Community > Advocacy, Agencies, Access
Our public land rights could be in peril
haus:
And another thing.....this bill is Obama's, don't kid yourself into thinking U.S. Rep. Rush Holt(NJ) drummed this bill up on his own.
Game plan:
Obama's out rah-rah'ing his Great Outdoors Initiative, motivating the people, sounding all inclusive, embracing everyone from environmentalists to loggers, rallying us to get young American's excited about outdoor recreation, looking like Abraham himself. :rolleyes: To some people anyway....
Holt introduces the bill, any negative press, any heat from the public is launched entirely at House reps. Obama wont say a damn thing about this bill unless it gains a ton of momentum, he'll only chime in to give the bill a little nudge to make it through a final vote. If this bill suffers and falls off it wont phase Obama, but I guarrantee that he'll be leading the charge to secure a majority vote if need be. Though he prefers to sit back and provide occassional lift when he see's fit.
This is how he goes about his business, this was a known fact long before he was elected president, I'm not saying its wrong by any means. I'm just pointing out whats really going on and how the two are directly connected.
WAcoyotehunter:
--- Quote from: haus on July 01, 2010, 11:51:39 AM ---I'm sure you'll be all giddy about that one WC :rolleyes:
--- End quote ---
In general, I support efforts to protect large contigous blocks of habitat, because I understand how important those places are to wildlife and to the life needs of many species (sage grouse, griz, wolverine...). Without habitat we do not have hunting.
Here is some text from the Holt legislation-
The Wildlife Corridors Conservation Act would create a national wildlife corridors information program within the Fish and Wildlife Service to collect and disseminate information about essential movement paths to states and federal agencies. It would establish a Wildlife Corridors Stewardship and Protection Fund to provide grants to federal agencies, states, local governments, nonprofits, and corporations for the management and protection of essential wildlife corridors. Finally, it would require the Department of Agriculture, Department of the Interior and the Department of Transportation to consider the preservation of these migration paths in their management plans.
Are you really so paranoid that you're against legislation to require a closer look at project effects on habitat? really?
Elkaholic daWg:
How do you suppose he plans on protecting it? By what means? I know..old news
Like this maybe........ From BCR
http://www.backcountryrebels.com/showthread.php?t=8424
Here's something I found from March.
Welcome to The Clark Fork Chronicle
Rehberg introduces legislation to stop 'land-grab'
Thursday, March 04 2010 @ 01:38 PM MST
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Montana Rep. Denny Rehberg today introduced legislation that would exempt the State of Montana from the provisions of the Antiquities Act, which allows the President to circumvent public opposition and congressional oversight to designate land as a National Monument. The introduction comes after the discovery of an internal memo from the U.S. Department of Interior, which outlined plans to misuse the Antiquities Act to designate 13 million acres in 11 Western States. This figure includes 2.5 million acres in Montana.
“For more than a century, the Antiquities Act has served a valuable function in the preservation of America’s natural treasures, making it all the more tragic that it’s now being misused for a 13 million-acre land-grab,” said Rehberg, a member of the House Western Caucus. “When it comes to land in Montana, we’ve got a long-standing tradition of working together to find consensus-based solutions. Circumventing that tradition by unilaterally carving out millions of acres with the stroke of a pen is not the American way. The President is not a king, and we are not his subjects, which is why congressional checks and balances are so important.”
Rehberg, who recently sent a letter to Interior Secretary Salazar demanding details on the proposals, introduced H.R. 4754, which requires congressional approval of new National Monument designations in Montana. This requirement isn’t unprecedented; the current law prohibits the extension or establishment of any National Monument in Wyoming without the express authorization of Congress.
“This isn’t about undermining a good law,” said Rehberg. “It’s about preventing a good law from being abused. It’s about ensuring Montanans are heard and preventing a bureaucratic overreach. It’s about making sure that we aren’t rendered landless in our own state because a big-city politician thought it would be fun to shut us out of our land.”
The Department of Interior Memo can be found at http://robbishop.house.gov/UploadedFi...nation.pdf
http://www.clarkforkchronicle.com/ar...00304133818997
Here's a comment re: Clinton by Rehberg
“The Clinton Administration invented the abuse of the Antiquities Act with the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument and the Obama Administration seems intent on perfecting it,” said Rehberg.
http://rightmontana.com/dennyrehberg/2010/06/24/3739/
__________________
wolfbait:
Great research Elk-D! Check this out, many people don't want to look the future in the eye, but unless you become involve this will be the future. This is the reason for the wolves.
http://takingliberty.us/Narrations/FuturePlans/player.html
http://takingliberty.us/Narrations/gap/player.html
haus:
--- Quote from: WAcoyotehunter on July 02, 2010, 06:33:36 AM ---
--- Quote from: haus on July 01, 2010, 11:51:39 AM ---I'm sure you'll be all giddy about that one WC :rolleyes:
--- End quote ---
Are you really so paranoid that you're against legislation to require a closer look at project effects on habitat? really?
--- End quote ---
awwww. :chuckle:
Yeah totally bro, completely paranoid. habitat studies are bad!!!! :rolleyes: There's a little more to it.
What we want for wildlife management is probably about 90% of the same thing WC, its a matter of how we go about doing it, and this Act is not how we should go about wildlife conservation. The emphasis behind this type of legislation places the burden of our past mistakes upon our rural communittee's. Just because we want to right our wrongs does not mean that we need to burden our whole economy and increase federal regulation on private property owners, all in the name of nature. I would recommend that you read into the history of the Wildlife Corridors theory a little further and try to put yourself in the shoes of different groups of people and look at how this will affect them, and take a look at the architects of this theory and examine the many attachments that are intended to be added to this type of platform. If I only cared about my hunting rights and only cared about having more area to hunt and my family and friends only lived in urban areas then I might be more supportive of this program, but I'm just not that selfish.
some items from your RED paragraph:
1. Cost. Where are we going to get the money? The Feds' broke! Right now Obama's pulling it out of Chinamans' bum, as was the previous president. The Federal Government can't even afford to maintain basic access points to our National Forests. How in the hell are they going to manage this 'Wildlife Corridors' expansion correctly if they can't even afford to manage what they already own?
2. 'essential movement paths'....read: RED TAPE. It's good in theory but the result of any federal line being drawn in the name of environmental protection usually equates to more bureaucratic red tape for recreationalists, rural businesses and private property owners. Another things that usually tag along are increased costs, access losses, and increased regulation. This discourages recreationalists and it disrupts businessess, which damages the economy. Add this together with the increased federal spending and you have a huge debt to all of us. Our land should not be a debt to American tax payers.
What I would like to see instead:
Five subjects need to be emphasized and valued equally in any bill, act, or decision that trys to promote this theory of wildlife corridors; economic benefit, habitat growth and improvement, public participation through recreation and business, rural community protection, and wildlife management.
Lastly, a wildlife corridors initiative should clearly define federal control, and it had better be very limited. The effort should be placed on the shoulders of our states, our local communittee's, and our NGO's. We know our home, we know our land, we know our state, the fed doesn't. We can do better. :twocents:
Maybe this bill will be beat around by congress until these things are all treated equally, we'll just have to wait and see.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version