I have seen no rebuttal of the fact that less than 1 in a 1000 projects are
affected in any substantial way, nor that it costs each American more than
16 cents per year.
Generally, the stories of hardship are just exagerated stores. For
instance, John Pozgoi, the guy who went to jail because he drained a
wetland, only went to jail after he had ignored 3 court orders not to drain
the wetland. (I cannot see how any society can tolerate this kind of
lawlessness). The guy who allegedly lost his farm because of Kangaroo rats,
actually "lost" 11 acres.
I can agree with needing changes in the law to encourage cooperative
arrangements with landowners--including tax incentives. However, the
current intent in Washington seems to be to gut the ESA by simultaneously
increasing the burden on the regulatory agency (by adding political--not
scientific--standards of proof, and requiring compensation to landowners),
and decreasing the funding. Apparently, an outright repeal of ESA would be
too unpopular, but a bad law can have the same effect as a repeal. In a few
years, the bad law will be such an onerous example of gov't waste that they
can do away with it entirely.
The Bible is clear that the Earth is the Lords, and all that dwells within.
Dennis Sweitzer