Green gadflies will seize upon any excuse to block economic activity.
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is an important law they love to misuse.
Should a species actually have to live on your land for the government to assume the power to reach in and “protect” it?
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service are looking to swat the gadflies by for the first time defining the term “habitat” under the ESA.
This new push for reform mainly got its start from an issue involving a frog.
CFACT senior policy analyst Bonner Cohen explains in CFACT’s official regulatory submission:
In Weyerhaeuser v. FWS, the government not only designated unoccupied land in Louisiana as potential critical habitat for the dusky gopher frog. It also acknowledged that the land in question would have to undergo significant ecological modification, including the planting of trees and other measures, before becoming suitable habitat for the frog. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, providing the Trump administration an opportunity to write a regulatory definition of habitat…
The danger of not setting such clearly defined boundaries is that FWS officials in the future could be sorely tempted to designate an overly expansive habitat for the plant or animal in question rather than focus on the important task of recovering the species in areas suitable for its survival.
Property rights and conservation are important.
As CFACT made clear in our official submission, clearly defined rules and smart regulation are essential to protect both.
Vaguely worded laws and regulations are an invitation to abuse. Green radicals know this and exploit it.
Clearly defining key terms such as “habitat” is one way to block our laws from being misused.
CFACT official comment to theU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
on species habitats
By Bonner Cohen, Ph.D.