Redallover

My dear colleague, Brian Hodges, has a really interesting case that is getting all kinds of press this week. The Leus, retirees living in Blaine, Washington, live on a lot that abuts the Canadian border. In order to prevent the erosion of their property, they built a 4-foot high retaining wall across the northern edge of their property. Mind you, they contacted the local authorities to ensure they would be in complaince and were told that they did not even need a permit for such an insignificant modification to their property. Enter Feds....

The International Boundary Commission is a government agency - well, we think (and I say that b/c it is not all that clear and their web address indicates something more along the lines of a non-profit and not a government agency: http://www.internationalboundarycommission.org/ - oh, and it resembles something a border collie could construct) given the all-important duty of making sure the grass gets mowed along the border fence. The IBC, at the direction of their arrogant-ass leader (will explain soon), told the Leus that they had to take down the wall, or they would and bill them for it.

Apparently, the retaining wall is located about 8 feet from the border and the IBC claims to have jurisdiction, via a treaty, over a 10 foot wide strip of land south of the actual border. Even though the Leus' retaining wall is within their property line, the quasi, self-annointed, Canadian-US IBC believes it retains jurisdiction.

Notably, the treaty does not give the IBC any such power to enter and take private property. Nor does it say anything about mowing the grass.

(as promised) The US leader of the IBC is Commissioner Schornack and he was fired by the Prez on Tuesday, however, Schornack said he does not recognize the President's authority to terminate him. Now, we do not know if his firing has anything at all to do with this case, but the press is certainly portraying it that way.

For more info and lots of giggles:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003785546_border12m.html

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/seattlepolitics/archives/117865.asp?from=blog_last3

In reponse to an opinion piece, signed off on by the Editorial Board at The Seattle Times, hailing Judge Coughenour's decision (see Salmon Update below) as a huge victory for salmon, I wrote a letter to the editor(s) published in today's Seattle Times (reprinted here in its entirety):

Counting salmon Hatchery distinction errs The Times Editorial Board claims that "fiddling with the numbers does nothing to nurture and protect wild salmon" ["The administration's odd salmon count," Times, editorial, June 20]. That statement makes more than one tragically incorrect assumption.

First of all, many so-called "wild" or "naturally spawning" populations were all but gone and brought back through the use of hatcheries. Second, once hatchery fish are released into the wild, the offspring between a wild and hatchery fish is considered wild. Third, given that hatcheries have been operating for over 100 years, it is unlikely that there are complete runs of "wild" salmon without a hatchery-born ancestor.

District Judge John Coughenour's ruling is in direct conflict with the opinion Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans, issued by Judge Hogan in the District of Oregon in 2001, which stated that both natural and hatchery members of the same population cannot be distinguished for listing purposes. Any further breakdown within a population is not a "species" that qualifies for Endangered Species Act protection.

Pacific Legal Foundation will appeal the latest decision and welcomes review by the 9th Circuit.

This challenge is imperative to uphold the plain language of the Endangered Species Act and to protect citizens from the overreaching and overzealous governmental regulation of private property.

Who's endangered now?