Sample ESA Letters and Comments
May
11, 2001
The
Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20500
RE:
Endangered Species Act
Dear
President Bush
On behalf of our membership, as well as thousands of
farmers and farm-dependent communities in the Northwest, I ask that you
request Congress to also add the following species to the
"endangered" list:
1. Common
Sense
2. Farmers
3. The American Food Supply
4. Democracy
5. Elected Officials
that endorse current ESA travesties.
Specifically, the "Citizen Suits" provision
of the Endangered Species Act has been so substantially and continuously
abused that it must be rescinded or significantly restricted.
The net effect of collaborative and frivolous litigation brought
against Rural America by politically extreme environmentalist groups
qualifies for investigation under another Federal Act —RICO (Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act).
Most certainly, the collusion, extortion of basic properties (water
rights) and livelihoods through excessive use of ESA gets dangerously
close to "organized crime" against Rural America.
As our elected official, we implore you to examine
the conditions occurring in the State of Oregon, and intended, by recently
filed litigation, for the States of Washington, Idaho and Utah.
You simply must stop the madness!
A country dependent upon other countries for its food and energy
supplies is a country sacrificing what's left of its democracy.
Please hear us. Please
bring sanity and balance back into the Endangered Species Act.
Sincerely,
1200 in my mail box
got it,you left out hunting,remember 13 million people bought hunting
licences last year! Bob
________________________________________________________________
Friends: It pays to protest for your rights, as the
20,000 farmers and
taxpayers did last week in Klamath Falls, Oregon for their water
rights! Help is on its way! Our fishermen need the same help too, but they
are out to sea at workfor
our food!
_______________________________________________________________
With
all due respect, "scientific peer review" by law will accomplish
nothing, because a peer group of "conservation biologists" is
just as crazy as one "conservation biologist". And getting rid
of citizen suits accomplishes nothing
other than cutting the hourly rate the enviros get when they sue. They will still sue every bit as much, under the Administrative
Procedure Act.
I have more
bitter experience with ESA reform than anyone else I know, and what is
really needed is a change in the provisions regarding judicial review. It
is the collapse of accountability in law that has fueled nearly all the
problems. If the Government had to defend its decisions in front of a
jury—as opposed to a peer group of "scientists"—it would
lose nearly all of them. James
You ask what is the legal solution. I had some
suggestions in the article
I wrote for the April, 2001, issue of Media Bypass entitled "The
Making of
Another Inherently Void Case". If you have access to the article I
think
you'll find it well worth the time to read. Contained in the article is
reference to an example FOIA (Freedom of Information Act Request. I've
found
it to be important to establish a paperwork trail of good faith inquiry.
In
the instance of challenging limited federal territorial jurisdiction, I'd
suggest sending a FOIA similar to the one mentioned in the article. You
can
see and copy it by clicking on:
http://www.Angelfire.com/oh4/befree/AOIA0220.html
Send a FOIA for each
location you are interested in. That's what I meant by not accepting any
presumptions. For example, when I wrote to the governor of Ohio concerning
the notices of acceptance required under 40 USCS 255 for the Federal
Building location in Dayton, Ohio, which houses the Federal District
Court,
guess what? They have no such notices of acceptance on file. What does
that
mean? If further inquiry is unable to turn up such notices, then the
mandatory requirements needed to establish bona fide federal jurisdiction
have not been met and that would mean that any federal cases tried in such
a
location would all be inherently void. The issue of bona fide limited
federal territorial jurisdiction is the key to the door for any federal
action within a state. (Not State, but state) If you have further
questions
about the FOIA process, check out some of my court filings on my home page
at: http://www.Angelfire.com/oh4/befree
. If the feds don't even have the
bona fide key to the door, they don't have any bona fide basis to enforce
any federal law within a state. Try to get a copy of my Media Bypass
article
as I think it will help clear up what steps to take.
I think you'll find that while the letter writing may have a certain
impact, if you never forcefully raise the issue of bona fide limited
territorial jurisdiction, that the end result may not be what you hoped.
However, the combination of letter writing and raising the issue,
especially
if you find out that the requirements of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17
and
40 USCS 255 have not been met in a bona fide way, will turn out to be
nuclear destruction to the designs of federal encroachment.
Hope this helps. Let me know what you find out regarding the FOIA's.
Walt
________________________________________________________________
We must realise that America and Britain face the
same problem/evil merely
in different guise - it is the burgeoning of BIG Government increasingly
in
the thrall of globalist corporate interests and the ideological interests
&
greed of a tiny tiny clique of deeply evil individuals seeking a New World
Order and One World Government for their own 'GAIN' at the expense of the
peoples.
The EU is just a building block of the NOW just as is NAFTA, the UN, WTO,
IMF etc.
Thank you again to our American friends for their help and it is to be
hoped
that enough people in Britain are sufficiently awake and aware to help you
in their turn.
What goes around comes around!!
Regards,
Greg in England.
________________________________________________________________
The
material below (FROM THE OREGON CATTLEMAN) is
similar to an extensive discussion of science that appears in a Supreme
Court case called Daubert, which
I and others have attempted to apply in the ESA context without success.
It will have no more strength in a statute than in a Supreme Court
opinion, because the underlying problem is one of "deference" to
agency action by federal courts. Further, getting the government further
emmeshed in the definition of science simply expands the role of
government, rather than contracting it.
Data is
inherently subject to interpretation, and the problem is that we have
raised entire generations of "scientists" whose interpretations
are crazy. One person's cloud of dots is another person's
"statistically valid science". The judgment of ordinary
citizens, who know craziness when they see it, are what we can trust.
Federal judges feel, based upon Supreme Court precedent interpreting the
APA, that they can do nothing about agency craziness.
The best
legislative solution would be to require the Government to defend its ESA
decisions before a jury in the community affected upon a preponderance of
the evidence when challenged, with full discovery rights on the part of
citizens, creating a special species of judicial review for ESA decisions
and supplanting the APA entirely. There were provisions like this in 1994
reform bills that went nowhere.
But really,
all this ESA reform stuff is a pipe dream. We need to get God Squad
exemptions for the people really getting screwed, get administrative
re-interpretations of the Act, and get administrative decisions delisting
all the species. Bush can do all this stuff with the stroke of a pen. I
wrote a memo that was delivered to Gale Norton that explained much of
this. I never heard back. Bush doesn't need any Democratic votes to pass
new law, though that would be nice; he needs to change the adminstration
of existing law.
The ugly
truth, as best I can tell thousands of miles from D.C, is that his RINO
advisers don't want to solve the problem, they just want to posture and
make it look like they are trying to help you all.
FROM THE OREGON CATTLEMAN
We feel
that "peer reviewed" science is not enough unless it is defined.
We are sending you what we have put together for the purpose of defining
what science is and is not in our attempt to get it into Oregon state law.
Also is the words we believe will be as near as we can get to a silver
bullet to make the ESA be what it should be, a mechanism to protect truly
endangered species rather than every species that all the half baked,
enviro, graduate candidates decide to do a thesis on and then have their
room-mate peer review. Those words are "statistically valid
science". The Oregon Cattlemen's association are committed to getting
this language into state law and hopes it can be put into the ESA. If it
were there there would be no Klamath crisis, and the salmon would not be
listed as endangered or threatened, there would be no power crisis or fuel
shortage. Thanks for considering this in our urgent drive for amendments.
thanks, s
A number of phrases are used to describe science as
the basis of our
laws, policies and decisions dealing with natural resources (forestry,
agriculture, water, fish etc). We have terms such as: the best science
available, peer reviewed science, scientific information, valid
science, scientific theory, good science, and bad science.
The goal of fundamental science is to discover the laws of Nature, which
means we are interested in finding that few set of rules that apply to
all objects and systems in the Universe. Without a definition of science
any of the above descriptive phrases can be used to justify actions to
solve problems....and it can all be done in the name of science. A
scientist can state an opinion, pontificate about his or her vast
experience of making personal observations, or speculate about what might
happen if his or her idea isn't followed.
The problem of not having science defined and not separating the general
laws that govern different natural resource disciplines of water science
and fish science, is being felt in a very real and painful way in Klamath
County. A biological opinion was written by the federal agencies based
on what they perceive and many describe as "science". In fact,
the
biological opinion is not science but is the opinion of scientists who
work for NMFS and USFWS. Opinions of scientists, speculative comments,
pontificating narratives of thought experiments are not a part of
science, because an opinion provides no evidence of facts. Science is
objective. Opinion, personal observations, and thought experiments are
subjective.
We have allowed the beliefs of people who know a little about fish
physiology, to be combined with their understanding and experience
developed through reading and work to be declared "the best science
available" for all of us. The references provided in the biological
opinion do not address the general laws of Water Science. "The best
science available" in the Klamath Basin appears to be embodied in the
"biological opinions" about Fish Science. This mistake has been
made
without a definition of science or requirement for a "statistically
valid" burden of proof by the government in the Klamath Basin, and it
should never happen again. Oregon must begin to unravel the myths that
have us bogged down in a quagmire of arguments, litigation, and political
agendas.
Of utmost importance to the Oregon Cattlemen's Association is that we
begin to take steps to define science and then use science. We should
no longer accept a belief or opinion as fact if it can't be backed up
with a "statistically valid experiment or case study" that can
be
replicated in the state during more than one year. Fish Science can no
longer be the substitute for Water Science because someone believes the
laws of one are the same for the other. Oregon's natural resource
programs must be based on a foundation of organized knowledge
established in testable laws and theories required to be confidently
relied on as "science".
*****************************************
Oregon Cattlemen's Association Definition of Science
Science is the systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the
universe and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws
and theories. The success and credibility of science are anchored in the
willingness of scientists to:
1. Expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication
by other scientists. This requires the complete and open exchange of
data, procedures and materials.
2. Abandon or modify accepted conclusions when confronted with more
complete or reliable or observational evidence.
Adherence to these principles provides a mechanism for self-correction
that is the foundation of the credibility of science.
***********************************************
"Statistically valid science" refers to a hypotheses that has
been posed,
data collections made using the standard methodology, with results of
the data measurements objectively assessed using an analysis of the data
described in the science of statistics. Many of the statistical methods
are described in Snedecor, G.W. and William Cochran. 1967. Statistical
methods. Iowa State University Press. Ames, IA.
The criteria to determine if a study or work is "statistically valid
science" are:
1. Peer review. The information has been critically reviewed by other
persons who are qualified scientific experts in that scientific
discipline. The criticism of the peer reviewers has been addressed by the
proponents of the information. Publication in a "refereed scientific
journal" usually indicates that the information has been
appropriately
peer-reviewed.
2. Methods. The methods that were used to obtain the information are
clearly stated and able to be replicated. The methods are standardized in
the pertinent scientific discipline or, if not, the methods have been
appropriately peer-reviewed to assure their reliability and validity.
3. Logical conclusions and reasonable inferences. The conclusions
presented are based on reasonable assumptions supported by other studies
and consistent with the general theory underlying the assumptions. The
conclusions are logically and reasonably
derived from the assumptions and supported by the data presented. Any
gaps in information
and inconsistencies with other pertinent scientific information are
adequately explained.
4. Quantitative analysis. The data have been analyzed using appropriate
statistical or quantitative methods.
5. Context. The information is placed in proper context. The assumptions,
analytical techniques, data, and conclusions are appropriately framed
with respect to the prevailing body of pertinent scientific knowledge.
6. References. The assumptions, analytical techniques, and conclusions
are well referenced with citations to relevant, credible literature and
other pertinent existing information.
The following are not science:
Belief - A belief contains no data to support a position or opinion. An
individual simply believes that he/she is correct with out any
measurable evidence to support the opinion. This category of information
is of little value when considering a body of evidence and is not an
application of science.
Observation - An observation contains little or no measured data to
support a position. An outcome was observed but there is no way to
distinguish between a number of factors that may have contributed to the
outcome. This category of information is only slightly better than
opinion.
Literature reviews - Literature reviews are no better than the
information reviewed. If belief and observation are used in the
literature review there is little value in the document. Similarly if
research is omitted or misquoted the review is nothing more than an
agenda document. A literature review is not scientific research. If
done correctly it is a synopsis of known research and is used identify
research needs.
Computer models - Computer models are an attempt to simplify and
simulate a natural system with mathematical equations. A model is based
on a number of foundation assumptions (i.e. a column of water in a stream
is static and all solar energy is instantaneously and uniformly absorbed
by all of the molecules of water). This means that the model is no
better or worse than the quality of the assumptions, information, and the
mathematical relationships used to form the model. Models are not
research in a classical sense they are a simulation based upon existing
information. Their value is primarily to find gaps in existing knowledge
and for hypothesis generation. Their ability to generate results or
trends that relate to the real world is largely dependent upon the
assumptions found in the model.
FROM THE OREGON CATTLEMAN
________________________________________________________________
RE OREGON CATTLEMAN
I am a 1973 Notre Dame Biology BS and have retained 3
renown Phds,Taylor,Kay and Mitchell,all experts in ESA,Wolves,and opposed
to Eco-extremism.I have spent as a CEO $55 million in legal fees,the OCA
is strongly advised to retain the aforementioned to place their
"IMPRIMATUR" on a definition that Fed lawyers and enviro groups
will challenge.This also will set those on their heels who characterize
ranchers as stupid with big belt buckles and hunters as "Rambo"I
cannot make this recommendation more strongly.I
May
10, 2001
To be read and entered into the official record of the United States
Senate
Energy and Natural Resources Committee Hearing:
To the addressees of this email, and to the remaining members of the
Senate
Energy and Natural Resources Committee who do not have email addresses:
There is a crime taking place in Klamath Falls, Oregon. The criminal is
dressed in "sheep's clothing, masquerading as someone
"protecting endangered
species" so "the public will know that those bad, bad farmers
won't get to
eradicate/exterminate any more bugs/fish/animals/plants/whatever."
From what
distant planet did that line of thinking come from, and however did it
come
to be accepted in our society as being correct???
Let me present a quote from a tome on birdwatching, published by a
well-known
non-governmental organization (NGO) of which I'm certain you're familiar:
EXTINCT BIRDS:
It is probably a healthy exercise, when considering the extinction of
species
in this age, to remember that many thousands of life forms have ceased to
exist from wholly natural causes -- dinosaurs spring invariably to mind.
And
further that some organisms -- especially primitive forms which, as it
were,
are "past their prime" -- will pass into oblivion both without
human
assistance and in spite of it.
--from The Birdwatcher’s Companion, page 229, authored by Christopher
Leahy
of the Massachusetts Audubon Society, 1982
All right, let's pretend that the American people are not ALL without
cognitive thought processes, and proceed on the assumption that SOME of us
are well aware of the "plan."
This is not a "conspiracy theory," it is simply business run
amok.
The Mafia was never so brazen as those who are simply using people's
emotions
and our splendid English Language to rob them of their inheritance!
Let me simplify: Our country, like her patriots and her statesmen, has a
backbone. She stands tall and proud, with grace and Godliness, the Bill of
Rights and Constitution keeping her safe from those who would "sell
her down
the river."
Folks, contrary to current popular belief, everything does NOT have its
price. There are a goodly number of our fair citizens who cannot be
prostituted into selling their children's birthrights. Discovering that
fact, those who would wield their mighty clout/power/bank accounts have
had
to resort to "other methods." They have decided to use those
words that
Americans have come to trust, to make them think that they are being
"protected, managed, etc.," and that their lands and waters can
be better
cared for with "government funds" and in the hands of strangers,
than they
can with their private care.
It has become fashionable to contribute to the Sierra Club, The Nature
Conservancy, and hundreds of other such NGOs. I remain convinced that NO
ONE
TAKES BETTER CARE OF LAND AND WATER THAN A PRIVATE OWNER.
Returning a river to its wild state means that trees will clog its course,
wild animals will defecate in it, and birds flying overhead will scatter
seeds of the dreaded "Post-European settlement" humans who dare
to plant
seeds and NURTURE THEM, to FEED PEOPLE!
Walking away from land or a forest does NOT mean that that land and that
forest will magically become picture perfect. Realistically, the kind and
loving hand of the farmer, rancher, logger, miner, recreationist, and
homeowner, will impart a quickening of life. Birds and animals come to the
hand that feeds them. Human beings who are also resource providers have
nothing to apologize to fringe groups who CALL themselves
"environmentalists," all the while having no clue what the word
really means.
To truly "walk the walk," you need go no further than the
hardworking, REAL
Americans who have Bucket Brigades in Oregon, Log Hauls in Montana, Darby
Farmland Rallies in Ohio, Jarbidge (shovels) Road Openings in Nevada, and
so
on. The real backbone of our country does not need a federal hand saying
"We'll protect America for the public good," and with the other
hand taking
the "federal funds" from the taxpayer's pocket! Does this not
strike you as
criminal?
The terrorists who have even law enforcement afraid to arrest them, who
wreak
havoc on housing, farm fields and equipment, who destroy the private
property
of working, honest people, and then crow about it on their websites and to
the press, they are the ones who should be apologizing: from a prison
cell!
In closing, members of this Committee, and the others to whom I speak, do
be
so bold as to look in a mirror and consider: what would the Founding
Fathers
think of your actions, to date? Would they give their blessing to the
millions being squandered to the United Nations (a FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, and
one to whom no American serviceman owes ANY allegiance)? Would they not
tell
you that what is happening to those who quietly hold this country
together,
is WRONG? Would they not tell you that our REPUBLIC, and all for which is
stands, is to be ONE NATION, UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND
JUSTICE
FOR ALL?
Miss Julie