>Has the gov't confiscated privtate property in the past to protect a
protected
species?
As has been pointed out, the government cannot legally confiscate the
property without fair compensation. So instead of buying the property, some
government agencies restrict land use such that the land has only a small
fraction of its value. If you buy a beachfront property that's perfect to
build a home upon and *then* the government says you cannot build there,
then what's the value of the land? Should the landowner be compensated?
It's a hot topic now both in legislatures and the courts.
>Or is this more of an issue of the feds telling private property owners
what
they can or cannot do to their property?
I guess there's a difference. If you destroy the value of property without
"taking" it, I would say the difference is trivial.
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
/"Unless stated otherwise, comments made on this list do not necessarily
/ reflect the beliefs or goals of the North American Native Fishes
/ Association"
/ This is the discussion list of the North American Native Fishes Association
/ nanfa_at_aquaria.net. To subscribe, unsubscribe, or get help, send the word
/ subscribe, unsubscribe, or help in the body (not subject) of an email to
/ nanfa-request_at_aquaria.net. For a digest version, send the command to
/ nanfa-digest-request_at_aquaria.net instead.
/ For more information about NANFA, visit our web page, http://www.nanfa.org