September 1, 2014

Reverse Invasion of Property

Reverse invasion of property
Marxist central control abolishes private property rights

This morning I heard on the Chad Hasty Show talk about the “need” for some sort of environmental study regarding the sonic booms in Midland and their effect on the prairie chicken aka pinnated grouse.

Hunting with even light shotgun bird loads for dove in grouse habitat causes sonic booms as the projectile breaks the sound barrier, yet, I’ve never before heard any such ridiculous objection.

The recently proposed Federal Register regulations say that no invasion of the properties will occur as a part of their [Marxist top-down central] “planning” [and control].

Those proposed regulations, 79 Federal Register 27060 and 27052, can be easily found with a google or bing search. The comment period for one of them ends tomorrow, 11 July 2014.

Prohibiting sonic booms on land adjacent to grouse breeding grounds seems like a reverse invasion of property. I’ve never heard of a reverse invasion before but I have heard of reverse condemnation. In addition, their low-level population surveys invade private property, so the Fed Register regs are based on a lie. There I said it.

How are they going to cite people for violations without invading the private land? We know full well the regulations constitute an illegitimate Marxist taking.

If there are no meaningful remedies in the administrative system (Progressive Kangaroo Court), then the long term benefits of correctly tying Marxist Socialism (Communism) to the Endangered Species Act when applied to private property are obvious. Since 1973 this nonsense has been going on. Even for biblical times, 40 years is long enough to wander the communist wilderness. It’s time to find our way out. Learn how to say No.

Ludwig von Mises figured all this out and published his analysis in 1951. There is no point in reinventing the wheel. It’s not rocket science. It’s time to start saying No.

“Takings (E.O. 12630)

In accordance with Executive Order 12630, we have determined the
proposed rule does not have significant takings implications.
A takings implication assessment is not required because this rule
(1) will not effectively compel a property owner to suffer a physical
invasion of property and (2) will not deny all economically beneficial
or productive use of the land or aquatic resources. This rule would
substantially advance a legitimate government interest (conservation
and recovery of listed species) and would not present a barrier to all
reasonable and expected beneficial use of private property.”
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-05-12/html/2014-10503.htm

When THE LAW is the Problem

LawProvided by James Beers:

Yesterday I wrote TWO QUESTIONS, an article that appears [on this website]. An astute and well-informed reader in Europe wrote me the following response to that article:

By American law ..

I : = B
2 : = B

In other words, pups born as the result of the mating of a wolf and a dog are legally unprotected dogs and not protected wolves. This is true. Additionally, anyone that shoots, traps, injures, harasses such a DOG is not bound by any law concerning wolves but only those state and local Laws and Ordinances concerned with DOGS. This is also true.

However, I submit that today neither of these things are really true.

We throw around these reputedly “scientific”-based terms like wolf, dog and coyote like they are elephants, lemurs and kangaroos. While these latter THREE Species don’t look alike or eat the same things, they are absolutely, inexorably and basically different because THEY CANNOT MATE AND PRODUCE VIABLE (fully capable of and able to reproduce their own kind) OFFSPRING. Once upon a time for centuries and until very recently this capability to produce viable offspring was the defining characteristic determining, what was a distinct group of animals we defined as a Species. That is why mules (the offspring of a horse and a donkey that are not capable of producing viable offspring) are NOT a species, for instance. This definition of Species, while biological, has served us all well for centuries in myriad ways as we domesticated animals and managed wild animals for the benefit and protection of our families, communities and societies.

Enter the wolf and federal wolf laws and regulations.

In the late 1960’s, in the midst of great social chaos in the United States federal jurisdiction and authority over wild animals took major authorities from state governments under the auspices of “saving” endangered Species. This new federal authority steadily grew into previously unimaginable federal power to take and control private property; destroy formerly viable businesses; close public lands to any use or management or renewable natural resources; stop construction projects like dams and irrigation districts; eradicate valuable game animal herds; destroy local economies and communities; and even destroy the lives, families and livelihoods of rural men and women protecting their property and families from radically destructive government actions.

Early-on federal seizure and protection of remnant wolves as an endangered “Species” in Minnesota and subsequent releases of wolves in the Upper Rocky Mountains in a National Park and on an Indian Reservation (two locations that share the unique distinction of always having been outside and beyond state or surrounding local jurisdictions and their authority). Long story short, absent the federal “Endangered” Species Act, absent the absolute central government power it spawned largely due to federal bureaucrats writing and amending federal regulations to serve their own purposes plus the inattention of the public and state governments busy “Hoovering”- up (i.e. vacuuming or sucking-up) federal dollars with “strings” – were it not for all this – there would only be a remnant wolf population (and moose to hunt once again) in Minnesota and other than a few straggling wolves along the western Canadian/US border NO WOLVES IN THE LOWER 48 STATES today.

But, what is a wolf? Wolves breed with and produce viable offspring with all dogs, all coyotes PRODUCING VIABLE OFFSPRING. The genes of these three animals are in reality a stew of all manner of interbreeding from numerous wild encounters that have gone on for eons to the intentional crossbreeding by men to obtain more fearsome animals or animals with more stamina to do work like pulling sleds or any of a countless number of other human intentions lost in the mists of time.

Thus we in the Lower 48 States find ourselves fighting for our lives, families and livelihoods against a hostile (against humans) government with the outcome often hinging on points like:

- Was that a wolf you killed?

- Was it a wolf that killed your sheep?

- Is that a wolf hanging out where your kids play or catch the bus?

- Was that a wolf you were shooting at?

- Is that a wolf den with a wolf bitch and wolf pups “out back” of the pasture?

- What is your expertise to say it was not a wolf?

- You should have exercised due caution.

- Do you just shoot at anything?

- How could you have placed a snare like that where wolves were present?

- How do YOU tell a wolf from a German Shepherd or a large coyote?

- On what do you base YOUR expertise?

Ah, but you say “we have DNA Analysis” to identify wolves. HMMM, who sets the “Wolf” DNA Standard: The “Dog” DNA Standard: the “Coyote” DNA Standard? Is it the same “scientists” either employed by or funded in large measure by the federal government? “’It’ is a dog when ‘it’ has 30% of this and a coyote when it has 62% or more of that and a wolf when we say so”! Really?

DNA Analysis is perfectly suited for individual identification as shown daily by criminal investigators. But there is a great difference between tying someone’s DNA to the DNA found at a crime scene and the ARBITRARY standard that there is a genetic line and on one side we will call them wolves and on the other a dog and on yet another it is a coyote. Those are value judgments made by bureaucrats and the “scientists” they employ AFTER the fact of all these disputes arising from the forced introduction and protection of wolves. When such determinations determine prosecutions and great harm to citizens they are reminiscent of 19th century phrenologists describing the “criminal type”, or acolytes of Margaret Sanger describing the mentally-deficient that should be killed, or 1930’s racial “experts” describing those with Jewish “blood”.

None of that DNA specificity about wolves (in all their, like dogs, endless VARIETIES) is published in any regulation. That they can and do often look alike is undeniable. It is as if citizens were told that some deer had a gene resistant to Chronic Wasting Disease and they are totally protected but all the other deer, without the gene, should be killed to save the deer from the disease. The fact that they all looked alike and could only be identified after being killed was the shooter’s problem and if a warden found you with a deer THAT HAD THE GENE; you would be prosecuted, fined, imprisoned and have much of your property seized by the government. Distinguishing such deer is no different than relying on arbitrary government DNA Standards to identify real wolves! Such use of DNA findings is in fact (I speak here as an old state and federal law enforcement officer) DISCRETIONARY.

Forget that you thought it was a coyote or that you were sure it was a large dog that killed your dog or livestock. If I was the state or federal enforcer you wound up with and I was interested in:

- Ingratiating myself with environmental/animal rights zealots running my agency.

- Making an example of you to put the fear of (Gaia?) in others.

- Helping to rid the area of hunters, grazers, loggers, etc.

- Making a name for myself with a prosecution that engenders lots of publicity.

- Simply interested in proving how tough I am to both the public and coworkers.

- Getting even with you for some reason.

- Impressing everyone with how important these nutty laws are.

- Needing a complex investigation to justify overtime or Premium Pay.

- Forging a case with “Precedence Value” to immortalize myself.

- Etcetera.

I could be your worst nightmare.

Look no further than the recent “raid” on the cattle operation of Mr. Bundy in Nevada by such government enforcers, without a court order, that resulted in the shooting of valuable livestock and confrontations with citizens fomented by enforcers armed to the teeth ostensibly protecting a tortoise that nearby government-funded solar panel farms are harming far worse than any cattle. Those enforcers are “doing their job”, being rewarded for a “good job” and are planning their next moves to further oppress citizens as I write. (“Next time we will first use bean bags by the camera and then loudspeakers and then we rush them if they don’t disperse and then…!”)

Wolves, dogs and coyotes that appear for all intents and purposes as the same animal are either: A.) Wolves completely protected at all times, B.) Coyotes that are unprotected and may be killed at any time, or C.) Dogs that are either 1.) someone’s private property and thus covered by property laws and the owners ire, or 2.) free-roaming dogs covered or not by local ordinances and/or state laws. Just as the cattle shooters are apparently unrestrained as they go about their “duties”; so too are the enforcers arresting and prosecuting citizens that kill or bother wolves that may or may not look to every American just like a large coyote or dog.

Utilizing the discretion inherent in this genetic mishmash, I would seize the animal in question or describe it if it got away as a wolf. As I built the case, I would document your background, interview people that had dealt with you like environmentalists and anti-gun folks and game wardens and other enforcers. I would copy and enter as evidence everything you ever said or wrote about wolves or government benevolence. Only if the DNA Analysis was absolute (there is no such wolf or dog or coyote) would I stop if I wanted to go forward. I would document how you thought “it looked like” a large/small, light/dark canid (i.e. wolf/dog/coyote?). How you didn’t know about how tails and ears indicate one animal or the other. I would document how you mistakenly guessed the weight of the animal or how you misread the tracks around your dead dog and how you didn’t know the official government distances distinguishing the tracks of a wolf and the tracks of a coyote. I would catch all the times you said things like “that looked like” something you “should have” or “shouldn’t have” done .I will have a field day because the laws and regulations give the government all the aces and the citizens all the deuces.

In addition to watching ambulance chasers descending on you like vampires when the sun goes down, I would “shop” for the “professor” or DNA “Analyst” (just like litigious modern environmental Americans “shop” for Washington DC or 9th Circuit judges and courts to get judges that prefer them) to get DNA “Results” that will send you like Diogenes in search of “your own” “Analyst” or “Professor” that the court and jury will look down on as inferior to the august government “expert witness”. The public will admire me and begin to look on you as they do that guy that owns (owned?) the Los Angeles Clippers with the “girlfriend” about the age of his grandkids. Whether I win or lose: you lose and I win! Why? Because, it is all based on a bad (un-Constitutional and oppressive) law with all manner of hidden agendas and loopholes put there over time by self-serving bureaucrats that keep harmful federal and state politicians in power with illusions about animals.

So is “B.” the right answer to both questions?

1.) Is the wolf bitch birthing pups from eggs fertilized by a German Shepherd, a coyote and a Yellow Lab (yes litters can have more than one Papa) giving birth to wolves or dogs? Despite what a lawyer or bureaucrat tells you about how DNA “proves” and the Endangered Species Act says they are unprotected dogs: believe them at your own risk. Those offspring are what a court and a judge says they are. Go no further than the next generation when the half-Lab is subsequently bred by a wolf and the Lab genes join the genes of ancient semi-wild dogs from Indian Villages, peasant cottages in Medieval France and caves in prehistoric Europe and Asia in the genetic soup of the “wolf” critter you are charged with “taking”.

2.) Is the person that kills or harasses such offspring of a wolf/dog cross a felon or a hero? See #1. If the pup grows up looking just like his mother’s brother in the Little Red Riding Hood story, I would not hold out a hope or expectation of some benevolent enforcer or government bureaucracy with a scintilla of concern about your welfare if you are caught in a web of prosecution wherein the outcome revolves on what a jury thinks about the charges against you in light of claims about what the DNA “proves.”

I must admit I think the answer to both questions is “it depends.”

Like tyrannies down through the ages, our fate once more has come to “depend” on bad laws that exist only to mask the way the whims of the powerful are imposed on the rest of us day in and day out; in all we must do and all we cannot do.

Washington State Senate Approves Bill to Kill Wolves Without Permit to Protect Property

As an update to a story I published earlier this week of two domestic dogs being attacked by wolves in Twisp, Washington, the Washington State Senate, by a vote of 25-23, passed a bill that would allow a person to kill wolves that are attacking or threatening their animals and livestock.

The bill now goes to the House.

USFWS Release Candidate’s List For ESA Protection

*Editor’s Note*Below is a copy of a press release issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announcing their candidate list of species to be considered for protection under the Endangered Species Act. The attached link provides readers the opportunity to see a complete listing of species and proposals.

Most readers know that I have stated for years that the Endangered Species Act, as it is written and administered, needs to be destroyed as the abuses of the Act are so overwhelming that protection of species is mostly by happenstance than anything the Act accomplishes.

One of the real goals – or at least has become a significant tool for personal agendas – is the use of the ESA to strip Americans of their rights and freedom toward life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The USFWS is an entity controlled by the environmental movement. USFWS does what environmentalists tell them to do. You don’t need a Ph.D. to figure that out. Environmental impact statements are falsified and any studies done in support of any of these actions are outcome-based studies in which government agencies manipulate data, lie, cheat and steal to produce a study to support the demands of the environmentalists.

A clear cut example of this shows up in a recent USFWS proposal to remove dams along the Klamath River, in Oregon and Washington, for their stated purpose of restoring waterways for wild salmon, even though science can’t show that salmon runs in that river are historical. But let’s not let facts get in the way.

In the USFWS proposal to remove dams, their “studies” showed that removal of the dams would create very little impact on the people of region. Is this an accurate, or better yet, truthful assessment of how the people of that region actually think?

Not according to a one of kind “Public Impact Assessment” (PIA) that was done independent of the government or any other non governmental agency, non profit or individual paying for the assessment. While the people living in proximity to the Klamath River, where 4 dams are being discussed for removal, the majority of the people there find protecting the fish important and are concerned about flooding once the dams are removed. But more importantly, the people consider removing the dams as having a very high rate of impact on them as it pertains to “energy costs, agricultural water deliveries, hydropower, employment, local business income, farm and ranch income, per capita income, community water deliveries, and local tax revenue.”

So, it is an excellent idea to bear in mind when reviewing the USFWS’s proposed list of candidate species for protection, to consider that more than likely their assessment of impact to the environment and/or the people, is a crock of excrement.

For additional information on Obama’s planned use of the ESA to continue his destruction of property rights and the economy, read this article.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Releases Annual List of Candidates for Endangered Species Act Protection

November 20, 2012

Contacts:
Chris Tollefson
703-358-2222
chris_tollefson@fws.gov

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service today released its Candidate Notice of Review, a yearly appraisal of the current status of plants and animals considered candidates for protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Three species have been removed from candidate status, two have been added, and nine have a change in priority from the last review conducted in October of 2011.

There are now 192 species recognized by the Service as candidates for ESA protection, the lowest number in more than 12 years. This reduction reflects the Service’s successful efforts to implement a court-approved work plan that resolves a series of lawsuits concerning the agency’s ESA Listing Program. Since its implementation, this agreement has significantly reduced litigation-driven workloads and allowed the agency to protect 25 candidate species under the ESA, and propose protection for 91 candidate species.

The agreement will continue to allow the agency to focus its resources on the species most in need of the ESA’s protections over the next five years, said Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe.

“We’re continuing to keep the commitments we made under this agreement, which has enabled us to be more efficient and effective in both protecting species under the ESA, as well as in working with our partners to recover species and get them off the list as soon as possible,” said Director Ashe. “Our ultimate goal is to have the smallest Candidate List possible, by addressing the needs of species before they require ESA protection and extending the ESA’s protections to species that truly need it.”

Ashe noted that the work plan will enable the agency to systematically review and address the needs of every species on the 2011 candidate list – a total of more than 250 unique species – over a period of six years to determine if they should be added to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.

Candidate species are plants and animals for which the Service has enough information on their status and the threats they face to propose them as threatened or endangered, but developing a proposed listing rule is precluded by the need to address other higher priority listing actions. Candidate species do not receive protection under the ESA, although the Service works to conserve them. The annual review and identification of candidate species provides landowners and resource managers notice of species in need of conservation, allowing them to address threats and work to preclude the need to list the species. The Service is currently working with landowners and partners to implement voluntary conservation agreements covering 5 million acres of habitat for more than 130 candidate species.

Today’s notice identifies two new candidate species: Peñasco least chipmunk (Sacramento and White Mountains, New Mexico) and Cumberland arrow darter (Kentucky and Tennessee). All candidates are assigned a listing priority number based on the magnitude and imminence of the threats they face. When adding species to the list of threatened or endangered species, the Service addresses species with the highest listing priority first. The nine changes in priority announced in today’s notice are based on new information in the updated assessments of continuing candidates. These changes include five species that increased in priority and four that lowered in priority.

The three species removed from the candidate list include elongate mud meadow springsnail, Christ’s paintbrush, and bog asphodel. Based on protections for almost all sites, the identification of additional sites, and updated information on threats, the bog asphodel no longer needs the protection of the ESA. The removal of the springsnail and paintbrush is based on the successful conservation efforts by other federal agencies. Efforts by the Bureau of Land Management for the springsnail fully addressed the threats from recreational and livestock use of the springs where the snail exists. Also, three additional populations of the springsnail have been discovered, making this species less vulnerable to random, naturally occurring events than previously thought. For Christ’s paintbrush, the U.S. Forest Service has successfully implemented numerous conservation actions that have ameliorated most of the previously known threats and established long-term monitoring programs to document their effectiveness on conservation actions. There is a long-term commitment by the Forest Service, through a 2005 Candidate Conservation Agreement and 2012 Memorandum of Agreement with the Service, to continue to implement conservation actions for this species.

The Service is soliciting additional information on the candidate species, as well as information on other species that may warrant protection under the ESA. This information will be valuable in preparing listing documents and future revisions or supplements to the candidate notice of review.

The Service also has multiple tools for protecting candidate species and their habitats, including a grants program that funds conservation projects by private landowners, states and territories. In addition, the Service can enter into Candidate Conservation Agreements (CCAs), formal agreements between the Service and one or more public or private parties to address the conservation needs of proposed or candidate species, or species likely to become candidates, before they actually become listed as endangered or threatened. CCA participants voluntarily commit to implementing specific actions removing or reducing the threats to these species, thereby contributing to stabilizing or restoring the species. Through 110 CCAs, habitat for more than 100 species is managed on federal, state, local agency, tribal and private lands; many CAAs have multiple cooperators focusing conservation actions in an area supporting a single or multiple species.

Another similar tool is the Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances (CCAAs). While these voluntary agreements are only between the Service and non-Federal landowners, they have the same goals as CCAs in addressing threats to candidate species, but with additional incentives for conservation actions on non-Federal lands. More than 71 landowners in 18 states have enrolled in CCAAs that cover over 1 million acres of habitat for 41 species.

The complete notice and list of proposed and candidate species appears in the Federal Register and can be found online at http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/cnor.html.

What The Hell Is Wrong With This Country?

Imagine that you are out on your property, and you are approached by three Police Officers, one of them armed with an assault rifle. They tell you that you are inconveniencing a large developer [who happens to give lots and lots of money to the Governor], and that you have to leave your own land. This is the same developer who has been willfully trespassing on, and vandalizing your and your neighbors properties for weeks, with no intervention from authorities.

It is a scene almost too terrible to contemplate…..

What would you do?<<<Read More>>>