Posted on 05/06/2004 3:57:39 PM PDT by neverdem
www.gunowners.org
May 2004
Thursday, May 6, 2004
Long-time GOA activists will remember CARA, known by gun owners and other opponents as the Condemnation and Relocation [of Hunting and Shooting Lands] Act.
Well, CARA is back... but under a new name.
The new bill is being dubbed the Get Outdoors (GO) Act, H.R. 4100, although it is more accurately dubbed the "Get Out of Rural America Act."
What does H.R. 4100 do?
It would allocate $3.125 billion annually -- much of it for government bureaucrats to acquire private lands that have been historically used for hunting and fishing.
But once the land is under government control, there is no guarantee that such lands would continue to be used for such sporting purposes. When rural land disappears, opportunities for recreation -- especially plinking and hunting -- tend to disappear as well.
Republican Representatives Don Young (AK) and George Miller (CA) are the chief sponsors of this legislation. What is their reason for offering this legislation, when there is very limited constitutional authority for the federal government to own land?
"Obesity is a public health crisis of the first order," Miller said. "And the Get Outdoors Act is a sensible way to help mitigate that public health crisis."
No, that is not a joke. The ostensible reason for the "GO Act" is to help slim Americans’ waistlines by providing more opportunities to hike around the woods.
Obesity is costing Americans $100 billion annually because of health-related problems. So the $3.125 billion annually they propose to spend under the "GO Act" is, in their way of thinking, a bargain.
The Land Rights Network, which opposes this bill, points out that instead of using the money to steal people's land, they could "buy 15 million really good treadmills for that kind of money and really help folks fighting obesity."
LRN is just poking fun, of course, because it knows (and so do we) that there is no authority in the Constitution for setting up a "fat police."
The real truth is that the land-grabbing radicals are feverishly trying to use any argument to justify their agenda. In 2001, they tried to justify CARA in the name of helping sportsmen.
Last year, when they tried to attach CARA to an energy bill, the implication was that CARA was good for preserving our natural resources.
Now they're back... but this time it's being done in the name of reducing obesity. A weighty reason to be sure. But not at the expense of private hunting lands!
Make no mistake and don't be fooled by what the politicians tell you. True conservationists want resources protected for the future USE of sportsmen. Radical preservationists, on the other hand, want to ban human activity.
H.R. 4100 would give future administrations, working in concert with environmentalist extremists and even the United Nations, automatic access to literally billions of tax dollars. The money would ostensibly be used to preserve lands that would benefit plants and animals or "conserve open space ... or have historic or cultural value" -- a blanket authorization that could apply to just about any land in the United States. As these preservationists are more than generally unfriendly towards hunting and shooting, the lands could then be closed to those activities.
Even if you buy the hollow promise of the authors of H.R. 4100 that recreational use will be considered in these ongoing land grabs, there is still the fact that the federal government is swallowing up more and more private property.
Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA) has been an ardent opponent of CARA and its recent emanations.
"I believe the federal government owns too much land now," he said. "If the government wants to buy more land, they should sell some and use the proceeds to buy more."
Well said.
ACTION: Please contact your Representative and urge him or her to oppose H.R. 4100. You can use the pre-written message below and send it as an e-mail by visiting the GOA Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm (where phone and fax numbers are also available).
Dear Representative:
As an avid sportsman and defender of the right to keep and bear arms, I cannot support H.R. 4100, the Get Outdoors Act.
The sponsors of this legislation say they want to reduce obesity in this nation. But let's be serious. There is no constitutional authority for the federal government to act as the "fat police" or to spend billions of dollars to buy up private lands in the name of getting more people outdoors.
Letting government bureaucrats grab more land is never the avenue to achieving more freedom. The history of government-controlled land has been one of betrayal to gun owners and sportsmen. The trend has been to close off more and more government-controlled lands to anyone but unarmed hikers.
Please let me know your views on this legislation. Thank you.
Sincerely,
I think you missed the point. Nobody objects to people (fat or otherwise) hiking. However, we want to preserve our hunting, too -- and when land falls under gov't control, hunting is often the first thing to go, while hiking (usually) remains legal.
"Obesity is a public health crisis of the first order," Miller said. "And the Get Outdoors Act is a sensible way to help mitigate that public health crisis."
And now, a Republican administration will continue and complete the work of a Democratic administration. This is the way environmental policy should work.
GWB on the POPS Treaty 4/19/2001
George Miller is a very liberal Democrat
There have been a few changes fom CARA. The conservation easements(100 mil per year) have been dropped and replaced with "strengthening rural communities" to the tune of 350 mil per year. Historic preservation was increased from 100 mil to 160 mil. Everything else is the same.
All this is being funded from the outer continental shelf royalty money and the states are trying to get their share of that money. As it stands now, off shore drilling will continue to grow and that fund will continue grow.
To this, add the UN Law of the Sea Treaty which the US is supposedly ready to sign. The US has been mapping the continental shelf for 20 years and they have discovered that the Continental shelf extends out 800 miles from Alaska's north coast. Undoubtedly losts of oil and gas there. More royalty money.
If you look at the history of funding LWCF, you'll see that the federal portion has always recieved full funding, and the states have always got the shaft. Even in the 90s during the republican revolution they were fuding that at 100% while the states got zero. Additionally, the feds have appropriated additional money for buying land when thay needed it. In 2000 they appropriated extra money to buy the Baca Ranch in NM for the Forest Service.
I'm suggesting that it really makes no difference whether they pass CARA/HR 4100 or not. The feds are going to buy what they want. It makes no difference how much of LWCF that Bush gets converted into private party grants, Congress will appropriate whatever money they need to buy whatever they want.
I was reading a little more of HR 4100, that part of how they would split up the coastal mitigation money. Of that portion going to the coastal states, they would use 3 criteria. First, miles of shoreline. Second, coastal population. Third, how much oil/gas is produced within 200 miles of a states shore. You can understand why the congressmen from Alaska and California are pushing this.
I did. I just don't consider it a constitutionally legal, morally justified, or functionally intelligent policy.
The Constitution authorizes "forts, dockyards, arsenals, magazines, and other needful buildings." It did not authorize parks, swamps, forests, deserts, or a monopoly in the land entertainment business.
You can understand why the congressmen from Alaska and California are pushing this.
LOL! Yup, pork, for any number of vested interests, and that's all it is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.