[beerandt]

There's also the perverse incentives of developers and farmers not wanting endangered species to be "discovered" on their property because of the restrictions that will incur.

But what gets really interesting is re-introduction of endangered species, like with sandhill cranes being re-introduced to Louisiana (transplants from other surviving populations).

Is government introduction of an endangered species on/near private land, in a way that will certainly incur restrictions on that land (to protect said species), considered a "taking" under the constitution, or should it be?

More practically, as was the case with the sandhill crane, the government had to make concessions to land owners to get them on board and make the project politically viable.

Now they're protected, but it's a "special/experimental program" where farmers and other land owners aren't restricted in the ways they would be if they were still naturally occurring in that location.

(Of course it's still illegal to shoot them, but every few years someone manages to misidentify a 6 foot tall bird as a goose or something else legal to hunt.)

[Johnny555]

There's also the perverse incentives of developers and farmers not wanting endangered species to be "discovered" on their property because of the restrictions that will incur.

I'm not sure that's really a "perverse incentive".

By hiding, destroying, or not reporting the endangered species, they're going to develop the land and harm the species.

But if there were no endangered species act making them afraid of the endangered species being discovered, they'd have just developed the land anyway, so the end result is the same. But at least with the endangered species act, they face some legal repercussion if they are caught harming an endangered species.

[LanceH]

The "perverse incentive" is that people who might otherwise be hospitable to a reintroduced animal will likely lose control of their property if they do anything to help. They could put out feeders, cull predators or provide habitat. Instead they are encouraged (if they want to keep control of their property) to be as uninviting to these animals as possible.

[beerandt]

The incentive is to kill/not-kill the animals, not necessarily protect the habitat.

The only fix I can see is making it a worthwhile rational decision: incentives for reporting endangered animals that are worth more than the value in developing the property. But that has it's own pitfalls and potentials for abuse.

[bumby]

>The incentive is…not necessarily to protect the habit

Except many of the incentives explicitly state the goal is to protect habitat.

“How does a CCA or CCAA help species? These voluntary agreements reduce or remove identified threats to a species. Examples of beneficial activities include measures for restoring or enhancing habitat, expanding or establishing habitat…”

https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/CCAs.pdf

[beerandt]

The land owner's incentive to be a bad vs good actor.

There aren't maps of some universal truth as to what habitat is protected for what species.

Many habitats aren't "known" and made protected until the endangered animal is actually discovered, on-site.

The land owner has incentive to prevent that discovery from happening, and therefore has incentive to kill the animals before they can be discovered on his property.

[xxpor]

>considered a "taking" under the constitution, or should it be?

Perhaps, but you'd also have to consider Euclidian zoning to be a taking. And that'll never happen.

[beerandt]

Not especially- because generally whenever zoning is enacted, the current land owner gets to decide the initial zone of their property.

And land that is already zoned can't be rezoned without the current property owners consent.

So the only thing restricted / "taken" here, is if the property owner wants a re-zoning and is denied.

Yeah, being forced into the system at all is arguably a violation of rights, but I don't think requiring the land to be used in a consistent way (of the owners initial choosing) is at all comparable to not being allowed to use the land.

The owner never consents to endangered species restrictions. For zoning they do.

[xxpor]

Even if that's generally true (which I doubt), it has nothing to do with the legal theory in which Euclidian zoning operates.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_of_Euclid_v._Ambler_....

"The court ruled that speculation was not a valid basis for a claim of takings."