Eco-Lobbyists Up In Arms Again
As Lawmakers Mull ESA Reform

WASHINGTON — Congress is once again considering reform of the federal Endangered Species Act, a law passed decades ago by well-intentioned lawmakers but long since corrupted by activists, bureaucrats and judges.

And once again, those same activists are loudly protesting any reform effort that would make the 1973 ESA more landowner-friendly — not to mention constitutional.

A bill that would require the government to compensate owners for being forced to protect so-called "endangered" species "is a shotgun blast that would cripple the ESA and the irreplaceable fish, wildlife, and plant species that depend on it,'' Steven Shimberg, a National Wildlife Federation vice president, told the House Resources Committee last week.

Shimberg said efforts to improve the law should concentrate on providing financial incentives for property owners to go beyond the law's requirements by taking action to benefit endangered wildlife.

``Paying people not to do the wrong thing defies common sense and would be a raid on the treasury,'' he said.

(Editor's note: Shimberg and his comrades have studiously ignored the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which requires the government to compensate citizens for "taking" their property, whatever the alleged justification.)

Supporters of the bill, H.R. 1142, said they want to protect endangered species, but also want to provide relief to landowners, who are bearing too much of the cost.

``It is wrong to force some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole,'' said Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, committee chairman and sponsor of the bill. The measure would require the federal government to minimize any impact on property rights or compensate the owner with taxpayers' money for any loss of use of the land.

Rep. Bill Thomas, R-Calif., has introduced a package of bills, similar to legislation has been unsuccessful in the past, to update wildlife protection laws.

Thomas said he wants to protect people who find themselves in situations similar to that of a constituent who wanted to open a recycling business on 20 acres in the central California community of McKittrick, but balked when a federal agency said he would have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to get a permit.

Under terms of the Endangered Species Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service demanded the landowner buy an additional 380 acres of land for a wildlife refuge to mitigate any "harm" the recycling business would cause to wildlife.

Each acre cost about $1000, Thomas said. ``This is simply extortion, plain and simple,'' he told the committee.

Since the Endangered Species Act became law 25 years ago, few lawmakers imagined the controversy it would unleash: fights pitting the protection of plants and animals against the rights of humans to own and manage their land, perform their jobs and meet the needs of a growing population.

Measures deemed necessary to protect such wildlife as the snail darter, spotted owl, kangaroo rat, Delhi fly, and black-spored quillwort have caused headaches for landowners, bringing many projects to a temporary or permanent halt.

``When I voted for the ESA in 1973, Congress was not told that this law would be used to force private property owners to set aside land for habitat for species against their will and without being compensated for the loss of their property,'' Young said. ``And if they aren't willing to set aside their land, the federal government can put them in jail.''