Liberty
Matters News Service
July 29, 2004
ESA Challenged in Congress and Supreme Court
The House Resource Committee approved two bills to reform
the Endangered Species Act, reform that has languished since 1993. The
committee voted 28-14 in favor of Rep. Dennis Cardoza's (D-CA) bill, H. R.
2933, to improve the method by which critical habitat is determined. The bill
would require critical habitat designation confined to areas where the subject
species actually resides. "It is only logical to look at occupied areas first.
The way to determine is with a field survey, not some wild-ass guess," observed
Chairman Richard Pombo, (R-CA). The second bill, H.R. 1662, introduced by Rep.
Greg Walden (R-WA), requires "sound science as the basis for determining the
threatened or endangered status of a species as well as requiring field-tested
and peer-reviewed data before any listing can be considered. Rep. Nick Rahall,
a Republican from Virginia, argued the current requirement of "best available
data" should be retained. Rep. Billy Tauzin (D-LA) shot back, "I love the
acronym of the current law, best available data, BAD." Recognizing the
difficulty of any legislative fix of the ESA, the American Land Foundation is
funding a lawsuit directed at the "Take" provision of the ESA and challenging
it's constitutionality to regulate non-commercial species on private property.
The suit is now pending in the U.S. Supreme Court with national support from
dozens of foundations and organizations.
Divided
House Committee Advances ESA Reform Bills
Restoring Oregon's Property Rights
Property rights advocates
are trying once again to reform Oregon's land use laws and have obtained enough
signatures to get their measure on the ballot this fall. Ross Day, legal
director for Oregonians in Action said, "Basically what it [the land-use reform
measure] does is restores property rights. There is no fairness and balance in
Oregon's land-use system. It's too geared to the radical environmental
extremists." The measure, if approved, will require the government to pay
landowners when regulations cause loss of value to their property. Proponents
learned their lesson from their year 2000 experience and this time are asking
for a change in state law rather than amending the Constitution in an attempt
to avoid another collision with Oregon's Supreme Court. The Court ruled the old
"Measure 7" unconstitutional. Opponents of "Measure 7" claimed that it would
cost the state and local governments $5.4 billion a year, but Day said they
would likely see an increase in gross tax receipts because the new measure
allows state and local governments to opt out of enforcing the land-use
regulations leading to more development and a broader tax base.
Land-use Initiative Qualifies for Ballot
Florida Aqua-farmers Face Extinction
If the U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) moves ahead with plans to list the beluga sturgeon as
threatened, Florida aqua-farmers could go under. Only a handful of farmers are
currently engaged in raising sturgeon for the commercial market and only one,
Gene Evans, raises the highly prized beluga, the eggs of which command
extremely high prices. If the FWS designates the sturgeon threatened, the
farmers will not be allowed to raise them for commercial purposes even though
countries on the Caspian and Black Seas will still be allowed to export the
same product into the United States. The Florida Sturgeon Production Working
Group is trying to convince the government agency that the commercial sturgeon
business in the United States will not harm wild sturgeon along the Caspian Sea
and to amend the rule "to specifically authorize the culture of captive-bred
sturgeon, at least in Florida." The government apparently contends that
hatchery-raised sturgeon are different from wild sturgeon and never the two
shall meet. In a similar case in Oregon, U.S. District Court Judge Michael
Hogan ruled there is no genetic difference between hatchery-raised Coho salmon
and wild salmon, although the Bush administration chose to maintain protection
for the wild species under the Endangered Species Act anyway. It is, after all,
an election year.
Aquafarmer Fighting to Save Pierson Operation
Scientists on Hit List
Jerry Vlasek, a former trauma surgeon turned
radical animal rights activist, told a United Kingdom newspaper that scientists
who use animals for research purposes should be killed. "If something bad
happens to these people [animal researchers], it will discourage others."
Vlasek serves as advisor for the radical group, Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty
(SHAC), and another animal rights organization, Speak. Speak is taking credit
for forcing a building contractor to cease work on a primate research
laboratory in Oxford. David Martosko, research director for the Center for
Consumer Freedom, blasted Vlasek as "one of the most dangerous animal rights
zealots on the planet. He's not making bombs, but he is making bombers." Vlasek
has not confined his looney ideas to the United Kingdom, either. Three months
ago, according to the Observer, he told a U. S. television audience that
violence was a "morally justified solution." He also told an audience in
Virginia, "It won't ruin our movement if someone gets killed in an animal
rights action. It's going to happen sooner or later." Other, less radical
animal rights groups won't touch him with a ten-foot-fork. A spokeswomen for
the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) told reporters, "He is
not a member of the organization," although Vlasek had maintained ties to PCRM
in the past. PCRM, incidentally, is funded by People for the Ethical Treatment
of Animals, PETA.
Kill Scientists, Says Animal Rights
Chief