[at-l] Re: Maine land prices

[yumitori@montana.com (Ron Martino)]

Texas Twelve-Step wrote:
> 

> This is precisely the reason to oppose the Endangered
> Species Act. Its very design promotes this sort of
> misuse. 

	This wasn't a case of misuse; it was serendipity for those didn't want
the dam (though not so fortunate for those who wanted the development).
The Endangered Species Act does not discriminate; it comes into play
regardless of the current or proposed land use.

Dig:
> 
> If you want more of something, you subsidize it (reward).
> If you want less of something, you tax it (penalize).
> 
> Which of the above happens to landowners on whose property
> endangered species are found? Why do you think that is?

	And your suggestion? Shall the government buy any lands and/or other
resources necessary for the protection of endangered plants and animals?
That certainly wouldn't sit well in certain circles either.
 
> Free clue from Rafe:
> 
> "The endangered species act is used because it is one
> of the few sticks available to halt development and
> unfettered harvesting of resources."
> 
> Sticks are very popular in some circles.
> 
> -TXIIS...Good-day!

	Unfortunately so is unfettered harvesting of resources. If the
development types were more often willing to manage resources for
long-term use, the environmental types would be often willing to
compromise. But too often it is set up as one extreme or the other; no
middle ground.

	Ron
-- 

It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will
determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate
discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor
must preside at our assemblies. 
	William O. Douglas 

yumitori(AT)montana(DOT)com