Paul

 

[danr55]

In this world, we have lost somewhere in the number of 46,000 species of birds, reptiles and animals. What's so bad about that?? That's just in my lifetime. (and I don't care what Elkhunter says, I am not older than rocks! Well, not all of them anyway...)There are creatures that cannot be recovered. They just aren't there anymore. Most of them, the average man or woman would never see. Didn't even know about and wouldn't care to know about. Some of these animals were spectacular to see... The Burmese Tiger for instance. How about the Dodo Bird or the Giant South Pacific Albatross? Anyway, these just aren't anymore. Not because they did anything wrong, but because man, in his short-sightedness either destroyed the habitat, or invaded the habitat, or paved the habitat, or flat killed it off because it scared us. That's a wonderful thing to say. A hundred fifty years ago, people in this country were scared and disgusted with the indian. They saw the indian as a savage and a heathan. They nearly destroyed the buffalo to starve the indian and make way for the railroad. (It is the Christian Judeo ethic that that which inhibits your progress should be destroyed!)Luckily for us, some few critters survived this slaughter and now we and our children and thier children can see and hear and smell and hunt buffalo. Something that would not have been had the great American Society had had its way. Same thing with Elk and deer and antelope. It would be funny if not so sad. At one time, best estimates are that there were between 13 and 15 million buffalo wandering around this country. (Some guy at UofA has estimated that there were 3 times as many Antelope as buffalo and almost the same number of Elk. But he is from UofA. What does he know??)

The point is that the world is getting continuously smaller. Technology is moving so quickly that what was science fiction 35 years ago is now obsolete. We are constantly moving faster and faster and paying less and less attention to the world around us. We have to slow down and consider the ramifications of our actions. Once a species is lost, it cannot be recouped. The wolf is something that man has feared, mostly without cause, for millenia. All of this argument about live stock and elk heards and wildlife disappearing goes directly in the face of quantifiable research and documented studies. I think it's time that reality sets in and people start to think beyond childish fears about boogeymen and big bad wolves. If you loose a few cows or a few sheep then consider that part of the price you pay for public grazing. If any specific animal becomes problematic, then deal with that animal as an individual. Don't condemn an entire species becuase you are afraid. Allow my grandkids and thier grandkids the thrill of hearing the wolf in the wilderness.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 02-12-2003 11:52: Message edited by: danr55 ]</font>

 

[Oak]

Wow, that's a pretty good post, Dan! I think that describes the situation pretty well. Of course, I'm sure some won't agree. Elkchsr, for instance,doesn't see any reason to reintroduce an animal to an ecosystem it has been extirpated from, regardless of how or why it was extirpated.

From your post before that one, I thought you were exactly on the other side of the fence.

Oak

Is that guy from UofA Paul Martin?

 

[wolfkilla']

I don't see a reason to introduce any of the animals they have been reintroduing either. This kind of thinking gets us into trouble.You may ask how? Well anytime the amnt of human interaction with grizzlies is increased the amnt of attacks to increases. We have them wanting to protect these "endangered" animals more than you or I. I also see a danger in your hunting future, these wolves were introduced cause the elk herds are "so big". Well if you got the greenies of our backs and let us shoot more of these elk that come out of the park(yellowstone)we would not have the problem with elk. Besides there's a reason these wolves should olny be in the yukon.They are just "killing machines"
anytime we find these wolves have been tearing open sheep rib cages and not eating them , deer also . We already have the problem in Helena two wolves tore up a couple of sheep dogs now who pays for that?But if thats not good enough reason for yah then listen up.We used to have all sorts of wild animals in NY city but we aren't puting them back are we noooo! they died off or were killed for a reason.
humans and wild animals(momstly predators)
don't interact that well.

 

[Oak]

I don't know about MT, but in CO and WY they can't sell all their cow tags. So what's the solution there? I do see your point, but...

Oak