YES, it's about time!


WASHINGTON, Tuesday, Nov. 12- Retiring House Resources Chairman James V.
>Hansen today filed a bill that would exempt military lands, private
>property and all plant life from the Endangered Species Act.
>
>Hansen called the bill "a shot across the bow from a retiring chairman"

>and a blueprint for bold changes that reflect what Congress originally
>intended when it passed the law more than 30 years ago. "I'm just
greasing
>the wheels for change here, giving my colleagues something they can act
on
>swiftly in the next Congress," Hansen said.
>
>Growing problems with the ESA cost consumers and taxpayers more than a
>billion a year in litigation, lost profits, lost jobs and rising
operating
>costs for both government and business, according to estimates from
>private groups.
>
>In some instances, private property owners can't walk their own
property.
>Some military bases can't use their own land for mission-critical
training
>at a time when America is on the verge of war.
>
>Chairman Hansen's statement:
>
>"After working with this law during my 22 years in Congress, I've
>concluded it's the most powerful law in the land. It can be used to
thwart
>everything from the training of our fighter pilots to the farmer's
simple
>desire to plant a crop in his field so he can feed his family.
>
>"Right now, in this country, the rights of an endangered fly or a
species
>of seaweed take precedence over national security, commerce and many
>people's right to the enjoyment of property and the pursuit of
happiness.
>
>"Our founding fathers would be appalled. This government was founded on
a
>few key concepts, among them the need to provide a common defense and
the
>protection of individual property rights. These days, ESA is tripping
up
>even that. This legislation moves the federal government in the
direction
>of working cooperatively with private land owners. Under current law,
the
>only option to protect endangered species is legal confrontation.
>
>"Congress crafted this law nearly 40 years ago to protect large species

>like the grizzly, wolf and bald eagle from extinction. Frankly, the ESA

>hasn't done a particularly good job of protecting anything but lawyers'

>pocketbooks. Outlawing DDT did more for our wildlife than the ESA has
done.
>
>"Meanwhile roads have been stalled, homes lost, countless jobs
forfeited
>and thousands of acres locked up because of this ham-fisted law.
>Republicans and Democrats have long recognized that something needs to
be
>done to fix the Endangered Species Act. I'm just making it easy for
>everybody next year by dropping a bill now with the three simple
changes
>that could fix this law.
>
>"If we exempt private property, military lands and all plants from the
>ESA, we would, in short order, have a more prosperous and secure nation

>and still have a healthy and abundant wildlife. We would create
thousands
>of jobs, jump-start our economy, free up our clogged court system and
>still protect our wildlife.
>
>I'd wager my federal pension you could make these changes and the
>populations of threatened and endangered species would remain the same.

>The numbers didn't improve when we started stripping people of their
>rights. I doubt they'll go down any once we restore those rights."
>

Thomas J. Murray
Marine Business Specialist
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
College of William & Mary
P.O. Box 1346
Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062

Phone: 804-684-7190
Fax: 804-684-7161
E-Mail: [email protected]
Courier Delivery: Route 1208, Greate Road, Gloucester Point, VA 23062



I hope that the NEW Congress passes this! We are making head way in our fight against the $MC, Sierra Club, and all the other ECO-Radicals out there that ABUSE the ESA!
MD
MD

I know it's too much to ask for but wouldn't it be nice if the bill stated that only those species that are native to the United States be eligible for protection under the ESA?
I don't think we should be forced to protect an animal that stopped by during their migration and decided to call it home. If it's not native to the U.S. then we shouldn't be responsible for it's protection.
Wouldn't that take the wind out of $MC's sails.

OMG!!

Damn...Dean, that's awesome. That's the most common sense, realistic and honest statement I've come acrossed in a long time.

If passed, would this restore people's rights to build docks behind their homes in FL no matter what the SMC, FFWC says.



I hope this passes.

Is their a Bill number to reference when writing our representatives about this?