Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="gst" data-source="post: 105929" data-attributes="member: 373"><a href="https://www.usbr.gov/power/legislation/fldcntra.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.usbr.gov/power/legislation/fldcntra.pdf</a>Read the explanatory notes at the end of Section . 1946 Amendment. The Act of July 24, 1946, 60 stat. 642, amended the section by adding the first provision. It seemed the "original" intent submitted to Congress by Pick and Sloan had no mention of recreation when this Act was first discussed and passed.  It appears that was added two years later. (which is typical of govt bait and switch actions adding things later to bills passed earlier that may have prevented them from passing had those provisions been included originally) It seems Pick and Sloan were not concerned with jet sking opportunities......<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />So now here we are having a discussion why our Federal representatives are supporting a Federal agency the COE to transfer lands that will  possibly negate recreational "rights"  amended to be  included in  this Flood Control Act of 1944. And yet people will not believe this same Federal govt would disregard other Acts, such as the Mining act of 1866 that established water and grazing rights for those individuals that developed them on these Federal lands. So yes indeed the Flood control Act of 1944 includes recreation as amended and sportsmen want to hold that up to claim their interests should be considered and rightly so. But some of these same sportsmen on this site are dismissing the  considerations provided under other Acts this same govt granted when issues such as grazing, mining or logging are talked about. (take a look at the last post in the Armed Protest thread to show the acts and laws and court rulings the govt disregarded concerning the Hammonds)My point here is that if recreation interests written under an Act in 1944 are to honored shouldn;t other considerations granted under other Acts  be honored as well? If the COE can screw sportsmen over, why should we believe those that claim the BLM is not screwing ranchers, loggers and miners over? Any ways back to the topic at hand, my apologizes for the short detour to make a point. - - - Updated - - -My apologizes. Usage of dialectal American speech does not make a word a word "regardless" of how it is used.- - - Updated - - -  Was the recreational section in the original Act or was the original Act amended in 1946 to include the recreation provision? Just curious if anyone knows at this point.</blockquote>

Verification: What is the most common fish caught on this site?

Reply to thread

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA