Posted on 03/11/2009 11:15:35 AM PDT by jazusamo
WASHINGTON -- A popular but star-crossed public lands bill that would have extended additional protections to 200,000 acres in Oregon and millions more nationwide was defeated in the House Wednesday by a mere two votes.
The measure earned a lopsided 282-144 vote but failed nonetheless because it did meet the required two-thirds majority. Under House rules, the bill needed 284 affirmative votes to pass based on the total number of lawmakers voting.
The defeat was a bitter setback to supporters who labored for years and felt confident of victory after the Senate passed the bill in January. In the past, it was the Senate that stopped the legislation. All five House members from Oregon voted for the bill.
Majority Democrats even agreed to amend the bill to clarify that it wouldn't impose new restrictions on hunting, fishing or trapping on federal land. The amendment was sought by the National Rifle Association.
By allowing the change Democrats underscored the importance of a bill that many called the most significant public lands measure in a generation.
The sprawling legislation was actually 164 separate bills bundled together, designating more than 2 million acres of wilderness in nine states. It would have created three national parks, more than 1,000 miles of wild and scenic rivers --including about 90 miles in Oregon --and three national conservation areas.
It also would have enlarged the size of a dozen national parks and addresses water supply problems in California.
(Excerpt) Read more at oregonlive.com ...
I believe that 80% of Oregon is already federally owned.
That's what this nation will be during and after Obomba and his congressional cronies get finished with the job their masters assigned them to do.
Does the government not ‘protect’ enough land?
A lot of Oregon and other Western states are Forest Service and BLM controlled but the enviros keep trying to turn more of that land into National Parks and further inhibit use by the public, this not passing is a good thing, IMO.
Ditto to that!
I guess that maybe the Oregonian has had to let all of their editor go to save money. Replacing the bolded "did" with "did not" would of course actually make sense out of this nonsense.
I don’t remember where I saw it or how to find it now but I saw a map of the United States with all the land owned by Feds, states and counties colored green. Let me say the whole US was green. Only a small amount was owned by private citizens.
I’d bet the editors at the leftist rag were in such a snit that this didn’t pass they couldn’t read.
You are correct. The government has more control over the people if they live in the cities. Rural citizens are to independent for the government. Especially ranchers.
Good news PING!
The monetary crisis could be solved very easy if the Fed Gov and the State Govs sold off some of their massive portfolios of land.
But the plan seems to be to create more Gov jobs, as they are in the process of destroying the private capitalistic businesses to bring in socialism.
Buy more land, raise taxes to pay for employees to manage it.
They say that they are saving it for future generations. The question I have is “Which generation are you talking about?” This is a phony reason. Just a way to control the people.
“When headlines read that banks are failing, it’s important for Americans to know that “our national parks are still beautiful, our national battlefields are still sacred and our national rivers are still wild and scenic,” said Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee.”
Yep, as I watch my retirement funds dissolve into nothingness, it will surely make me feel better knowing that the feds are spending billions of my taxes protecting wilderness areas to keep them from the newly poor me just trying to survive, shutting land off the tax rolls of my state and forcing it to raise my state and local taxes, and preventing discovery of resources that might ease the depression. How heroic of the Dems to think of me.
2,000,000 acres of wilderness in 9 states.
Paid for by tax dollars, which only 9 hikers and one guy with a canoe can access. Those who pay the freight are not allowed.
Correct. Just a way to need more taxpayers $’s
You know, the ones who will be bankrupted by today's federal spending and who will be so poor they can't afford to travel to see a national park.
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.