Tobacco Documents Online

i 0 MoKE •vXVOLx,':•` Sh.~.[Qt. ShO*l shut up ' are any other form of aconomic de- vclopmenl that the Fish and Wildlife Setvice secs as'•tht•eatening" to the species. In short, owners are do- prived of their livelihood from the development of their land. They be- come involuntary stevards, con• scripted into government sotvice without compensation. This imMun- , ; tarY servitude Is not at all uncomm T ite Endangered Species Act (ESA) was enacted into law in 1973 to protect the Eanh's diminishing biodivcrsity front estinction. Throush the ESA, nny eonpcrncd cititen with a 39-cent stamp and a postcard can petition •,he Intcrior Department's Fish and Ioildlife Scrviae to list any pop- ulntion of plant, animal or even „icroorganism under the 1SSA. arnended In 1979.1982 and 1988, the act promised to sava listed species ;hrouCh fedcral6overnmcnt protco- tion and recovery programs. Nine- :ccn ycars later, howcqcr, the ESA has failed, miserably, to live up to its potential. Of the 1,277 domestic and intcr• national species that have been listed undcr the ESA, only 17 have been "rescued•• from the list. Of .hesc, sevets were delisted due to cx- tinction, four t:rra removed as the result of ••oririnal data error," and three others rccovnred naturnily, ht- dcpendcnt of tbc act. Of the remain• ing three, there has only been one dclisting that ihe Fish and Wildlife Service holds up as a svccess story: :lte American alligator. Even this ase, though, requires further seru• tiny. The National Wildlifa Feder• atian, a preservation group weil- known for ita staunch protection of endangered species, reported in 1987 that "it now appears that the animal never should hava been placed pn the endangered species list." With such a dismal success rate, ~he inevitable question arises; "Why Isa't the ESA working?•' The answer is that the ESA ereates the wrong ;nc:ntiirs for small land otvners .pon u•hosc lands the endangered speciu exist. • lf your land is designated as erit• :rsl habitat fdr an endangered spo- cics, the land Is effectively taken from 1rou. Agricultural production, Mike Vivoli is a reseorch assis- 'mrt at Canpctith+e Er. terprise Insti- ~., i .-+.. . _ ~, ." . . resburceextractionareforbiddenas man nor is it restrtciad to a few goo- graphia areas. For example, smaii property owners in Eastern Mary- land cannot set foot on their land because of nesting bald eagles. Plroperty owners along the Neosho Rivcr in Kansas ran no longer pay tltcir property taxes with revenue rront river gravel because of the Mad 7bm catfish. And farmers In %tamath Falls havo been denied trri- Y ation water from privately owned acilitics because of the Lost River and sbormose sucker fish. Under the ESA, small property owners become andangered species and they are hardly ever noticed. One reason is that they havent the tima nor the financial resources to defend their riglt[s In court• Since very few takings cases are ever brought to court, small property owners are rarely compensated for their lossas. This leaves small prop- taxes u$h proceeds ft•om their iand, forftiturc of their property rights is an equally unbearable option. It is ' through this Catch 22 situation that the ESA craates pervcrse incentives. The dim prospect for cempensation leads many small property owners to pre-empt the problem. Or, as the sentiment is commonly cxpressed in' the Pacific Northwest, '•Stioot, Shovel, and Shut Up." It should therefore come as, no surprise that more than one tt•ce hugger has inad• venently embraced the corpse of a northern spotted owl staked to the object of his atfcctiott. . The covert destruction of endan- gared species is not the only pcr- vtrsa Incentive created by the FSA. In the Pacific Northwest, the ESA has prompted small tlmber'compa• nics to accelerate their timber har- vestingp rojeets for faarof losing the use of their lands and the value of their tmrstments to the ESA. This acceleration not only reduces habi• tat, but causes all the associated problems of clcareutting such as in- creased soil erosion and loss of aes• thotia value. Pittin6 propcrty owners against• species, by refusing to compensate the transfer of land from the owner . to the listed species, creates enemies of conservation instead of catscrva• . "I HOPE WCi LiNDERSTAND. 6ETORE I SW ptJ.l 1JdJD, I HAVE•SO NrV<E &t'a 'n1ERB AFENT •tAtV SiWREJ OCa1l5 AROOND." . ¢rty owners impaled on the borns of a dilemma: cither givsvp their prop• erty rights or violate the ESA out- right Since intentional violation of the E8A Is punishable by fines of up to 573,00D, outright violation is not a viable alternative to most small property ou•ners. Because most small property owners draw their r. .... r.,..., n•.a ~~. •i-,.......,..,.,., tionists, By doing this, the ESA has forced sem¢ property owners to make a conscious decision that cct•• tain species never appear on their land, and others to pursuc ecoloti• raily inferior harvesting metbods. Considerinf the incentives the ESA has created, it is little wonder that inclusion an the endangered species act has beeome a lifctinta appoint- ~1, ii e a M ~~ Y^t!t!w=~ti e N