I have nothing against gopher frogs. They seem to be a nice frog (the Mississippi species is critically endangered, but the Florida species is no longer listed). There are ways of working with landowners and groups (like the Nature Conservancy) to help endangered species. But if you are going to regulate landowners to the point you have taken away the value of their property, that constitutes a taking. Pay for it.
This is really not complicated. I concur government can put some reasonable restrictions on property, but if it goes too far they have to pay fair market value for the property. In this case the frog is not even on the property in question.
There may be a reason that none of the frogs are found on the property, because it might not be suitable habitat for the frog. This case potentially offers a chance to Supreme Court to revisit its Chevron deference precedent.
What the federal government should do is let him log it, then buy the remaining land from him cheap and develop gopher frog and gopher tortoise habitat. Or if that habitat with mature pine trees is critical habitat for this frog, the government can pay fair market value for it so the frogs have a new home.
But it may be the parties just really want to see this tested at the Supreme Court.
ScotusBlog: Frogs and salmon petitions to Supreme Court
And in en banc news: The Second Circuit will not revisit a ruling that, in the eyes of the dissent, enables prosecutors to say, “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime. Neither will the Fifth Circuit, despite six dissents, reconsider its dismissal of a challenge to the feds’ designation of 1,500 acres of private land as critical habitat for the dusky gopher frog.
Those gopher frogs need to get busy breeding and not checking out porn or messing around with pigs...
Legal Insurrection: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is out of control and we all should be concerned...
Mmm, frog legs! I could go fer frogs!
ReplyDelete