Government’s Land Grab on Behalf of the Defunct Dusky Gopher Frog Continues On

February 15, 2014
By

Bet you never heard of the Mississippi Gopher Frog aka Dusky Gopher Frog. No bother, almost no one has. Apparently, there aren’t many of them left. Once they’re gone, nothing will happen. It won’t matter at all. They have no effect on anything and are basically irrelevant. Nonetheless, federal officials have decided their cause is worth stealing thousands of acres of private property.

DuskyGopherFrog

Dusky Gopher Frog

Can federal officials label private property as “critical habitat” for an endangered species, when the land is acknowledged not to be usable for the species, and may never be usable habitat? The answer right now is “yes”.

In June, 2012, when the agency designated “critical habitat” for the Dusky Gopher Frog, regulators stretched the Endangered Species Act beyond any previous interpretation by including 1,544 acres of private property in St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana, that is manifestly not suitable for the frog.

In fact, the government – the Fish & Wildlife Service (F&W) – itself admits as much.  The designation of this forested area is based on pure speculation.  F&W hopes the land might someday be managed by private parties for the species’ conservation.  However, the only way to make this area suitable for habitat is through controlled burns and revegetation, which F&W admits it cannot mandate on private land. They most likely hope their bullying and impossible regulations will force the owners off the land.

The major landowner hoped to develop the property, which extreme environmentalist are opposed to.

Pacific Legal Foundation is representing the property’s owners in challenging this unjustified federal targeting of their land.  Under the law, critical habitat must actually contain the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species.

If property can be designated even though it isn’t usable as habitat, there are no limits on the amount or location of private land that can be roped off by federal decree.  Regulators can impose restrictions on anyone’s property, anywhere — merely by claiming it could someday, in some speculative way, be used for species recovery.

The US Fish & Wildlife Service, complicit with The Center for Biological Diversity and the Gulf Restoration Project, and other extremist environmental organizations, orchestrated a massive land grab of 6,477 acres, mostly in Mississippi, but 1500 privately-owned acres are in Louisiana. Most of the land has been with one family for over a 100 years.

The government is doing it for 100 frogs that have no value and do nothing for the environment and who only exist in a pond in Mississippi.

Fish & Wildlife, famous for raiding guitar factories at gun point, wants to re-establish the Mississippi Gopher Frog in a pond on private property a state away from where they are now to a pond that no longer exists in Louisiana. There is no suitable pond to re-establish them in.

The way it works is like this: the government in cooperation with extreme environmental groups accomplish the land grab by first declaring a creature endangered, which this one is because it is no longer viable or needed and nature has a way of filtering out such creatures; after this is done, they look for land to grab for the creature; and, once found, they declare it a critical habitat.

Critical habitat is a very dangerous government tool and it is being used to steal private land. Unless the victim can get help as these people have from The Pacific Legal Foundation, they will never be able to use their land again. The EPA is in complete control of their land and any development on it will be stopped by the government.

The Mississippi Gopher Frog, which has not been seen in Louisiana since 1967, has been renamed the Dusky Gopher Frog. It can be no small coincidence that Mississippi is now missing from its name since they are claiming they need the steal the personal property in Louisiana because the frog originally came from the region.

Pacific Legal Foundation is representing Markle Interests LLC and the Poitevent landowners, the majority owners, in this case.

Residents of the area are concerned as to where this will lead if allowed to stand. They suggest that later amendments will be made to include homes falling under other federal guidelines including Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae loans. Amendments could likely include a list of regulations the property owner must follow or pay fines or face imprisonment.

The story is actually worse than described here as these groups are looking at more land grabs in Mississippi and other states using the frog as an excuse.

Property owners in these government cases do not get fair compensation. One case, Sacketts vs. the EPA, is a good example of what happens to victims who are singled out by the government. The Sacketts were planning to build their dream home on their private property, which is dry as a whistle, until the EPA declared it wetlands. They were not only not compensated, they were slapped with $37,000 a day in fines. In that case, the Supreme Court decided the Sacketts had standing to sue, the fines were eliminated, and the case continues.

North Carolina has a similar case in Hatteras. Then there is the case of the Pagosa Skyrocket which was an excuse for stopping the Keystone XL pipeline.

Listen to the story behind this horrific case from the victim:

 

Listen to Hannity and the landowner:

Tags: , , , ,

2 Responses to Government’s Land Grab on Behalf of the Defunct Dusky Gopher Frog Continues On

  1. February 15, 2014 at 1:49 pm

    30-35 years ago I several customers who got tangled up in EPA bull manure. All had spent several years completing the permit process only to have them revoked after construction had started..

    One owner did a warehouse to condo conversion.. carpet was being installed in the apartments when the EPA decided the towns sewer system was inadequate, and he couldn’t hook into it..

    Another had 24 acres, he was building a single family home..3 years to get a permit. He had his foundation in when the EPA decided the property was wetlands.. he was ordered to restore it.. and pay for monitoring and engineering reports for 10 years to insure all wildlife and vegetation had returned to normal..

    A third one had his foundation in, when the EPA decided the site might be a suitable habitat for a salamander believed to be extinct, since no one had reported seeing one for over 50 years.. He was allowed to restore the construction site to it’s natural state and build elsewhere on his property.

    Then there was the builder who bought a small Island on the Chesapeake Bay.. Not wanting to go through the cost and years of BS to get a permit, he built a mansion without one and left it up to the county to sort it out after the fact.. His fine was less than the lawyers and engineers would have cost if he’d gone for a permit.. Every builder in the county screamed foul, but he got away with it..

    • Sara Noble
      Sara Noble
      February 15, 2014 at 3:48 pm

      Someone on Facebook just told me how something like this hurt a friend of hers who can’t sell her property or any portion of it because of the Houston Toad. I couldn’t find anything about the opposition to the toad but I did find loon after loon giving their time and energy to the toad. One doctor operated on one that had cancer. People are claiming that the toads may one day cure heart disease. Meanwhile they are useless dumb little toads whose time has come and gone.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

What is 14 + 4 ?
Please leave these two fields as-is:
IMPORTANT! To be able to proceed, you need to solve the following simple math (so we know that you are a human) :-)

Email Newsletter

The newsletter is mailed out every two weeks.