Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Wilderness bill falls 2 votes short of passing the House
The Oregonian ^ | March 11, 2009 | Charles Pope

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: enviroment; gregwalden; landgrab; wildernessbill
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-32 next last

1 posted on 03/11/2009 11:15:35 AM PDT by jazusamo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

I believe that 80% of Oregon is already federally owned.


2 posted on 03/11/2009 11:17:50 AM PDT by RC2 (http://www.worldviewradio.com/play.php?EpisodeID=10958)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
Wilderness.

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.

3 posted on 03/11/2009 11:18:31 AM PDT by IbJensen (In 2008, Americans foolishly used their freedom to vote for “chains” not “change.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
Good news. Another major league land grab. It would have damaged oil and gas leases and forced the public off millions of acres of public lands.
4 posted on 03/11/2009 11:19:18 AM PDT by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo; bamahead

Does the government not ‘protect’ enough land?


5 posted on 03/11/2009 11:19:53 AM PDT by KoRn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RC2

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.


6 posted on 03/11/2009 11:21:36 AM PDT by jazusamo (But there really is no free lunch, except in the world of political rhetoric,.: Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin

Ditto to that!


7 posted on 03/11/2009 11:23:04 AM PDT by jazusamo (But there really is no free lunch, except in the world of political rhetoric,.: Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
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.

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.

8 posted on 03/11/2009 11:24:13 AM PDT by w1andsodidwe (Jimmy Carter(the Godfather of Terror) allowed radical Islam to get a foothold in Iran.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RC2

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.


9 posted on 03/11/2009 11:24:26 AM PDT by fish hawk (The Golden Calf you worship will not bail you out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: w1andsodidwe

I’d bet the editors at the leftist rag were in such a snit that this didn’t pass they couldn’t read.


10 posted on 03/11/2009 11:26:36 AM PDT by jazusamo (But there really is no free lunch, except in the world of political rhetoric,.: Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: fish hawk

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.


11 posted on 03/11/2009 11:28:10 AM PDT by RC2 (http://www.worldviewradio.com/play.php?EpisodeID=10958)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: george76; girlangler; Flycatcher

Good news PING!


12 posted on 03/11/2009 11:31:13 AM PDT by jazusamo (But there really is no free lunch, except in the world of political rhetoric,.: Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RC2
The government should be selling land instead of airing more of it.

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.

13 posted on 03/11/2009 11:32:11 AM PDT by Syncro (NerObama Parties Hardy And fiddles While The American Economy Burns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

instead of AQUIRING more of it
14 posted on 03/11/2009 11:32:51 AM PDT by Syncro (NerObama Parties Hardy And fiddles While The American Economy Burns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Syncro

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.


15 posted on 03/11/2009 11:36:16 AM PDT by RC2 (http://www.worldviewradio.com/play.php?EpisodeID=10958)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

“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.


16 posted on 03/11/2009 11:36:16 AM PDT by caseinpoint (Don't get thickly involved in thin things)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
I'm sure the ex halted “O” will sign an executive order to correct this error.
17 posted on 03/11/2009 11:36:51 AM PDT by enraged
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

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.


18 posted on 03/11/2009 11:39:14 AM PDT by keepitreal (Obama brings change: an international crisis (terrorism) within 6 months)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RC2

Correct. Just a way to need more taxpayers $’s


19 posted on 03/11/2009 11:40:24 AM PDT by Syncro (NerObama Parties Hardy And fiddles While The American Economy Burns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: RC2
They say that they are saving it for future generations. The question I have is “Which generation are you talking about?”

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.

20 posted on 03/11/2009 11:41:21 AM PDT by keepitreal (Obama brings change: an international crisis (terrorism) within 6 months)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-32 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson