|
Hoe rare weeds, go to jail?
I hope I don't shock Ian Butler when I say he made some good to excellent
points in his letter last week, even though he was rather rough on me in
the process.
The two of us can agree it's not nice to kill endangered species, even if
they're on your own land and in your way. To start with, it's against the
law, with very limited exceptions, to fire a weapon within Pacifica. Even
using a slingshot or a BB gun is not permitted within our corporate
boundaries. If you're a police officer doing your duty, or shooting arrows
at the archery range, ok! Otherwise, for the most part, no dice. And of
course that doe eating your roses isn't legally available anywhere in
California for roast venison, infuriating though it may be. So that
eliminates getting rid of roaming deer, dogs, raccoons, crows and ravens
with weapons fire. Endangered plants are something else.
It would be helpful if Mr. Butler would quote me the exact law by number,
if there is one, that makes it a felony to eradicate Lupine with a hoe or a
herbicide on your own land, even though that particular Lupine happens to
be the exclusive diet of a particular endangered butterfly.
I don't think many readers equate hoeing weeds with hijacking an airliner,
so I don't think hoeing my plot of land will ever be seen by the average
citizen as an act of terrorism, in spite of Mr. Butler's hyperbole. He
didn't mention fencing viewsheds, but I also don't equate installing of
board fences on my own property to eliminate views of open space with
committing a terrorist act.
I want to assure him I don't, as he states, "hold property rights above all
others." Government can take private property whenever needed. The Fifth
Amendment requires only that fair compensation be paid. No problem!
I hope Mr. Butler's comment "this land was forcibly stolen from its
original occupants" doesn't mean he thinks that gives him carte blanche to
forcibly deprive the present owners of the benefits of ownership.
"Environmentalists" aren't entitled to ignore the property rights of others
whenever it happens to fit their agenda. When I wrote the column Mr. Butler
objected to, it wasn't really to advocate destroying rare life. It was with
the hope those who consider themselves environmentalists would realize
property owners invest in and pay taxes on property in order to benefit
from it. If you make it difficult for owners to benefit from their own
property, they might very well be led to retaliate in ways you can't
prevent or predict but would regret. If Mr. Butler really wants particular
rare subspecies of the Common Garter Snake to thrive, or unique butterflies
to flutter by, let him make sure property owners benefit from their
presence, not their absence. I've also noticed some folks use the cliches
of the environmental movement to energize their personal power trips. Their
only real goal is to throw their weight around. When they bully a
particular property owner, that owner has every right, in my opinion, to
retaliate any legal way he can.
I regret my lifelong membership in the Democratic Party so disconcerts Mr.
Butler he might consider it sufficient cause to register Green. I assure
him if I had any reason to consider joining the Greens, his presence would
in no way deter me. On the other hand, I've a supply of voter registration
forms should he and his Green friends choose to rejoin the Democratic
Party. Truth is, I've already helped quite a few Greens do just that. They
were anxious for their vote to once again mean something.
Paul Azevedo's opinions are his own, and aren't necessarily
those of the Tribune. The opinion columnist and enthusiastic Democrat gets
his e mail at Paul@thereactor.net. Check
his website at http://www.thereactor.net.
|
