PRESIDENT BUSH SIGNS WETLANDS ACT

The Democrat.com ^ | January 07, 2003 | James L. Cummins

[TLBSHOW]

Louie we aren't blinded you are!

[oldvike]

Or is it Reagan's Bill?

At the moment it would appear to be Bush's bill.

[Ben Ficklin]

Whomever happens to be President when this act is re-authorized is irrelevant. When the act was originally passed by Congress funding was set up thru 2006.

The funding mechanism is the Pittman Robertson Act from the 1930s. The act was self-imposed by hunters and is still supported by hunters today. It is a 12% excise tax on hunting equipment and supplies. You as a taxpayer contribute nothing to the federal portion. The matching funds comes from private groups such as hunting groups, conservation groups, private landowners, etc. State wildlife agencies also qualify for these funds and their funds come mostly from hunters and fishers.

When this was enacted waterfowl were in dire straits. It has been a huge success.

If it doesn't cost you or Uncle Bill anything, what right do you have to complain?

[TLBSHOW]

IT SURE IS

[oldvike]

Here is the problem I have with wetlands legislation....it seems that most people have this grand idea that wetlands are these beautiful marshy areas with cattails springing, snakes slithering around and birds floating on the water. Well, in many cases that is true. However, many regulations have been so convoluted as to make any area where water stands a small portion of the year a wetland and thereby making it illegal to develop such an area.

As a hunter and avid outdoorsman, I'm all for protecting the true wildlife refuges, however, when wetlands legislation is extended to protecting slews and mud puddles, I get ticked off.

And, btw, if you want to get real nitpicky, the current state of wetlands legislation can be traced back to the Carter administration with the promulgation of the Clean Water Act of 1977. And if you want to get really really picky, then you can trace this act back Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 enacted under Nixon.

Currently, wetlands administration falls under the Army Corps of Engineers, Federal EPA, state EPAs (not all states have strict regulations, though) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. IMO, in dealing with all these agencies, I've found that the Corps of Engineers is the most level-headed authority. If the government were to take the powers away from the other agencies and concentrate it within the Corps of Engineers then I feel you would have a more even-handed enforcement of the original spirit of the regulations.

[Ben Ficklin]

Bush is trying to address exactly that of which you speak

This would eliminate those smaller, disconnected areas.

[oldvike]

Hmmm, that article you linked to is in stark contrast to the article this thread was based on. If the philosophy of our President is to truly make an effort to end the abuses of wetlands regulations, i.e. regulating these small "disconnected" areas, then I'll hold my judgement for the moment.

[oldvike]

Hmmm, that article you linked to is in stark contrast to the article this thread was based on. If the philosophy of our President is to truly make an effort to end the abuses of wetlands regulations, i.e. regulating these small "disconnected" areas, then I'll hold my judgement for the moment.

[TLBSHOW]

lol

[Ben Ficklin]

It remains to be seen how succesful his efforts will be. He is up against co-opted agencies and propoganda machines.

All these things were done in small increments over many years. Undoing them, if possible, will have to be done the same way and the time required will extend beyond Bush's administration.

[Alkhin]

You REALLY should go post this on the latest LOTR group orgasm thread..

*I* am one who usually goes orgasmic over Boyd!!! :P~~~~

flamers?? perhaps...but since it would be in the Hobbit Hole using Tolkienese, you prolly wouldn't 'get' most of the comments....

[Luis Gonzalez]

So then, Social Security is Bush's Bill.

[Luis Gonzalez]

From the Sierra Club Website.

April 11, 2001: WASHINGTON, DC -- President George W. Bush is continuing his assault on the environment, using his budget proposal to muzzle the public's ability to protect endangered species like the Florida black bear. By preventing Americans from getting help from federal courts to protect endangered species and their habitats, President Bush gives Interior Secretary Gale Norton full authority to determine the fate of whether threatened species will go extinct.

"President Bush's actions would gut the Endangered Species Act, our nation's premiere wildlife protection law," said Carl Pope, the Sierra Club's Executive Director. "President Bush's proposal would slam the courthouse door on people working to save treasured animals like Florida's black bear. Americans don't want just one politician giving a thumbs-up or thumbs-down on whether an animal vanishes from the planet. To save the jaguar, the coho salmon and hundreds of other species, Americans needed independent courts to take politics out of the equation."

While the President's proposal would allow Americans to file suit to protect wildlife, the federal government would not be allowed to spend a dime on enforcing the decisions. Citizen petitions to list endangered species have been a critical tool in adding species to the endangered species list and placing them on the road to recovery. Courts have ordered the Interior Department to protect a number of endangered animals and their habitat, including the jaguar, the coho salmon in the Pacific Northwest, and the California red-legged frog, which gained fame in Mark Twain's "The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County."

If President Bush's policy prevails, other petitioned species awaiting action, such as the Florida black bear, may never receive protection from the Endangered Species Act.

The President's action puts Secretary Norton at odds with previous promises to live by the letter of the Endangered Species Act. That law specifically allows Americans to use the courts to add animals to the Endangered Species List if the Department of Interior fails to act. The President's action rejects the Act's vision for responsible stewardship. In her Senate confirmation hearing on Jan. 19, Norton testified: "The ESA, as I've said, I do support the goals of that. I also want to make clear that I will apply that act as it is written and as the courts have interpreted it." However, the proposed policy would cut the courts and the public out of the process.

In addition, at her hearing, she said: "I will certainly uphold the Endangered Species Act and the concept of preserving endangered species is something that I view as very important. It's one of the responsibilities of the Department of Interior that I will vigorously pursue."

[Luis Gonzalez]

Is Bush defunding the EPA and the ESA at the Federal level?

[Ben Ficklin]

Bush can only do what he can do with the consent of Congress and not be sruck down by the courts. The boldest thing he has tried to do was what was described in your post above. He tried to defund the listing process of ESA. Congress shot that down quickly.

Generally speaking, Bush has requested spending increases from Congress while trying to shift how the money is spent. Increase the portion of money that goes to the states from LWCF. Shifting some of the federal portion of LWCF into private grants such as the Landowners Incentive Program, Private Stewardship Grants, the Co-operative Conservation Initiative which a sizable chunk and came on line this past Oct, as well as others. He has also increased spending on the maintanance backlog. All in all, he has reduced the amount the feds have had to squander. This assesment of his 2003 budget from last spring is accurate.

As for the the EPA he requested and recieved a sizable amount to study global climate change as outlined in the National Academy report from June 01. That money was passed out in Nov to the 5000 scientists at the big pow wow in Washington. Note that that study is being administered by the Dept of Commerce and the White House Office of Enviro Quality.

[Robert_Paulson2]

there is no ARGUMENT... that I presented.
and I dont really CARE for one.

Bush is NOT choosing the right path.
Partial Birth is still the law of the land... two years into his administration.

We kill 1.5 million innocent babies a year... and he wants to go to war with sadaam, who I want us to kill, for gassing a few thousand kurds, 15 years ago.

Our borders are wide open. The postoffice will wire money from illegals here, directly to their families in meheeko, while asking me if I am sending printed matter in support of the taliban, when I send a medical transcript to a 75 year old doctor in my own state... while I am standing at the counter.

ME they can ask... is this going to aid or abet the taliban...

but not the mayheekans.

Our wide open borders, with two states who do not act like our friends... and the increased level of intrusion into private citizens' lives, in the name of "homeland security" is repulsive, ridiculous and NOT why I voted Bush into office. Bigger programs, MORE laws that impact business and land owners, more centralized soviet era paranoia in the intelligence community.

When bush pulls his head out of dark places, starts admitting Islam is DEATH instead of Peace, protects our borders and stops pussyfooting around with our "friends" the saudis... plays hardball with the traitors in his own party (mccain, snowe, chaffee and the like) THEN we will have something to debate.

UNTIL those MINIMAL actions are taken, what he does and does not do speaks so loud, I cannot hear what he says... or you either for that matter.

putup the conservative agenda or shutup about being a conservative... republican or otherwise. It's all I ask.

[Robert_Paulson2]

you are saying REAGAN signed it yesterday?

cmon luis... bush is selling us out.
this enviral crap has got to end, and it can't when bush is so busy "taking issues away from" the dems that we might as well have elected al gore, when it comes to this enviral crap... this tax and spend crap... this bigger and better government crap... this "we gotta watch you citizens but not our own borders..." crap.

Bush has taken the clintong path on this matter. and conservatives only offer the knee jerk defense of the indefensible in the name of REAGAN? WE ARE PATHETIC.

If REAGAN signed it himself, I would say it was evil.
Bush could have vetoed this an killed the envirals on their arguments and made them out to be the nuts they are... via the principle of marginalization.

but he wants a "softer tone" and that means... S-E-L-L-O-U-T to me. loveya,but gotta disagree witcha... on this.

he sold us out on abortion, stem cell, education and now the environment... looks a lot like his "read my lips" daddy to me. he SAYS he's a conservative christian republican. he ACTS like he is a "non-blow-job-in-the-oval-office" version of bill clinton. I can honestly praise the guy when he gets it right... but his actions do NOT match his rhetoric.

Islam is NOT peace... and the saudis are NOT our friends.
Both statements are flat out lies.

you tell me which lies is more dangerous... when you get back from ground zero "i did not have sex with" or "the saudis are our friends" 13/19 of the 9-11 killers were however, saudis, and we KNOW they got their money from members of the governing royal family...

bush has fallen off the path of right.
it's very nearly too late. in fact, I think it already is.

4100= the average number of babies aborted in the USA each day of every year... with NO end in sight.

God bless America? How can He? We kill more in a day than the islamics did on 9-11.
No wonder we dropped the name of the campaign for "Infinite Justice."

WE need a turnaround... bigtime.

[Robert_Paulson2]

did reagan sign it?

or did bush?
it is then BUSH'S bill...
if he would have vetoed it, it would have been called BUSH'S veto...

he didn't.
he should have.
we have a problem.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Reagan signed it. It's funded through 2006.

I know how badly you all want to shake up Bush's support, but I suggest that your time would be better spent over at Democratic Underground trying to regroup.

[Luis Gonzalez]

But I guess I can take heart in the fact that at least we are agreeing that Uncle Bill lied (again), since you're not making the argument that the bill is Clinton's Bill.