It all sounds so nice and reasonable when you say it. The truth is, the Endangered Species Act, like many other pieces of well-intentioned legislation (the ADA comes to mind), has predictably devolved primarily into a political weapon used most frequently by the left to promote its agenda against the private sector, and by the radical environmental fringe to promote its agenda against humanity in general.

Although you apparently work in some environmental field, you do not appear to be one of those radical environmentalists. Judging by the activities you mentioned, and the hard work you seem to have put in, you appear to honestly believe that there are solutions that can make both property owners happy and still preserve the environment and species sufficiently to prevent serious damage.

The current leaders in the environmental movement do not believe this. Many have gone on record as supporting mass expulsion of human beings from inhabited areas to turn it over completely to wildlands, and have gone into considerable detail on their loathing of technological civilization.

Again, I don't know the details of your work, but surely in the conflicts you have mediated you have noticed a particular segment of the environmental movement that is unmoving in its opposition to any exploitation of natural resources whatsoever. A segment that refuses to meet the property owner in the middle. A segment that seems to have more in mind than simply saving a butterfly. Pay close attention to these people. How many times has the result of a settlement meant the property owner must pay something to the environmental movement? How many times has the property owner been paid by the environmentalists in compensation for having to set aside valuable property? What do these particular environmentalists really want?

Of course the ESA is immensely popular. That's what makes it such a good weapon.

For the record, I do not support the tax-subsidized use of public land by private organizations for grazing, mining, or other such activities. Such people should pay fair market prices for their activities.