Comment on FR Doc # E9-31102

These species of birds are beyond the reach of any United States authorities simply by their location. Furthermore, by the time that a species meets the criteria for becoming endangered, the damage is usually already done. Attempts to protect species interferes with the fundamental rights of property owners by restricting the uses to which “habitat” may be submitted. This undermines one of the greatest values of the United States Constitution—the guarantee of the right to property. The people of Peru don’t have a meaningful voice in the government of the United States in order to protect their own interests. They have no reason to believe that a foreign sovereign might try to manage any animals in their back yards,. Yet, the State Department of the U.S. is potent, and may sway policy in Peru based upon this rule making. Threatening the personal sovereignty of foreign nationals in their home countries is beyond the power of the EPA, and beyond the scope of any Constitutionally delegated power. The only protection, therefore, that listing these species of birds as endangered can provide is that of international coercion. Peru is a sovereign nation. As such, the United States owes it the respect due a sovereign. The only nation that can legitimately protect species native to Peru is Peru. While destruction of species might not be a desirable outcome, it often cannot be prevented. Some species are simply not fit to survive. A great lesson can be learned by looking at the types of animals that are commonly cooked and served. People don’t allow them to die out. In fact, people have a tendency to look for ways to make such species more abundant. The sad reality is that species that we don’t even know about go extinct every day, for reasons that we cannot control. It is part of the great cycle of life. At the same time, successful species adapt, evolve, and thrive, generating new species.