David Ridenour
David Ridenour
abhorrent destroy endangered environmental goal informing land largely legal owners property proposed recovering small species stated thirty though whether within
Informing property owners whether a proposed use of their land is legal shouldn't be controversial, though this is abhorrent to elitists within the environmental community. For over thirty years they've used the ESA to destroy small landowners, largely at their whim. Meanwhile, their stated goal of recovering endangered species never materialized.
benefit creates endangered fear harbor incentive land merely perverse private property rare severe species subject themselves
Today, private landowners live in fear of the ESA. Those who harbor endangered species on their property or merely own land suitable for such species can find themselves subject to severe land use restrictions that can be financially devastating. This creates a perverse incentive for landowners to preemptively 'sterilize' their land to keep rare species away. Such sterilizations benefit no one--least of all the species the ESA was established to protect.
action bipartisan government pay property quite reflect reform rights senate strong takes whatever
Whatever action the Senate takes on ESA reform should reflect the national, bipartisan outcry for strong property rights protections. Quite simply, when the government takes your property, the least it can do is pay for it.