How the EPA and ESA Control Your Land

An interesting article in the Washington Examiner pointed out that more than 700 new species are likely to be added to the ESA (Ecological Society of America) Endangered Species List. According to the article, the data upon which these decisions is made is often not disclosed to the public (for reasons I can’t understand).

Nonetheless, this often shady data is then used by the ESA to determine new species in need of our immediate common protection. And as soon as an animal goes on the endangered species list, its habitat, no matter where that habitat may be, comes under direct control of the federal government. You have 3,000 acres of land? Sorry, you can’t use that land how you will. Because there’s the possibility that a small population of spotted elven frog-stomping beetles might depend on your land for survival.

In the words of the article:

Now comes news federal officials are nearing a decision to add more than 700 new species to the endangered list between now and 2018.


Inclusion of two of the species involved—the Sage Grouse and Prairie Chicken, both found predominantly in western states, including Texas and the Dakotas — could halt the U.S. energy boom in its tracks.


Why? Because putting the birds on the endangered species list empowers federal bureaucrats to limit use of millions of acres of privately owned lands, thus effectively taking them out of energy exploration and development.


Whether adding them to the endangered species list is the proper course of action is disputed in part because federal officials have yet to make public all of the underlying justifications on which they are basing their actions.


The situation provides yet another illustration of the maxim that the public loses when government makes policy in private.

Exactly. As if imminent domain weren’t bad enough. This is yet another example of how consensus science is in bed with power politics. Whether it is climate experts, medical researchers, evolutionary biologists, you name it. Public funding of science seems like a great idea, but it doesn’t usually work out very well. When scientists rely on the civil government for a paycheck, it’s uncanny how often their findings support their sugar daddy’s agenda.

14 responses

    • If it is “science”, why not reveal the studies they’re using to identify these supposedly endangered species?

    • Funny MrMalibuBarbieBob but you usually draw some really wild ass conclusions on the flimsiest of evidence. not scientific at all. You only throw the word science out there when it is convenient for you.

  1. There is much more than meets the eye. Check out the UN’s Agenda 21 and where the New World Order (NWO) elites say where and where you can’t live. The NWO wants total control of the world’s population. Check it out in the UN’s website.

  2. There is no question that the greed of landowners would destroy the environment in their quest for profits. It is because of the EPA, ESA that we just might be able to pass a livable planet on to our children.

  3. Oh I’m so thrilled. More govt BS They are bound & determined to make the human species in the US an endangered species.

  4. The writer is biased against science. That’s the first clue that he’s made up his mind and facts don’t matter. He uses a term like “shady data” and not proving it with examples. Then he continues to say that Democrats are declaring endangered species and lands because they are power hungry. Of course he thinks that’s stupid. A Republican would make sure that profits follow power.

    • If these decisions were based in scientific fact these “facts” would be widely published in support of the decision. The fact that the basis for these decisions are not made public tells me that there is no basis, in scientific fact, to support the rulings.

      • Scientists are not in the business of greed & power. They conduct their expertise into knowledge. They’re aware that illogical conclusions would hurt their reputations. Scientists look for facts.

Leave a Reply