The U.S. Senate recently passed S. 990, better known as the American Wildlife Enhancement Act. The Act will protect private property rights by involving citizens, and state and local entities while expanding opportunities for wildlife protection. Unfortunately, some have sought to compare S 990 to a bill I voted againstthe Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) S 990 , as opposed to CARA, does not seek to acquire land through condemnation or federal purchases of private property. It gives landowners and state local control over wildlife and habitat issues under the model of the time-tested Pittman-Robertson grant program supported by sportsmen and sporting groups nationwide. And I will fight against any attempts to link the two bills in a conference committee.
Critics confusingly call S 990 Son of CARA, an erroneous characterization of the bill. I voted against CARA, but support S 990 because it brings needed stature to states rights and private property rights by providing money directly to states and private landowners for relief from the unfunded mandates of the Endangered Species Act. States and citizens can address wildlife and habitat needs in their way, not the federal governments. S 990 provides compensation to property owners for improving habitat on their land.
Here are the facts:
My record in Congress includes attempts to get direct financial payments to private property owners who suffer a loss in property valuation due to threats from federal agencies over endangered species or other wildlife issues. That bill did not pass, but this measure has the critical bi-partisan support to push relief for landowners closer to reality.
My voting record regarding private property rights and states rights is very solid and I have worked closely and successfully with private property advocacy groups in shaping several pieces of federal legislation.
My support of S 990 is heavily influenced by my belief in the power of collaboration. I have long believed that resolution of environmental and resource conflicts will be based on the degree of real collaboration between state, local, and federal agencies enormous conflict. Decisions made with authoritative participation by those who live closest to the area of concern succeed with public support.
Most believe that the basic objectives of the Endangered Species Act, and other similar federal Acts are well intended. However, the fact is that the implementation of these laws is often heavy-handed, usually unilateral, and rarely successful, can be dangerous to private property rights, and is highly influenced by political agendas that go far beyond the objectives of original legislation. State and local governments, and especially private citizens, are put on the defensive and have few, if any, resources with which to either fight federal initiatives or pay for their implementation. S 990 provides resources and a structure with which these groups can either manage local situations or prevent federal action. Under this bill, we will have some resources to initiate action rather than constantly be reactive and defensive.
S 990 is a grant program to put states, local governments, sporting and conservation groups, and property owners looking to assist wildlife in chare of issues regarding wildlife and endangered species. I remain committed to private property and states rights, and the fact is that this legislation strengthens both.
So the feral gummint allows the state, huh? That's like saying that Pop gives permission to junior to beat the hell out of the rest of the kids and steal their toys.