October 1, 2020

Opinion: ESA Needs More Than an Amendment

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The decades of failure of the Endangered Species Act (ESA)’s brand of centralized control disqualifies it as a solution for anything American. And no wonder. Hegel’s, Marx’s and Hitler’s ideas of centralized control have likewise failed countries world-wide repeatedly for the past 180 years or so.

As reported in the Lubbock AJ 3/31/2014 “Leaders aim to reform prairie chicken law”, the WildEarth Guardians say that “formal oversight” is more effective than traditional American voluntary efforts because there has been no “… population recovery (of the chicken) over the last several years, …”
The ESA’s involuntary formal oversight of privately owned property and its illegitimate ad hoc balancing test at 16 USC sec. 1533 (b)(2) violate the Takings and Ex Post Facto clauses and the humans-first policy set out in the fundamental law of the US Constitution to which all public official swear upon oath to God to actively defend. Involuntary formal oversight is another way of describing the old discredited European top-down central planning and control models that our forebearers fought against in two World Wars.

The resounding success of the traditional American approach with the ring-necked pheasant compared to the 20 or so years of failure with the spotted owl fiasco prove that the ESA is dangerous for America in these economically perilous times that invoke fears for our national security.

The ESA needs more than an amendment. It screams for a thorough in-depth investigation and repeal or reformation in accordance with proven American economic models of the past 200 years.

J. Collier Adams Jr.
Attorney at Law
Morton Texas

Share