I own a big chunk of land in upstate NY, where we've got a little cabin. As part of our stewardship of the land, we periodically harvest timber, using the advice of a professional forester.
This forester was conducting a survey for us one year, and showed us that we have a specimen of a tree species that's expected to go onto the endangered list in the future. With a wink, he warned us that if we've got that tree there when it goes on the list, we'll be forbidden from doing much of anything with our land in the future - the implication being that we should dispose of it while we've still got the chance.
The ESA can impose significant costs even on us little folk. And the way the Act is constructed provides perverse incentives, giving us motivation to do the opposite of what's intended.
(we left the tree, but others may not have the same flexibility to make that sacrifice)
You're missing the part where it's in the middle of nowhere and the land was dirt cheap. Also the part where the cabin doesn't even have plumbing, we have an outhouse and bathe with water I carry in buckets from the creek.
I am glad that they do not discriminate on how much they charge: significant costs should be imposed on anyone wanting to further remove endangered species. I get what you are saying, you may want the tree removed but if everyone got their "just this one tree" removed, then it would speed up the extinction of that tree. Does that tree seriously need to be removed? Does it have life threatening consequences to you or the surrounding area? I seriously doubt it.
My understanding was around the forced loss of freedom without recompense as the contention here. The GP appears to be OK with this, but the nudge from the forester implies that many people wouldn't want the headache and loss of freedom around that kind of thing.
I don't know the details of the law, but I would expect that most people might choose "harvest a few trees and skip headaches" over "tolerate headaches for an abstract good feeling."
This forester was conducting a survey for us one year, and showed us that we have a specimen of a tree species that's expected to go onto the endangered list in the future. With a wink, he warned us that if we've got that tree there when it goes on the list, we'll be forbidden from doing much of anything with our land in the future - the implication being that we should dispose of it while we've still got the chance.
The ESA can impose significant costs even on us little folk. And the way the Act is constructed provides perverse incentives, giving us motivation to do the opposite of what's intended.
(we left the tree, but others may not have the same flexibility to make that sacrifice)