One of the goals of a socialistic government is to claim ownership of all land within the country and then dictate to all of the people what land they will be allowed to live on and how to use that land. Our federal government is well on its way to making that happen and are using any means possible, including bogus and illegal confiscations.
In the latest case, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service declared 1,544 acres of land in St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana to be critical habitat for the dusky gopher frog. Since the dusky gopher frog is on the Endangered Species Act list, critical habitat designation means that the owners are not allowed to use or alter the land for any purpose what so ever. This makes the land’s value plummet to next to nothing.
It turns out that there are no dusky gopher frogs anywhere on the land nor is it suitable habitat for them to live there. The ESA designation of critical habitat is completely bogus and can only be interpreted one way – that the feds intended to assume ownership of the land for their own purposes.
Markle Interests LLC, is part owner of the land and with the help of the Pacific Legal Foundation, has filed legal notice against the federal government for the immediate release of the land. The notice gives the government 60 days to comply or a lawsuit will be filed against them for the illegal use of an ESA regulation.
Principal attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation, M. Reed Hopper said:
“This case is about a federal land grab in one parish in Louisiana — but it’s also about property rights from coast to coast. Never before have federal officials attempted to rope off private property as ‘critical habitat’ for a species, where the land is manifestly not suitable for that species.
“The owners are being harmed by this designation because the land’s value is diminished and productive economic uses will be limited or prohibited. The federal government estimated the costs to the landowners may reach $34 million, but the regulators don’t deny the fact that the land isn’t habitat for the frog, as things now stand. In fact, they candidly admit as much. But they say they’re hopeful that someday, the property might be habitable.”
“The problem with that kind of dreamy approach to habitat designation, is that if someone’s property can be labeled as habitat for a species, even though it isn’t usable as habitat, there are no limits on the amount or location of private land that can be set aside by federal decree. Regulators could impose restrictions on anyone’s property, anywhere — merely by claiming it could someday, in some speculative way, be used for species recovery.”
“The ESA requires federal regulators to weigh the benefit of designating areas as ‘critical habitat’ against the cost of the designation. Here, the benefit of this area to the frog is zero, but the cost — levied against the private owners — is enormous. In a rational world, this area would never have been identified as habitat, let alone ‘critical habitat.’ As the Supreme Court has stated, the requirement to consider the economic impacts of ‘critical habitat’ is to prevent federal regulators from ‘zealously but unintelligently’ enforcing the law. But that didn’t work in this case.”
Everyone needs to be aware of all of the different methods being used by federal, state and municipal governments to seize the land of private citizens. They are turning to all sorts of tactics to steal our lands for their own purposes and now they are using bogus Endangered Species Act claims to get more land. We need more organizations like the Pacific Legal Foundation to help us fight government theft of private land.