New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | July 27, 2005

Ron Bailey squares off against dinosaurs who oppose revising the Endangered Species Act.

Comments

Adam|7.27.05 @ 12:03PM|#

Why should the case be any different for protecting endangered species? The draft revisions of the ESA would partially right this current wrong, but why should landowners be compensated for only 50 percent of their losses? We would all think it unjust to give people whose land is taken to build roads and schools only half the value of their property. If the public values endangered species (and most of us do), then it seems only fair that we fully compensate the people on whose land they live for taking care of them for us.

Damn straight. Why stop at 100%? Make it at least 150% of "market" value, as one NY Assemblyman is proposing for eminent domain. The owners of property decide market value, and stealing their property, or stealing its value while leaving it in the owner's hands, strips the owner of his ability to vote with his feet so to speak.

|7.27.05 @ 12:45PM|#

"If the public values endangered species (and most of us do), then it seems only fair that we fully compensate the people on whose land they live for taking care of them for us."

Wasn't this about the gist of one of Janice Brown's opinions which made her "a legal extremist, totally out of the mainstream?" And, thusly totally unfit for sitting on the federal bench, let alone SCOTUS?

|7.27.05 @ 12:49PM|#

Any bets that this thread will be "joe against all" pretty damn soon?

|7.27.05 @ 12:53PM|#

Yeah, when ever I go out doing fish survey work in agricultural areas, the inevitable result of my conversations with ranchers and farmers is:

"If you find any endangered species in my creek, kill 'em."

The ESA is a great law in concept. But it is flawed in practice because it uses punishment rather than incentive.

Adam has it right. The government should pay people more money than the simple value of their property, if the government restricts private property uses to protect endangered species. This would demonstrate to the public that value of property for fish and wildlife habitat can indeed be greater than the value for commercial enterprise.

An economic demonstration of Leopold's land ethic.

|7.27.05 @ 1:13PM|#

Why has no one ever called for applying the ESA to viruses? They're part of nature too.

Smallpox is seriously endangered! It only survives in a few labs. Shouldn't we be doing everything we possibly can to restore this innocent creation of nature which we humans have so wantonly destroyed? Why is no one calling for it to be released back into the wild?

Other viruses are also being targeted by irresponsible humans, especially by evil corporations. Look at what those bastards at Big Pharma and the CDC are trying to do to HIV!

Don't even get me started on the holocaust of bacteria.

|7.27.05 @ 1:25PM|#

Whether the ESA works or not is a good question, but Pombo has never demonstrated much interest in conservation, so I'd say the eco-dinosaurs skepticism is warranted.

John Tierney's column on free-market environmental solutions being undermined by the Bush administration -- http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/26/opinion/26tierney.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fJohn%20Tierney -- probably reflects Pombo's real goals more accurately.

Anyone have any good examples of freedom-friendly conservation measure that work?

|7.27.05 @ 1:50PM|#

trotsky:

www.tinyurl.com.

Larry A|7.27.05 @ 4:13PM|#

How successful have the Feds been at recovering species? Not very.

How insensitive you are for asking such a loaded question. Next thing you know someone will be asking why workplace accidents haven't decreased under OSHA, why illegal drug use hasn't decreased under the DEA, why gas prices continue to rise under one DOE while reading comprehension declines under the other DOE, etc.

You could probably fill a whole libertarian website with questions like that.

|7.27.05 @ 4:25PM|#

Larry

The failure to save species is proof that we need to spend more money on the problem!

(Like, more money for bacteria-saving programs)

|7.27.05 @ 4:28PM|#

Isildur,

Thanks. I learned a new (to me, anyway) Web trick today.

|7.27.05 @ 4:52PM|#

Roar! I like endangered species. It follows, then, that I don't much care for Republicans replacing top-down efforts that fail with greedy algorithms that will fail.

|7.28.05 @ 10:21AM|#

Your idiotic laws against murder/destruction of endangered species habitiat have prevented me from turning my home/multiacre parcel into a storefront hit man operation/strip mall, and thus decreased its value significantly.

Hey, if the public values preventing murder/preserving wildlife, why shouldn't the public pay for it? Why should they impose the entire cost one little ol' joe?