Senate backs massive public lands, conservation bill

tikkalover

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 10, 2015
Posts
7,940
Likes
902
Points
473
Location
Minot
WASHINGTON — The Senate has approved a bill that revives a popular conservation program, adds a million acres of new wilderness, expands several national parks and creates four new national monuments.

The massive measure combines more than 100 public-lands bills that add more than 350 miles of wild and scenic rivers and 2,600 miles of federal trails. It designates nearly 700,000 acres of new recreation and conservation areas. The bill also withdraws 370,000 acres in Montana and Washington state from mineral development.

The Senate approved the bill, 92-8, sending it to the House.

The bill permanently reauthorizes the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund, which supports conservation and outdoor recreation projects across the country. The program expired last fall after Congress could not agree on language to extend it.
 


ndlongshot

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2015
Posts
1,777
Likes
112
Points
258
Excellent news! Hopefully passes the house as well. Thumbs Up
 

Fritz the Cat

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 11, 2015
Posts
5,009
Likes
552
Points
413
The measure protects 1.3 million acres as wilderness, the nation’s most stringent protection that prohibits even roads and motorized vehicles. It permanently withdraws more than 370,000 acres of land from mining around two national parks, including Yellowstone, and permanently authorizes a program to spend offshore drilling revenue on conservation efforts.

After the first mile walking in.....you won't see another sole for the next 75. I like it.



 

Uncle Jimbo

★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2016
Posts
464
Likes
6
Points
118
Location
ND
I am in favor of this legislation and hope the House follows suit. Both members of the Senate representing North Dakota voted in favor of this bill. Thank you Senators Hoeven and Cramer!
 


Allen

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2015
Posts
10,476
Likes
1,485
Points
553
Location
Lincoln, kinda...
Wait, from a Republican controlled Senate? Even I am a little leary of the details.

What did we sell?
 

PrairieGhost

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 15, 2015
Posts
10,328
Likes
683
Points
443
Location
Drifting the high plains
Wait, from a Republican controlled Senate? Even I am a little leary of the details.

What did we sell?
Ya right. They have us watching their left hand, but what's their right hand doing???????? This isn't the correct MO for a money worshiper. I think the old outdoor writer Bernie Kuntz had it right: "Never trust a republican with your PUBLIC LAND. Never trust a democrat with your FIREARMS." Bernie Kuntz 2016
 
Last edited:


Fritz the Cat

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 11, 2015
Posts
5,009
Likes
552
Points
413
Many people point to the Scandinavian Model or Steady State Economy. A brand of socialism they like. They take money from Baltic Sea and northern Atlantic offshore drilling. But they don't spend it all. They also re-invest. Did you know Norway owns minerals in the Bakken? In North Dakota we created a Legacy Fund. The gift that keeps on giving. The idea is to only spend the interest earned. Granted, low rates right now don't make it look all that attractive. But there are stops to investing in things too risky. All that said, look at all the voters wanting to spend every dime in the Legacy Fund.

From the Washington Post

Perhaps the most significant change the legislation would make is permanently authorizing
a federal program
that funnels offshore drilling revenue to conserve a spread of sites that includes major national parks and wildlife preserves, as well as local baseball diamonds and basketball courts. Authorization for the popular program, the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), lapsed months ago due to the partial government shutdown and other disputes. Liberals like the fact that the money allows agencies to set aside land for wildlife habitat. Conservatives like the fact that taxpayers don’t have to foot the bill for it.

Does any not recognize this model? We just voted one down in North Dakota. 80% to 20%.
 

zoops

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 17, 2015
Posts
1,796
Likes
155
Points
268
Back in the old days this would have surely been a 10-page knockdown-drag-out fight gst vs prairieghost
 

PrairieGhost

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 15, 2015
Posts
10,328
Likes
683
Points
443
Location
Drifting the high plains
Back in the old days this would have surely been a 10-page knockdown-drag-out fight gst vs prairieghost

I think you speak the truth. I sure wish we would get more public land here in North Dakota. Especially with this new trespass bill. One would think Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez had a hand in drafting that bill with her Crayon.
 

Migrator Man

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2016
Posts
3,961
Likes
22
Points
226
I think you speak the truth. I sure wish we would get more public land here in North Dakota. Especially with this new trespass bill. One would think Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez had a hand in drafting that bill with her Crayon.
If the no trespass bill passes then none of our public land is safe. If the farm bureau can convince lawmakers to pass that bill against the wishes of the majority then it will be just as easy to convince them to sell all our state land.

- - - Updated - - -

Many people point to the Scandinavian Model or Steady State Economy. A brand of socialism they like. They take money from Baltic Sea and northern Atlantic offshore drilling. But they don't spend it all. They also re-invest. Did you know Norway owns minerals in the Bakken? In North Dakota we created a Legacy Fund. The gift that keeps on giving. The idea is to only spend the interest earned. Granted, low rates right now don't make it look all that attractive. But there are stops to investing in things too risky. All that said, look at all the voters wanting to spend every dime in the Legacy Fund.

From the Washington Post

Perhaps the most significant change the legislation would make is permanently authorizing
a federal program
that funnels offshore drilling revenue to conserve a spread of sites that includes major national parks and wildlife preserves, as well as local baseball diamonds and basketball courts. Authorization for the popular program, the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), lapsed months ago due to the partial government shutdown and other disputes. Liberals like the fact that the money allows agencies to set aside land for wildlife habitat. Conservatives like the fact that taxpayers don’t have to foot the bill for it.

Does any not recognize this model? We just voted one down in North Dakota. 80% to 20%.
That model may pass next time if this no trespass bill passes. Be careful what you wish for.
 

Kurtr

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Posts
18,240
Likes
1,973
Points
648
Location
Mobridge,Sd
nay votes

[FONT=&quot]Cruz (R-TX), [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Nay[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Johnson (R-WI), Nay
Lankford (R-OK), Nay
Lee (R-UT), Nay
Paul (R-KY), Nay
Sasse (R-NE), Nay
Toomey (R-PA), Nay
 


wjschmaltz

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2018
Posts
989
Likes
376
Points
218
Location
Southcentral ND - Southcentral AK
nay votes

Cruz (R-TX), Nay
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Johnson (R-WI), Nay
Lankford (R-OK), Nay
Lee (R-UT), Nay
Paul (R-KY), Nay
Sasse (R-NE), Nay
Toomey (R-PA), Nay

Ted Cruz better straighten out his voting record on public land issues if he wants to run for president again in 6 years. There are states such as Nevada, New Mexico, Montana, Arizona, and Utah that could go either way and there are tons of people in these states that are very influenced by public land issues. He cannot afford to lose the sportsman's vote in these states. Hopefully he realizes the fact that the vast majority of people have no interest in our public lands looking like fenced Texas operations.

The other Nay votes don't really surprise me. I'm glad this passed and it should walk through the House.
 

Migrator Man

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2016
Posts
3,961
Likes
22
Points
226
Ted Cruz better straighten out his voting record on public land issues if he wants to run for president again in 6 years. There are states such as Nevada, New Mexico, Montana, Arizona, and Utah that could go either way and there are tons of people in these states that are very influenced by public land issues. He cannot afford to lose the sportsman's vote in these states. Hopefully he realizes the fact that the vast majority of people have no interest in our public lands looking like fenced Texas operations.

The other Nay votes don't really surprise me. I'm glad this passed and it should walk through the House.
A majority of the sportsmen out west rely exclusively on public lands to chase wild game. This doesn’t even consider all of the non hunters that enjoy public lands. If a politician ever tries to take that away they are not going to have a very long future in office. Our public lands should be cherished and protected because for some it’s all we have left.
 

Fritz the Cat

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 11, 2015
Posts
5,009
Likes
552
Points
413
Ted Cruz better straighten out his voting record on public land issues if he wants to run for president again in 6 years. There are states such as Nevada, New Mexico, Montana, Arizona, and Utah that could go either way and there are tons of people in these states that are very influenced by public land issues. He cannot afford to lose the sportsman's vote in these states. Hopefully he realizes the fact that the vast majority of people have no interest in our public lands looking like fenced Texas operations.

The other Nay votes don't really surprise me. I'm glad this passed and it should walk through the House.

When the disciples of the North American "Model" of Wildlife Conservation first spewed that slogan about Texas totally covered by high fence operations, they must be laughing their asses off now at all those who keep repeating the slogan.

The Hill country north of San Antonio is where they exist. That Hill country is a large watershed that stores water in the Edwards Aquifer. Cities like San Antonio want that water so they made the owners of land in the Hill country an offer they couldn't refuse.

The owners in that area turned to animals that require little water. Aoudad from Morocco, blackbuck from India, African stock. Little else would want to live there.

The Texas Longhorn and some of the famous cattle drives along the Chisholm Trail to Abilene came out of there. Briars, brambles, cats claws. It was necessary for the cowboys to wear chaps.

People who repeat the slogan that we don't want to be all high fenced like Texas..... live in an echo chamber.
 

Meelosh

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2016
Posts
1,302
Likes
12
Points
171
The measure protects 1.3 million acres as wilderness, the nation’s most stringent protection that prohibits even roads and motorized vehicles. It permanently withdraws more than 370,000 acres of land from mining around two national parks, including Yellowstone, and permanently authorizes a program to spend offshore drilling revenue on conservation efforts.

After the first mile walking in.....you won't see another sole for the next 75. I like it.




No worries man. If you ever need some elk meat, you can chase one of yours into the corner of the fence and wring it’s neck or something.
 


Recent Posts

Friends of NDA

Top Posters of the Month

  • This month: 165
  • This month: 136
  • This month: 121
  • This month: 110
  • This month: 105
  • This month: 87
  • This month: 84
  • This month: 79
  • This month: 76
  • This month: 76
Top Bottom