| I examined that question and determined that, simply stated, “4(d)” is a section in the US Endangered Species Act that requires the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Fish & Wildlife Service to issue regulations for the protection of any species that is declared threatened (not simply endangered).
Since most anybody or organization, including the federal government, can sue property owners for “harming” a protected species, 4(d) also suggests that property owners via County government would be given “immunity” to such lawsuits provided that they are complying with all the regulations enacted by NMFS.
Keeping in mind that NMFS regulations have gone, by and large, unchallenged and specify unproved arbitrary-like conditions, this “immunity” looks too much like the old protection money scam — pay the price and you will be safe. In this case, the price involves serious private property and personal privacy compromises. Personal privacy because these regulations will “need” to be policed and what better than a satellite (now there’s an issue that must to be watched). Private property and personal privacy are protected by the US and Washington State Constitutions. Our elected officials must act vigorously to ensure that these rights are not compromised by regulations made by non-accountable agencies like NMFS. Their oath-of-office requires it.
The American sense of ownership must remain strong for this country to remain strong. This strong sense of ownership instills pride and is one of the essential elements needed for the best and the finest to be brought out in all of us. “NO 4(d)” says NO to compromising property rights and privacy in the name of the dubious 4(d) protection. The so-called “4(d) protection” is nothing more than a “red herring.” Defending our freedoms against erosion from within is as essential as defending it against outside forces. I hope that we all will agree with “NO 4(d)”.
David Schumacher
Poulsbo. | 
