Ed,



As I understand it, biodiversity is the “sum of all the species” of all living things living within an ecosystem of a given area (terrestrial or aquatic). It’s one component of the entire “system” which includes the soil, atmosphere, climate, water cycle, etc…It’s very complex and each component listed above plays a role in supporting life (carrying capacity-might be called something else these days). In other words, a square acre of tropical land may support 1,000’s of individual species of animals/plant whereas a desert may only support a few 100. According to some, “biodiversity” is a very important “indicator” of each “biome” on the earth.



The problem with it is that at some point in time, biodiversity, climate change, invasive species became a POLITICAL movement using each of these (and several others) “issues” as a banner for the advancement of socialism in our country. This is only my opinion but, it’s based on some six months now of research about this stuff. What we are being told is not entirely what is actually going on…



As I posted earlier regarding the state wildlife grant programs available to the states from the USFWS is actually an ever increasing amount of the loss of freedom for the private citizen for the use of the land. It is becoming so pervasive that even city planners (commissions, zoning agencies, etc) are receiving assistance from the USFWS (along with their NGO "partner" The Nature Conservancy-named in several state HCP's) in incorporating the “agenda” into their “vision” of ECO (environmental/conservation) and the USFWS is helping them do it!



For example, in FY2007 the USFWS provided assistance (the states applied for it) to Tennessee and Kentucky for an HCP in the “Cumberlands Region”. It involves some 24 counties in both states to develop a “multi-species, multi-county, landscape level Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP).” It is intended “to minimize or avoid impacts to threatened and endangered species as planned growth continues” in the region. On the face of it, this is a good thing but when you dig into the details, it is not. These HCP’s are the initial “phase” of the restrictions to the land via regulations & local ordinances that appears to lead to either a direct land acquisition, easement acquisition, fee-title acquisition or the acquisition of “rights” (timber, etc) of the land itself in the subsequent “phases”. In other words, the HCP’s are nothing more than the “design” of a future construction project that is just awaiting the funding for the construction work to begin. In the case of this government construction project, the funding comes from the taxpayers and the actual construction is the land acquisition itself.



These HCP’s are occurring throughout the country every single year…In FY2007, there were 15 of them with 19 in FY2008 and 11 more in FY2009. The total cost to the taxpayers (USFWS only) was $181.52 million dollars for all three UFWS programs to the states. This isn’t much compared to the overall federal budget but that is not the significance of this program. The significance of it is 1) the purchase of private lands to be placed under government control and 2) the use numerous regulations to impose influence over adjacent private lands (via ESA, NEPA, Clean Air and Water Acts, etc). Therefore, the actual cost to the taxpayer is far more SIGNIFICANT than just the tax dollars spent with these three USFWS programs. There are the legal fees paid to fight government the court over “mitigation” and “takings” (seizure of private lands by the government when an endangered species is “discovered” on the land) and the expenditure of funds to comply with the numerous myriad of regulations for a construction project, etc, etc, etc. Who pays these costs? WE DO!!!!!



One final point here…Note some of the states where the some of the “grant” money is being spent which includes Arizona, California ($79.50 million-44%), Florida, Hawaii, Michigan, Texas ($15.04 million-8%) and Wisconsin…Now compare this list to the list of “sponsors” of HR-669. Ring a bell? The state of California is the #1 recipient of the USFWS grants to the state with the state of Washington ($28.38 million-16%) being number two. Except to the figures listed above, the other states received between 1-3% of the grant money (which appears to the approximate % of the other states).



I wonder what I’ll find when I research the other agencies of the Department of the Interior regarding their state grants …



Later,

Jim.



PS: Invasive species (bad) and biodiversity (good) are used as propaganda banners for both of these issues (climate change is another). The "bad" issue (Burmese Python) is carried over and over again by the media and the AR crowd in their "story lines", dot.org websites and mailings to "scare" the public into action and the "good" issue (Red Cockaded Woodpecker) is sold to the politicians (for tax dollars) in reports and testimony...They are both part ot the political ECO movement...
-----
CSRAJim

[ Show Entire Thread ]