Posted by
Dave Kooker on Friday, August 31, 2007 1:57:58 PM
In two US Federal court decisions this summer in the Pacific Northwest, the courts have sided with the argument that genetically identical animals but possessing different behaviors and/or environments are considered separate species. The argument is likely to head to the 9th Circuit Court for appeals.
The argument began when the environmental group Earthjustice (Code word: Environmental Socialist) wanted to keep the Upper Columbia River steelhead (salmon) to remain on the endangered species list. The fish hatcheries were too successful improving the number of salmon so the environment group tried another angle to keep the salmon as an endangered species.
Judge John C. Coughenour, of the Western District of Washington, ruled that "human interference" and the "unnatural" way that hatcheries maintain salmon populations was unlawful. The judge then ordered that the Upper Columbia River steelhead remain on the endangered species list.
So now how does an individual determine the difference between the hatchery raised salmon versus the wild natural raised salmon if they are genetically identical? Do you ask the fish? Check his ID card? I am sure the bear catching the salmon does not care. He is probably happy the number of salmon has increased.
At the root motivation of keeping animals on the endangered species list is to control the use of the land (Private and/or public) that the endangered species lives on and to push social engineering policies like farming policies (Irrigation) or commercial fishing.
This kind of interpretation to decide if an animal is endangered by species count or by behavior, which ever is easier to acquire the endangered status, can be wildly interpretive.
Example #1 – If a government agency discovers a ferrell cat living under your porch, could the government decide to confiscate your house in the name of protecting an ‘endangered species’ because the cat is ferrell instead of being a typical domesticated house cat? This could be a very convenient way for the government to confiscate private property without using Emanate Domain.
Example #2 – What is to stop this kind of logic from applying to human law? Diversity, which already has run amok, could grant minority status based on species and behavior. Do you grant minority status to someone who was raised in a 5 million dollar condo facing Central Park New York City versus someone who was raised in a 150K-dollar ranch house in Jacksonville Florida? How about a trailer? Would someone receive special privileges because they were born in a car en-route to the hospital versus born in the hospital?