http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2014/08/federal_judge_upholds_st_tamma.html
They are really stomping on this landowner. This frog they want to protect hasn't been seen on the property since the mid 60s, and the land only has something like two of the five required habitat requirements if I recall correctly from previous articles. There is a specific breed of pine tree that is one of the requirements, and there are NONE of that breed of tree growing on the land, as well as a lack of any standing ponds also critical for the habitat. It's a total abuse of regulatory power. I hope the Fifth Circuit sides with the landowner(s).
EDIT: Is "breed" of tree actually acceptable? Sounded right as I was typing but weird when I read it back. I'm guessing "species" was what I was looking for.
They are really stomping on this landowner. This frog they want to protect hasn't been seen on the property since the mid 60s, and the land only has something like two of the five required habitat requirements if I recall correctly from previous articles. There is a specific breed of pine tree that is one of the requirements, and there are NONE of that breed of tree growing on the land, as well as a lack of any standing ponds also critical for the habitat. It's a total abuse of regulatory power. I hope the Fifth Circuit sides with the landowner(s).
EDIT: Is "breed" of tree actually acceptable? Sounded right as I was typing but weird when I read it back. I'm guessing "species" was what I was looking for.
Last edited:
