Welkerii,



>>TPWD did an EIS like report for the "White and Black List" and they determined no impact on micro-businesses. I disagree. I analyzed commercial herp data (and other herp data: range, fecundity and population density) for TX, for my MS thesis, and the design of the "White and Black List" turned out to be highly flawed. I should have a final paper of my work out by spring of next year (hope to publish down the road). Also an EIS was NOT done for the road ban that I am aware of. I mentioned previously (many times) that the road ban would negatively affect small herp business and it most certainly has. Also, all the new TX regs have hurt Herp Shows in the state. I know several folks who quit doing TX shows because of all the hoops and expense. Also venomous at Daytona was nixed because of compliance issues with FWC. We have commercial arguments and we should use them.



Agreed and I do with my congressman…



Speaking of Daytona, the FWCC officer this year was quite a pleasure to deal with…He was wrapped around the fact that I did not have my written inventory with me on Saturday. I had it on Friday but it was collected by the vet when he came around for his inspection. The vet said he was collecting them for just this requirement this year…Which we (the breeders that were there this year) heard about on the PA system on Friday while we were setting up. Anyway, we went round and round about my inventory…I finally told him to call his office and have them fax him my inventory and then inspect my table (everything would match exactly)…They have a copy of it as a requirement for me to receive my Class III license…This made him even more irritated…After he checked my license he left…I expected him to return but did not…



My opinion is that he really didn’t want me there…Just my opinion though.



Regarding their “studies”, it seems to me as though they do these things (studies) without much forethought at all…It’s hard to believe a business working things out the way the government seems to…They would not be in business for very long…Kind of hard to make widgets without a widget maker…And a maintenance budget for when the widget maker breaks…Below are some examples of the results of a thorough “think” of the impact on the federal budget from the Provisions of Section 7 of the ESA…



“From its inception this has been a controversial section of the Act. It prohibits Federal agencies from carrying out public projects or issuing permits for private projects that would either jeopardize listed species or harm their habitat. Agencies prepare a “biological assessment" (which may be time-consuming and costly) which supports their conclusion about whether a proposed project would affect any listed species…”



From the Reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act, Issue Brief Number IB82046, Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, Updated: 04/12/82…



Unfunded mandates are a wonderful thing, even at the federal level…Here are some examples of the ESA’s impact on the rest of the federal government…



NOAA paid $185,908,130 in tax dollars in FY2006 for “species” under Section 7 Provisions…



Army Corps of Engineers paid $159,999,596 in tax dollars in FY2006 for “species” under Section 7 Provisions…



Bureau of Reclamation paid $91,993,000 in tax dollars in FY2006 for “species” under Section 7 Provisions…



NOAA paid $173,418,316 in tax dollars in FY2007 for “species” under Section 7 Provisions…



Army Corps of Engineers paid $199,312,638 in tax dollars in FY2007 for “species” under Section 7 Provisions…



Bonneville Power Authority paid $523,620,865 in tax dollars in FY2007 for “species” under Section 7 Provisions…



It’s amazing to read just how much money is actually spent on just the ESA…



Again, thanks for that post…



Later,

Jim.
-----
CSRAJim

[ Show Entire Thread ]