Congressman (Pombo) Faces Right Over Species Act

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/bw-elect/2006/mar/25/032502570.html

TRACY, Calif. (AP) - Rep. Richard Pombo has never gotten over being outfoxed by the endangered San Joaquin kit fox. The rancher and chairman of the House Resources Committee is closer than ever to his goal of rewriting the Endangered Species Act to expand property rights - his mission ever since the obscure fox species blocked development of a neighboring town 25 years ago.

The prospect of long-fought success has made Pombo a target in the November election. The conservative Republican has abandoned the cowboy hat in his official congressional photo and is looking a little more worldly as he confronts a changing electorate in his district.

Seeking his 12th term, Pombo, 45, faces a primary challenge on June 6 from a moderate Republican who helped write the landmark species protections. Democrats see a glimmer of hope of capturing the seat; environmentalists say his defeat would be the best thing that could happen in November.

On top of all that, Pombo is facing ethical questions arising from his ties with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his own unconventional financial arrangements.

<more>

dies a permanent political death. Give me a fox any day over that asshole.

Ase one who has been totally railroaded by overuse of the endangered species act, I say there must be a balance. Property Rights are guaranteed in the Constitution and all most of us want is some reason. For example I cannot cut one oak tree to save 10, if it is 24 inches in circumference, even though that tree is strangling out other trees, I would like to save some animals over saving none at all... The dense forest are not great habitat for many species as they allow only a small amount of light to reach the ground, so the grazing plants cannot grow. It is all about balance.

Pombo, however tips the scales to the negative side and must go.

Human make use of the vast majority of "good" land in this country and everywhere else. This includes virtually all of the coastal plain habitat, where is the balance in that? Likewise, humans would use every bit of fertile valley for grazing, where is the balance? Few species thrive exclusively in the rocks and ice which make up a very large portion of our preserved areas. Some balance. Large swaths of all habitats need to be preserved in order to maintain such habitats and their inhabitants in perpetuity.

What exactly is your particular beef? What species denies you your dream of felling that oak? Please be specific so that I might know this terrible injustice that has been done to you.