Liberty
Matters News Service
February 11, 2005
Wolf Ruling Threatens Livestock
U.
S. District Judge Robert E. Jones found in favor of environmental groups and
against livestock growers when he ruled that the Bush administration erred by
dividing the ranges of wolves into three areas and lowering status of the
Eastern and Western ranges to threatened rather than endangered. The Eastern
range runs from the Dakotas east to Maine and the Western range encompasses the
areas west of the Dakotas. The Southwestern region wolves remained on the
endangered list. Ranchers are now unable to use lethal means to protect their
livestock from attack by the government wolves. Bonny Kline, executive director
of the Colorado Wool Growers Association called the ruling "a stab in the
back." Kline is one of two livestock producers on the 14-member Wolf Working
Group trying to develop a policy to deal with wolves once they invade Colorado.
"Now we have no ability to protect our livestock," she said. The ruling will
have a negative impact on future dealings with wolf lovers, Kline predicted.
"There's no reason for the livestock industry to try to work with the wolf
groups to come up with a reasonable solution when [a lawsuit] is the mechanism
they choose to do business with," Ms. Kline added.
Colorado
Rancher Decries Ruling on Wolf Status
Bush Administration Violating the ESA
Wolf Rule Found in Violation
Condoleeza Rice "LOST"
During the course of her
confirmation hearings soon-to-be Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice was asked
by Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) about her support of the Law of the Sea Treaty
(LOST). Dr. Rice replied that President Bush "certainly would like to see it
passed as soon as possible." In March, 2004, News Service reported on LOST
dark-of-night hearings held by Sen. Lugar. LOST is the brainchild of the United
Nations, a body racked with scandal and corruption, which helps explain some of
the worst aspects of the treaty. LOST would give the International Seabed
Authority (ISA) the power to regulate 70 percent of the world's surface area
and would grant the ISA power to levy international taxes; LOST would give the
ISA power to regulate ocean research and exploration and worst of all, would
grant ISA the power to create a multinational court system with an even wider
jurisdiction than the International Criminal Court, a body the United States
has rejected. Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, says
"This accord would constitute the most egregious transfer of American
sovereignty, wealth and power to the U.N. since the founding of that 'world
body.'"
Opportunity Knocking: Defeat Law of Sea
Treaty
Cities Want Eminent Domain Abuse to Continue
A group of municipal organizations has filed
an amicus curiae brief in Kelo v. New London, an eminent domain case scheduled
to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court February 22. The National League of
Cities (NLC), along with the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities and 31
other state municipal leagues, are afraid a ruling for property owners would
severely limit their practice of condemning private property to make way for
another private business, what they call "economic development." As Donald J.
Borut, executive director of the NLC phrased it; "This case deals with an
essential local government tool for economic development. [A ruling in support
of private property rights] would have major ramifications for every
municipality in America." The NLC brief argues that the prudent use of "eminent
domain is often indispensable for revitalizing local economies…and
generating revenue that enables cities to provide essential services." When the
Michigan Supreme Court overturned "Poletown Neighborhood Council v. Detroit,
last summer, the unanimous decision read in part: "Poletown's 'economic
benefit' rationale would validate practically any exercise of the power of
eminent domain on behalf of a private entity. If one's ownership of private
property is forever subject to the government's determination that another
private party would put one's land to better use, then the ownership of real
property is perpetually threatened…"
State Leagues, NLC File Briefs in Eminent
Domain Case
Hunting for Trouble
After the South Dakota State Legislature
turned the state's hunting law on its ear in 2003, property owners petitioned
the courts for relief and won. Prior to 2003, South Dakota law prohibited
hunters to fire over or onto private property without the landowner's
permission; law consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's holding that firing
weapons over or onto private property is a physical invasion constituting an
unconstitutional "taking." However, in 2003, the legislature changed the law to
allow hunters to fire at and kill small game on private property without first
seeking landowner permission. Landowners sued, saying the law
unconstitutionally prevented them from protecting their property from
trespassers. The state's attorney general said the law just decriminalized
hunting on private land. The State Circuit Court ruled for the plaintiffs
saying; the right to exclude others is "one of the most essential sticks in the
bundle of rights that are commonly characterized as property." "The [South
Dakota] Legislature went too far when it granted hunters the right to shoot
onto private land. This is the very kind of thing that the Takings Clause was
meant to prevent," continued the ruling.
South Dakota Landowners Dodge a Bullet