The memorandum, which can be downloaded in its entirety with this link, shares data that readily explains how the Endangered Species Act isn’t about saving species. Instead it has been manipulated, which most honest people have come to realize, in order to use taxpayer money to make some environmental groups and individuals quite wealthy.

Looking at the data supplied by Budd-Falen, she claims that as of May 17, 2010 there are a total of 1,374 species in the United States listed as either “threatened” or “endangered”. To get a grip on how this translates into the cost for taxpayers, she also states that it costs, on average, $85,000 per species simply to add to the Endangered Species list. In addition, $515,000 per species to designate critical habitat.

If you add that all up, taxpayers are staring down the barrel of a loaded gun that is costing them $707,610,000. And all this only for listing and designating critical habitat in what is supposed to save 1,374 species of plants and/or animals.

Add to this cost the attorney fees paid out to mostly environmental groups of around $12 million and us taxpayers are forking over some $720 million dollars and with that have “recovered” 21 species. That’s something in the order of $34 million per saved species. Good investment?

None of this accounts for what’s happened to businesses and private lands and land ownership and the costs associated with those.

For some of us who actually care about conservation, saving species and protecting habitat, this leaves us with a question. How much of this money or any money for that matter that these “conservation” and “environmental” groups is used to actually save species and protect habitat? According to Budd-Falen there is no evidence to suggest one dime of their money is used for that purpose. If the majority of these groups are only sucking the coffers dry and doing nothing to save species, doesn’t rational thinking tell us something has to change?

With an extended strong arm of the government and a money-making con job from environmental groups, this seriously limits the ability of state fish and game departments to properly manage their wildlife……doesn’t it? Let me cite one small example of this.

In Maine, many of these same environmental groups successfully petitioned the USFWS to name the Canada lynx a threatened species and along with it designated critical habitat. As a result effective means of trapping large predators were eliminated which resulted in an overgrown population of coyotes. The whitetail deer herd, in much of the same areas as where the lynx critical habitat was designated, has dropped below sustainable levels. Because of ESA manipulation, an Act that needs rewriting and countless, unchecked lawsuits, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife has been partially handcuffed, having been stripped of management tools to do their job. Is preserving species about ruining one or more to save another?

In the email, David Allen asks: “The question begs to be asked, where are we going with our wildlife system in this country and what is the anticipated end result? The issue with the “wolf recovery” program in MT, ID & WY is the tip of the iceberg in this entire issue, however it is a prime example of the results of using the ESA far beyond what it was intended. Those who cherish the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation need to become acutely aware of what & how the Endangered Species Act is being utilized today and where it is heading.”

In order to “anticipate” the “end result”, I think it first imperative to get over some hurdles that far too many refuse to even consider. Attorney Budd-Falen spells it out very clearly and I concur. None of this is about saving species. It’s about making money and promoting an agenda. I think many will agree that making money through these lawsuits is obvious. What they don’t want to admit is that these groups have an agenda that’s not about saving species. What that specific agenda is varies, however the “end result” is the same – stop hunting, fishing and trapping. There’s also no better way to do this than to take people’s land away from them and strip them of their rights.

As Allen pointed out the wolf litigation is but the tip of the iceberg as is the Canada lynx, the spotted owl, the desert tortoise, the delta smelt, etc., etc. If outdoor sportsmen and our state fish and game departments think we can stop this by arguing about one specific species in one specific area of one specific state, we’re woefully wrong.

Until the Endangered Species Act is rewritten and modernized nothing will change. It will be more of the same and the end result will not be pretty. If we employ the old adage that for those who fail to learn history, they will repeat it, we see that the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation is being dismantled piece by piece. This is being done by systematically taking away one tool of management at a time. This management system will then fail. This is when the environmentalists move in declaring the failure and the end result will be the further implementation of their agendas of which I have spoken.

My prediction is not one of encouragement. I believe there are not enough people who care enough or are willing to accept the bigger picture, resulting in more of the same. I don’t need to spell out what more of the same is going to look like in 5, 10, 15 or more years. All too often what it takes to get people involved is when it hits directly home. By then it’s too late.

The only hope, is to figure out a way to convince enough people to fight back against this indoctrination that runs counter to everything that is right.

Tom Remington

Brandon Middleton, lawyer for Pacific Legal Foundation, a property rights advocate, had this to say about Judge Wanger’s ruling.

“Judge Wanger recognized that federal regulators had not taken account of how water cutoffs could damage the human environment, and they did not use the best available science,” said PLF attorney Brandon Middleton.

“This is a powerful, excellent ruling,” said Middleton. “The judge is telling the feds that they can’t ignore the harsh human and environmental impacts of cutting off water to farms, workers, businesses, and communities. The judge is also saying the feds can’t get away with using slippery science to justify environmental restrictions that rob communities of their lifeblood – water.”

Photo from fOTOGLIF

But liberty comes with responsibility, the restraint of exploiting our rights over those of others.

Our own Declaration of Independence tells us the truth of liberty is self-evident. In the struggle for independence, these brave people, as penned by Thomas Jefferson, understood that under the tyranny of King George III, some people were created more equal than others and that any liberties were those granted by the King. This stood in stark contrast to the written Word of God.

Jefferson wrote that “We hold these truths to be self-evident“, those truths being as I’ve described above, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

What is all too often lost in the recitation of the above, most common phrase from the Declaration of Independence, is Jefferson’s explanation of how to protect these rights. He further goes on to write that, “Governments are instituted among Men, driving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” He says that when any government “becomes destructive” of these rights, it’s the right of the people to fix it, even to the point of installing a new government, such as was the intent of seeking independence from England.

When our society progresses away from God and good sound morals, the entire foundation of the Declaration and Constitution, gets shaken, can crumble and fall down. And therein lies the ultimate destruction of individual Liberty.

God has blessed us with some of the most incredible beauty that can be found in the outdoors. I was raised in the country and find much peace and happiness in going to the woods, however the only lasting peace and happiness comes from within, that which is occupied by the love of God.

As much as I love to hunt and fish and just be in the outdoors, that Liberty does not trump another man’s Creator-endowed right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. My understanding of rights, shows me to respect the rights of others as much as my own.

I read somewhere a person’s “signature” they used on a message board. It went something like this: “The biggest threat to the outdoor sportsman is the outdoor sportsman”. It was quite ironic, as I recall, that the person using this signature seemed bent on being the dictator of which rights shall be bestowed on his fellow sportsmen, while chastising anyone who dared question his authority.

As the title of this piece reads, liberty is not this man’s or any other man’s to give or to take. To assume such authority it must be assumed that this person consider himself either above the power of the Creator or that they’ve “progressed” to a point that God is no longer or never was any part of their life. Quite unfortunate for them and the rest of us, I’d say.

It is a most arduous burden for some to tolerate the “Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness” of others and perhaps that task remains insurmountable without individual direction from God. Instead of illustrating the exact meaning of self-evident, Creator-endowed Rights in our behavior, we too often choose to dictate which liberties can be exercised.

Let me explain. Some fishermen believe that employing the use of “catch and release” in their favorite pastime, is a good way to preserve and conserve the species for the present into the future. I take no issue with that. If we “illustrate the exact meaning of self-evident, Creator-endowed Rights”, this fisherman who believes in his notion that such a practice is best, should exercise his rights and promote his epiphany in every positive way he can and support it with as much scientific facts as there are available.

When we “choose to dictate which liberties”, it takes on a very different tone. We can never accomplish what is right through negative behavior. Instead of the positive promotion of catch-and-release fishing, the tyrant rather opts to demonize those who choose to catch, keep and eat the fish they caught, even to the point of fighting for laws to prohibit such activity.

If catch-and-release fishing is the answer to all our conservation concerns, then it will stand firmly on its own merits. Dictating rights, steals from others and tells the rest of us that this person knows nothing of which they speak and are only interested in usurping others’ rights.

But it’s not just fishing. This general negative, dictatorial, rights-snatching behavior carries over into every aspect of our lives.

It is troubling to me that the President of a country, whose Declaration of Independence clearly states that it is self-evident, that our Rights are granted by our Creator, proclaims to the world that the United States of America is NOT a Christian nation. Taking God and the Liberty he endowed us all with, out of our lives, our society and our government, is a dangerous direction we should not travel.

I do not have the right to determine who gets rights and who doesn’t. As a matter of fact no man on this earth has that right, although they have taken it. I may not like what someone with opposing views has to say but it is far from me to try to shut them up.

Exercise you God-given Liberties and revel in them. Taking others away does nothing to protect yours and will eventually end yours.

Tom Remington

An article yesterday in the Jackson Hole News and Guide quotes Bangs as now saying 45 breeding pairs and 450 wolves will “never be threatened”. I guess Bangs doesn’t learn from his first mistake. In 1987, 30 pairs and 300 wolves would easily do the trick, why should anybody believe for one second that his statement today is any more honest than the ones he made 25 years ago?

It’s clear the feds set the rules, we play by their rules and when the rules don’t fit the game they are playing, they change the rules. Bangs admits that the first day on the job for wolf recovery he knew 30 pairs of wolves wouldn’t be enough and we should trust him now when he tells us 45 will never be threatened?

This kind of political manipulation has to end now.

Many of you know, thousands of people and their businesses in California are being greatly affected because the federal government, under the misconstrued direction of the Endangered Species Act, is withholding water used to irrigate farmlands in order to save the delta smelt. Unemployment rates are as high as 40%, crops are dying and many long time businesses are on the verge of collapse, yet environmentalists, the President and now Congress refuse to do anything about it. Our priorities are really messed up.

Last night, Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina, tried to pass an amendment to a bill through the Senate that would provide for the water to be released. It failed 61-36. Here’s how your senators voted.

YEAs —61
Akaka (D-HI)
Alexander (R-TN)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Burris (D-IL)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaufman (D-DE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (D-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs —36
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
LeMieux (R-FL)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

Not Voting – 2
Byrd (D-WV)
Lincoln (D-AR)

Is there something odd about this picture?

And speaking of odd, in the following YouTube video, Sen. Diane Feinstein of California attempts to explain why she voted against the amendment. She likens the entire water debate to Pearl Harbor, whatever the heck that means, and explained that she didn’t want to give the people water because it might cause another lawsuit……………….No, really!

This is your tax dollars at work.

Much of the basis for formulating this act has been the attempted revival of the 10th Amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

A major roadblock facing the Montana Firearms Freedom Act is the Commerce Clause.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
“[The Congress shall have power] To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;“

In seeking a “declaratory judgment” the Montana Shooting Sports Association and the Second Amendment Foundation are intending to file a lawsuit on October 1, 2009 in order that a ruling can be made and hopefully Montanans can move forward in implementing their new Act.

In the Missoulian yesterday, Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation, said that if guns are manufactured in Montana and stay in Montana, then there is no “interstate commerce”.

If it were only that simple but the reality is we have to deal with the courts and all too often the courts are more interested in activism than interpreting the Constitution. They also closely follow precedence. In Mark Levin’s new book, “Liberty and Tyranny“, in his chapter on federalism he speaks of a major Supreme Court ruling, Wickard v. Filburn, that sets the stage for doling unconstitutional power over to the federal government. Here’s what Levin said:

The Constitution’s interstate commerce clause had as its purpose the promotion of commerce and trade among the states. However, in 1942 the Supreme Court ruled in Wickard v. Filburn that a farmer growing wheat on his own land and for his own use was still subject to federal production limits, even though none of his wheat ever left the state, the Court “reasoned” that by withholding his wheat from commerce, the farmer was affecting interstate commerce, even though there was no commerce, let alone interstate commerce. This meant that private economic activity conducted for the sole purpose of self-consumption and occurring wholly within a state’s borders would now be subject to federal regulatory authority under the Agricultural Adjustment Act. Wickard swept away 150 years of constitutional jurisprudence, decentralized governmental authority, and private property rights protection.

Shortly after the passage of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, Obama’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives sent out open letters to firearms dealers in Montana and Tennessee informing them that federal law trumps state law when it comes to gun regulation. It appears the Obama administration is getting their ducks in a row with the intention of fighting the states wishing to restore their sovereignty. This has to be a thorn in the side of an administration that has systematically since taking office worked to destroy what is left of our Constitution.

One could argue the differences between the Montana Firearms Freedom act and Wickard v. Filburn and see a major difference. The farmer wishing to grow wheat on his own land for his own consumption, while rational thought tells us this is what America is all about, there is no amendment that directly spells out that a farmer is guaranteed that right. With our Second Amendment, one could also argue that this Amendment clearly stands alone and cannot be infringed.

There are of course distinct differences between possessing a gun and manufacturing a gun.

Recently Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller. His ruling reaffirmed what most Americans believed, that the Second Amendment was a guarantee to keep and bear arms by individuals. His opinion declared the District of Columbia’s ban on guns unconstitutional. What this ruling did not do is clarify the powers in gun regulations between those of the several states and the federal government.

To complicate matters even further, the Ninth District Court ruled recently that the “due process” clause of the 14th Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment, therefore forcing the states to apply the Second Amendment and not create gun laws that supersede federal law.

If we could clear up the Second Amendment issue it might help in the fight for sovereignty and the Firearms Freedom Act. We face a two-edged sword. State’s want to regain sovereignty and yet cheer the ruling that state’s can’t create stricter gun laws than those at the federal level. Who is right? Why can’t the Second Amendment stand alone, guaranteed to every individual American citizen? Federalism reserved power to the states, those not given in the U.S. Constitution.

Needless to say, state sovereignty has been shoved out the window for a very long time. I can guarantee you that this administration has no intention of allowing any kind of power to be given back to the states. One very large obstacle that stands in Obama’s way of total control is the Second Amendment. His record has proven to us that he has no respect for our right to keep and bear arms and will do whatever possible to strip us of them.

Our future does not lie in the hands of President Obama or Congress. It lies with we the people. Many have said the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, along with several other states proposing similar legislation, is a waste of time and effort. I disagree. By saying such you are claiming defeat and that the people no longer have a say.

It is a difficult battle but it has to start somewhere. In this case it begins in Montana and it’s stretching across the land. It tells me there are still Americans who remember the Constitution and the America our ancestors fought and died for. We want it back. We’ll be damned if we are going to sit idly by and watch a group of 60s anti-establishment radicals take it away.

Incrementalism works both ways.

Tom Remington

The Endangered Species Act to most Americans is just a law they’ve heard about, which might even give them a warm and fuzzy tickle deep inside. To many Westerners it’s synonymous with tyranny — an all-powerful presence that licenses the federal government to trample property rights, destroy jobs, obstruct energy development and restrict access to supposedly “public” lands, all to “protect” a subsegment of a subspecies that some graduate student says is rare.

Read the entire Sean Paige piece, “Animal Crackers” here.

Paige brings out much of the same bits of information I have for some time now but from a little bit different perspective. The end result is the same though. Lost in all of this is the fact that when the ESA was hammered out in 1972, it was all for a good cause and by golly, as Paige says, it gave us all warm and fuzzy feelings. Then it was discovered how powerful legal manipulation of the Act could result in overwhelming control to those seeking it.

One of Paige’s comments left by a reader, suggested changing the law, the Act, if he didn’t like what it did. Easier said than done as the environmental movement in this country is extremely powerful and any such mention of messing with their political scepter would mean political doom for those who try.

The reader also claimed the Act was popular. Paige suggested the reader needed to “get out more” and have a talk with those people who have been victims of ESA power. I might also suggest to that reader that perhaps the two biggest reasons he might think the ESA is popular is 1). The overwhelming majority of people don’t understand the act nor are they aware of the abuse that has taken place. 2). It hasn’t affected them directly…..yet.

If we can continue to pound the drum to educate people, then perhaps one day we can get needed changes to the Act in order to actually protect a few animals.