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.
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.
Listen to the story behind this horrific case from the victim:
Listen to Hannity and the landowner: