This is what happens when the Endangered Species Act is taken to extremes. There is another story on Yahoo about this, and it states there may be an issue with "baby bats". What idiots. The wildlife biologists (term used loosely) should have enough brain activity to know bats do NOT have young now. However, they want to delay the study until May when bats are more active. Duh. They DO have young then. How stupid are these people??? I'm a total bat fanatic, but just build the bridge!

http://wcfcourier.com/news/state-and-reg...69511c6da0.html

FCOL, I'm all for protecting bats and where a legitimate issue exists then do something but if a single friggen bat over a half a mile away is enough to sidetrack a development at the cost of tens of thousands of dollars then we have completely lost it.

This is the very reason my family and many more over thousands of acres of the southeast have purposely removed the last of any old growth long leaf from our properties. Instead of encouraging preservation this just makes it harder to "do the right thing".

Has anyone else ever wondered about the this? While the government gets more and more protective of wildlife, to the point where it is absolutely ridiculous, some of the more popular TV fare has gotten more and more graphic. It seems okay for a human body to be dissected but just don't do the same thing to the beef cattle that you eat every day.

Ron I agree. I really believe what we are seeing these days is wildlife management by emotion/avoidance of conflict versus wildlife management by science.

Several years ago we had a similar issue here where construction for a school was stopped costing the school district an additional $400,000 in fees due to a single Indiana bat being found. More recently, I had a developer friend required to pay $7,000 for a 3 week bat survey on a 20 acre parcel to a university professor. As those of you who've heard me speak on bats know I found this totally ridiculous that first off, only someone affiliated with a university could even get the necessary permits and second that it is a known fact that bats have preferred feeding areas that are anywhere from 1/4 mile to several miles away from the roost site. So even if an Indiana bat was captured in the mist net, how would he know that it was even living in that 20 acre area?

Like most here, I'm all for bat conservation but heck, what do they think happens when the bark comes off of the roost tree or it is blown down? And the answer is, When does the bat move to another tree!

We have too many desk jockeys in these positions today, and not enough hands on actual experience and common sense. The ESA is another tool for anti and not in my back yard types to use to their advantage.

This and a few other things I've heard this week have me convinced that the unintended consequences of this so called wildlife management under the ESA and other regulation does far far more harm than good.

In my case the long leaf was removed due to the listing of the red cockaded woodpecker which uses old growth longleaf almost exclusively for its nesting sites. In effect by listing the bird, with possible penalties, it actually encouraged landowners to remove habitats which the bird desperately needs if it were to recover.

Just this week I learned of a practice being used to deal with large mammals that the landowners are having resort to because of stupid rules.

David, you seem to understand the science here (species needs a particular habitat, bird is endangered, therefore habitat conservation or resto is encouraged). So where are the "stupid rules"?

Well the stupid part is that the bird is put on the list.

No habitat is put on the list.

Hence it is illegal to harm the bird AND if found on your property the ESA can force an injunction upon any activity which may harm the bird.

So in an effort to prevent being barred from the use of one's own property pre emptive habitat removal is conducted.

No habitat equals no bird.

Now if anyone in Washington had a brain the proper way to prtect the bird should look similar to this.

Cash fund or tax breaks are established for the reporting of endangered birds. Ideally this does not come out of the taxpayers pockets but instead is compounded from voluteer efforts of private industry and property owners.

Encourage an entirely voluntary effort on the part of property owners to report birds found and establishment of suitable habitat. Usually done with some sort of incentive program. This has been done with some large scale property owners such as large timber companies where large tracts of less productive land has been set aside into trusts or other means that qualifies for certain tax breaks or offsets. Doesn't really apply to small scale landowners like my family (270 acres) but their is no mechanism for the pooling of lands by multiple small holders.

Give the small holders absolute and final say in the control and management of their properties and a strong voice in the management of wildlife that may reside upon it.

As it stands now the landowner who wishes not run afoul of the ESA and other regulation must ensure that wildlife of concern is not found on their properties either through control of the habitat and/or the more illegal means of SSS.

Dave, I hope everyone by now has read from my posts that I am as much on the side of our wildlife as I am on the side of my clients but I am also a very strong proponent of our free market enterprise system and private property rights are the foundation of that system.

I would love to be able to do my part in the preservation of listed species and in fact our property is the home of several species of concern (not yet listed) and we do our dead level best to ensure that these species are not harmed in anyway while at the same time attempting to manage our timberlands, wildife management is as much a part of it as anything else as we do lease it out to hunters, for the best benefit of the family. If our ability to manage our land in the way we best see fit is disallowed I can guarantee you that the wildlife on it will suffer because we will be forced to divest ourselves of a property, not something I want to consider for a property that has clothed and fed my family for six generations, that will have become worthless to us and the next owner probably will not have our concerns for the wildlife.

Just catching up on the reading this week. While the ESA was designed as a tool to preserve, conserve or halt the destruction of
species on the brink, it has long since then become the focus of much ire from all sources.

In college they refer to the folks who ultimately decide which species are surviving and which are not quite at the brink as the
"god squad."

Essentially deciding who lives and who dies due to a variety of factors. Growing up I never heard much about any of it, but once
in college and on internships and such I saw just how political tape caused serious financial outlays. I interned for the USFS one
spring while in NY and I was a full time landscaper at the time and full time student. One of the projects was to install a small culvert
for a small foot trail to cross a little ditch (not a navigable waterway or even a creek by anyones consideration). I was riding with
a career employee and I said to him, I can bring some guys out this weekend, with a bobcat and install that get it looking right and
useable in a day.

To which the reply was.... "Oh no we've got to get an architect in here, there are a bunch of permits and after all that is done we bid
out the job to local companies....might have this in about 6 mos."

Huh?

Then I worked in Northern Lower Michigan for WS and during this time spent a ton of my day riding through pine country managed for
the Kirtland Warbler. You want to see massive landscape modification for a bird that winters in bermuda? I saw more management than
I've ever seen in my life, even still, for this bird, that may or may not have needed the help. About my 3rd year there, it turned up over
in WI and in the U.P. and all of a sudden the few counties in MI didn't seem so special.

I don't have to say that I love bats, you folks know it, I love all kinds of wildlife and feel truly blessed to be working with such a wide
range of species every day, even if one of them includes people.

There are places and situations where this ESA has helped, but in my career I've seen far more damage done and lawsuits filed and
all in the name of ultimately big money. Big money sues, lobbies and pushes the buck. That includes both sides, the folks trying not
to say they are impacting when we know they are, and the folks on the other side paying huge amounts to sue the govt. agencies
for not designating critical habitat which ties into what David spoke on.

In NM/AZ there is a massive legal suit to declare a good portion of both states critical jaguar habitat. The current restrictions in the
bootheel didn't even allow us to put out corral traps (open top style) for feral hogs because of the "risk" to jaguar. I think Jaguar
are an impressive animal worthy of respect, but do I believe that 3 jaguar confirmed in 10 years in two or three counties means we should
forfeit land rights of 100+ year old ranches and landownership?

No I don't.

Defending our border I guarantee you is more cause for alarm to the Jaguar moving back and forth through the borderlands than traditional
ranching and farming. The larger problem even is subdivisions and guess what happens when ranching becomes unavailable on rural lands
near water and highways? They become suburbs.

This bat case (after reading the article ron posted and googling and reading the yahoo article) is one that is going to happen more and more.
I do wonder if the reporter took liberty with stating "baby bats" as it wasn't a quote, and I've interviewed enough to know they put whatever
they feel like in the article if it suits them, whether accurate or not.

I didn't see where they stated the $250k was a bat study, versus a general environmental impact study which they all have to undertake. Most
highway departments and cities have on call environmental consultants that hire out contractors to do the studies.

Really what this comes down to is the atomic bomb of policy exists now in a way that is unpredictable and often explodes in places where it
shouldn't, or places where more common sense science might dictate another avenue.

The govt. knows that not protecting that single bat is cause for environmental groups to sue them, on top of their legal requirement to comply with
the ESA as written. Even if they do comply with the ESA they still might be sued, there honestly isn't a lot of winning, though there are many cases
where the ESA was needed or used properly, there are many just like lots of other policies where it has been contorted and turned into a figment of
its former self for interest groups, etc...

Anyway, how bout that for a lot of nothing.....

Justin