When we become blinded to reality and caught up in our “do-gooder” mentalities we often create other dangers we are unaware of. Designating critical habitat for wildlife can do just that. We want very much to protect what we perceive as a helpless animal or plant and are so focused on doing that, we don’t always look at the big and complete picture.
Why, oh why is it that as soon as I open my mouth and begin talking about making changes to such things as the Endangered Species Act or when I implore people to consider that large predators, like the wolf, need to be controlled, or even try to show people that voting for amendments to the Clean Water Act, I get accused of being opposed to conserving wildlife, protecting water, etc.? All of these things aren’t necessarily in the best interest of the animals, the water or the people when carried too far.
Designating critical wildlife habitat can become extremely complicated, can strip a landowner of his rights and in some cases the act ends up further hampering the protections of the animal. There is only so much that we as humans can do to conserve and protect our species as is practicable. Once we begin reaching beyond the sense and sensibilities of things, we tread on dangerous soil by placing economic growth and property rights below the protection of animal or plant species.
In Florida, the Conservancy of Southwestern Florida has filed a petition with the Obama administration seeking designation of critical habitat for the Florida panther. Hugh Hewitt at TownHall.com brings to our attention his perspective having served as an Endangered Species Act lawyer under the Reagan administration and still works as a lawyer representing ESA and Clean Water Act cases.
In the eight years of the Bush Administration, the environmental groups learned to play the Endangered Species Act like a violin, and one of their favorite tunes is the demand for “critical habitat,” a series of maps that, once promulgated, have the effect of greatly complicating the use of private property even if the species connected with the maps is nowhere near the property so designated. Because landowners rarely if ever get word of such designations or understand them when the occur, the property rights time bomb gets planted and starts ticking with very few people aware of the rule-making or its consequences.
Hewitt further states that if such a petition is successful, it will greatly “impair the property rights of landowners in the region without doing anything to enhance the survival of the panther.”
Once again, I’m interested in protecting the Florida Panther, in the same fashion I am the wolf, the Atlantic salmon and many other species. What I am opposed to is the lack of honesty that exists from groups and individuals working to protect these species. When you cannot be fully forthcoming to the landowners in explaining exactly what is at stake, we are left only to believe that this effort isn’t honest and probably not in the best interest of everyone except special interest.
We can’t just trample over people, their land and rights, with no or little regard for the existing economic outlook, to save an animal, especially when it is done dishonestly.
Tom Remington
