Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Why Register?
Signing up could earn you gear (click here to learn how)! It also keeps offensive content off our site.

Help Us Save the Sportsmen’s Act of 2012

When nearly 50 national sportsmen’s and conservation organizations—some with markedly different goals—act in harmony to support something, you know it’s vital to the future of hunting and fishing. Such is the case with The Sportsmen’s Act of 2012, originally a bipartisan-backed bill that has just been blocked in the Senate. Sportsmen have to act fast to let their senators know that this bill is extremely important for the outdoor community.

This bill is absolutely vital to our sports. Among other things, it would:

- Help open millions of more acres of public hunting and fishing land by using revenue from offshore oil and gas leases to buy access from private owners.
- Help our troubled waterfowl population by reauthorizing the North American Wetland Conservation Act, which uses federal money to support state, local, and private wetlands projects.
- Use monies from the Pittman-Robertson excise tax on hunting and shooting equipment to create more public shooting ranges, which are sorely needed in many areas of the country.
- Raise the price of a duck stamp—a federal license to hunt ducks, conceived and supported by sportsmen--the proceeds of which help conserve waterfowl. And it would finally allow hunters to buy stamps electronically.

Even though the House of Representatives passed its version of the bill, the following U.S. Senators blocked passage:

SENATORS WHO VOTED 'NO' (44)
Alexander, Lamar; 202-224-4944 (R-TN)       
Ayotte, Kelly; 202-224-3324 (R-NH)            
Barrasso, John; 202-224-6441 (R-WY)          
Blunt, Roy; 202-224-5721 (R-MO)            
Boozman, John; 202-224-4843 (R-AR)            
Boxer, Barbara; 202-224-3553 (D-CA)            
Brown, Scott; 202-224-4543 (R-MA)            
Burr, Richard; 202-224-3154 (R-NC)           
Chambliss, Saxy; 202-224-3521 (R-GA)            
Coats, Daniel; 202-224-5623 (R-IN)            
Coburn, Tom; 202-224-5754 (R-OK)            
Cochran, Thad; 202-224-5054 (R-MS)            
Collins, Susan; 202-224-2523 (R-ME)            
Corker, Bob; 202-224-3344 (R-TN)            
Cornyn, John; 202-224-2934 (R-TX)            
Crapo, Mike; 202-224-6142 (R-ID)            
DeMint, Jim; 202-224-6121 (R-SC)            
Enzi, Michael; 202-224-3424 (R-WY)            
Graham, Lindsey; 202-224-5972 (R-SC)            
Grassley, Chuck; 202-224-3744 (R-IA)            
Hatch, Orrin; 202-224-5251 (R-UT)            
Heller, Dean; 202-224-6244 (R-NV)            
Hutchison, Kay; 202-224-5922 (R-TX)            
Inhofe, James 202-224-4721 (R-OK)            
Johanns, Mike; 202-224-4224 (R-NE)            
Johnson, Ron; 202-224-5323 (R-WI)            
Kyl, Jon; 202-224-4521 (R-AZ)                
Lee, Mike; 202-224-5444 (R-UT)                
Lugar, Richard; 202-224-4814 (R-IN)            
McCain, John; 202-224-2235 (R-AZ)            
McConnell, Mitch; 202-224-2541 (R-KY)            
Moran, Jerry; 202-224-6521 (R-KS)            
Murkowski, Lisa; 202-224-6665 (R-AK)            
Paul, Rand; 202-224-4343 (R-KY)            
Portman, Rob; 202-224-3353 (R-OH)            
Risch, James; 202-224-2752 (R-ID)            
Roberts, Pat; 202-224-4774 (R-KS)            
Rubio, Marco; 202-224-3041 (R-FL)            
Sessions, Jeff; 202-224-4124 (R-AL)            
Shelby, Richard; 202-224-5744 (R-AL)            
Thune, John; 202-224-2321 (R-SD)            
Toomey, Patrick; 202-224-4254 (R-PA)            
Vitter, David; 202-224-4623 (R-LA)            
Wicker, Roger; 202-224-4623 (R-MS)

SENATORS WHO VOTED 'YES' (50)
Akaka, Daniel (D-HI)
Baucus, Max (D-MT)
Bennet, Michael (D-CO)
Bingaman, Jeff (D-NM)            
Blumenthal, Richard (D-CT)
Brown, Sherrod (D-OH)   
Cantwell, Maria (D-WA)   
Cardin, Benjamin (D-MD)   
Carper, Thomas (D-DE)   
Casey, Robert (D-PA)   
Conrad, Kent (D-ND)   
Coons, Christopher (D-DE)   
Durbin, Richard (D-IL)   
Feinstein, Dianne (D-CA)   
Franken, Al (D-MN)  
Gillibrand, Kirsten (D-NY)  
Hagan, Kay (D-NC)  
Inouye, Daniel (D-HI)   
Johnson, Tim (D-SD)   
Kerry, John (D-MA)   
Klobuchar, Amy (D-MN)  
Kohl, Herb (D-WI)   
Lautenberg, Frank (D-NJ)  
Leahy, Patrick (D-VT)   
Levin, Carl (D-MI)   
Lieberman, Joseph (ID-CT)  
Manchin, Joe (D-WV)   
McCaskill, Claire (D-MO)   
Menendez, Robert (D-NJ)   
Merkley, Jeff (D-OR)   
Mikulski, Barbara (D-MD)   
Murray, Patty (D-WA)  
Nelson, Ben (D-NE)   
Nelson, Bill (D-FL)   
Pryor, Mark (D-AR)   
Reed, Jack (D-RI)   
Reid, Harry (D-NV)   
Rockefeller, John (D-WV)
Sanders, Bernard (I-VT)
Schumer, Charles (D-NY)  
Shaheen, Jeanne (D-NH) 
Snowe, Olympia (R-ME)  
Stabenow, Debbie (D-MI)  
Tester, John (D-MT) 
Udall, Mark (D-CO)
Udall, Tom (D-NM) 
Warner, Mark (D-VA)  
Webb, Jim (D-VA)
Whitehouse, Sheldon (D-RI)
Wyden, Ron (D-OR)

This is not the time to be divisive or partisan. If you want to save hunting and fishing for future generations, contact your Senators now at www.contactingthecongress.org and tell them to vote yes on The Sportsmen’s Act of 2012.

You need to do this NOW. If senators hear from us in the next 48 hours, a new vote may be taken. If not, the bill—and all the good it could do—will probably disappear.—The Editors

Get all the background on the Sportsmen’s Act of 2012 here:

Will The Senate Let the Sportsmen's Act Die?

The Sportsmen's Act, Wetlands, and Economic Ruin

Sportsmen Stunned by Move Against Sportsmen's Act

New York Times Blunder Puts Sportsmen and Habitat at Risk

Senate Could Vote on Sportsmen's Act This Week

Exclusive Interview: Sponsor of Sportsmen's Act Tells Us Why It Should Be Law

 

Comments (27)

Top Rated
All Comments
from wisc14 wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

thats a lot of r's after those names....

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from blevenson wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Glad my Dems from MN voted to keep it. Maybe the Republicans want to sell the land to the highest bidder?

+6 Good Comment? | | Report
from Davidd wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Ohio is split as well. our Dem voted for and our Rep. voted against. I will contact my Republican Senator.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from ingebrigtsen wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

i have informed my yahoo group in an effort to help u yanks out a bit in keeping your rights to hunt..

keep pushing!

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from ejunk wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

oh hey, a partisan vote in the Senate? man, that's weird.

WV's guys voted correctly so maybe I'll send them a thank you note.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from curmudge1 wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Please let's be clear, this vote was a procedural vote whether to ignore previous budget legislation, and the Republicans (apparently) stood on principal that new spending has to be paid for.

You can disagree with that, or complain that the cost was only $14 million (according to the Only Guns And Money blog, I'm not an expert). But to say that those who voted no on this particular procedural vote were against the Sportsmen's Act does not seem to tell the whole story.

I would suggest that a lot of the no votes here would vote to approve the bill, if it was within the current budget limits.

Just sayin' ....

--
Dave

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from srlarson wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

I agree with the second two points of the bill, using fees we agree to for our interest is good.....using other Govt $ not good...people we have to be serious in these financial times and spending $'s we don't have. So let's look to tweak the bill and only use $'s we add to the mix.....We need to do our part and not spend additional Federal dollars. Gov't needs to be smaller not larger!!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Yes it's a procedural vote. But a no vote on a motion to bring a bill to the floor is still a "no vote." There is no rational or principled or conservative case against this bill.

I have emailed Sen. Kyl, and phoned Sen. McCain asking them to advance the bill to the floor. I encourage all other AZ residents to do the same.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from jryoung wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

It was a procedural "no" vote, because the NRA was going to score the floor vote and none of those voting no want to tarnish their NRA scorecard.

This bill is funded by the $10 increase in duck stamp fees, this fee was blessed by every group supporting it, particularly Duck Unlimited.

The bill was audited and would reduce the deficit by $5M over the next 10 years, that doesn't even count the potential increase from more people hunting (more access to public land), more people shooting (more public shooting ranges), and all the additional spending that comes with those activities.

If the EPA gets to regulate ammunition and fishing tackle, how much do you think that will costs the tax payer?

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from amoor983 wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

I agree that government needs to be smaller and less expensive. The percent of the federal budget that goes toward conservation is less than 1%. Federal law and the North American model of wildlife conservation dictates that wildlife is property of the states, to be managed in a wise manner by individual states (or the federal government in the case of migratory species). Most wildlife inhabit private land. As of yet there is no widespread, readily available economic incentive for private landowners to conserve wildlife or their habitats. If the states and federal government wish to succeed in their task of conserving wildlife, they must not only manage game harvest, but manage habitat on public lands, and assist private landowners in conservation. Considering that much of the remaining 99% of the budget goes towards at least some things that the feds arguably have no business engaging in (social security?) and other things that are incredibly wasteful, I do not think it is unreasonable to dedicate a little more funding for conservation. At the very least, it should be reduced in proportion to other programs. Conservation funding is a great bargain; in many instances it is matched by non-profits, states and other sources (non-federal sources match NAWCA funds 3:1). Conservation can also generate income through hunting and tourism. And how do you put a price on intangibles such as conserving soil, protecting water quality and quantity, recharging aquifers, reducing flood damage, and sequestering carbon?

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dcast wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

I know I will be raked over the coals on this, but there were rules in place that are to be followed and they were not therefore the people following the rules voted no and rightfully. It's no different than someone shoplifting you abide by the laws set forth or pay the consequences. This could have easily passed and was well on track to pass until a procedural motion to waive the "BUDGET RULES". My problem here is not that they didn't vote for it which I do support the act, but the fact none of you probably know this, and if you do you still support the breaking of rules. If this is the case then all rules should be thrown out including those that protect us! Believe me I'm not pure as the wind driven snow but these are very powerful people representing all of us and they are to be held at a higher standard than we are, and they need to follow rules to the "T". Lets hear what you have to say.

-3 Good Comment? | | Report
from jryoung wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

So why didn't they raise issue back in September? Why not raise issue at all before now? Simple, if they killed it on a last minute procedural motion, they avoid being graded by the NRA and the kill it with almost no time to spare for re-tooling.

They voted 84/12 on November 15th. Why play politics now?

All that aside the budget rule violation is suspect at best. I say that because the increase in Duck Stamp Fees is not a tax, but a fee that the overwhelming majority of the 90 million sportsman and women support. All 47 hunting, fishing and shooting groups supported the increase in fee. We recognize that this is a pay to play and once again us sportsman are willing to shoulder the burden. It is arguable whether this "fee" violates the budget rule. But, again this bill reduces the deficit by $5M over 10 years.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ga hunter wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Emailed my senator! Just hoping I'm not on some kind of mail list now!

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dcast wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Jryoung, I don't know if they did or didn't. I don't know if this was a typical politics game where something was added in at the last minute. I simply don't know what went on, for all I know this is a political card played, but it still is a issue. Drop the $10 increase and pass it, how hard is that? Then if it doesn't pass we can scream at the top of our lungs at these politicians until then my views won't change. Both parties do this nonsense all the frucken time, adding something here or there for no reason causing political gridlock. I vote we get rid of the US government in general and let the people vote on each issue, then we can't point fingers or play the blame game. I'm tired of government, people wanting something for nothing, and busting my frucken @$$ for seemingly no reason other than pride.

-4 Good Comment? | | Report
from 357 wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

I just called my two senators to thank them for voting for sportsmen and sportswomen. I know it's a tough time financially but it's not time to start sharting on our natural resources.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from rock rat wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Just started calling on down the list, my senators both voted Y but I figured give the staffers in someone else's office an earful. It was pretty fun. Bet they haven't had to answer many phone calls before asking them why they voted against hunting and shooting. Only made it as far as Saxby Chamblis, maybe someone else can start there.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from rock rat wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Just started calling on down the list, my senators both voted Y but I figured give the staffers in someone else's office an earful. It was pretty fun. Bet they haven't had to answer many phone calls before asking them why they voted against hunting and shooting. Only made it as far as Saxby Chamblis, maybe someone else can start there.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Anthony Salgado wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

I just wrote to my senator urging him to reconsider his stance on this act. I hope others in Ohio will do the same, the more voices heard the better the chance of making a change.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from 1ojolsen wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

The party of no didn't seem to learn much in Nov. I have Susan Collins on speed dial.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Gascozark wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

There are more parts to this bill that most people don't know about. As a private landowner with property bordering a river, I cannot support this bill.

THE CENTRAL PROBLEM WITH S. 3525

The central problem with the bill is that it allows seizure of private lands for “aquatic habitats” [Sections 201(8) and 204 (d) (2)]. The definition of this term is limitless and includes seizure of lands in order to “protec[t] the quality and quantity of water sources” and to “serv[e] as a buffer protecting the aquatic environment.” [Section 201 (2)]
Thus, a factory that “pollutes” can be seized to protect an “aquatic habitat.” The only real limit on seizure in Section 204 is the requirement that the government manage the seized property “in accordance with the purposes of this subtitle.”
WHO ARE THE DECISION MAKERS?

The National Fish Habitat Board consists of 27 members. The initial members (Obama appointees) select the remaining members. Thus while the “commercial fishing industry” supposedly has a representative, you can bet that that fisherman is an Obama-supporter and will support his agenda.
The board then enters into “partnerships” with, inter alia, outside groups. And you can bet that every liberal environmental organization in the country will now be feeding at this pig sty. The outside groups recommend fish habitat programs and plans for seizing private lands.
Bottom line: This will give immense powers to unelected bureaucrats -- a clear violation of the Separation of Powers which our Founders implemented as a way of protecting our rights.
WHAT ABOUT SECTION 211 (e) (2)?

This supposedly requires the consent of landowners prior to having their lands seized. But, note the sneaky loophole: Section 211 (e) (2) applies only to property that is being seized with federal funds and, under Section 204 (e), half the funds need to come from non-federal sources.
So while this section is put forward as a “protection,” it actually doesn’t provide total immunity because the government can take a land owner’s property using non-federal funds -- and there is no protection in the bill against that.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bryan Rose wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Gascozark, thank you for including details.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from jryoung wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Gascozark, how come you fail to include sections that note
"(5) CONSERVATION; CONSERVE; MANAGE; MANAGEMENT- The terms ‘conservation’, ‘conserve’, ‘manage’, and ‘management’ mean to protect, sustain, and, where appropriate, restore and enhance, using methods and procedures associated with modern scientific resource programs (including protection, research, census, law enforcement, habitat management, propagation, live trapping and transplantation, and regulated taking)"

And Instead add words like "seizure".

You also neglect to note

"(2) PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION- Nothing in this subtitle permits the use of funds made available to carry out this subtitle to acquire real property or a real property interest without the written consent of each owner of the real property or real property interest."

"funds made available" is all funds, you're stretching here and spreading misinformation. It's likely you are a representative of the HSUS or Center for Biological Diversity or other anti-hunting and shooting group trying to sink this bill. If you're not, you should re-read the bill and realize non-passage is a huge blow to hunting, fishing and shooting.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from rock rat wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

Good catch, GAscozark's very first comment. I suspect Gun Owners of America, which is not much different than HSUS or CBD.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Burghpunk wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

And if your Senators are both already on board - give them a call to thank them. That kind of stuff doesn't happen often, and can go a long way

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Gallo Pazzesco wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

Wow - it is such a shame to see that F&S has become such a liberal progressive mag and schill for Obama and his ilk. Some of you really have no clue what this is all about, do you?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from dudleyhow wrote 1 year 18 weeks ago

I agree with gascozark. these bills hide a lot of things that you aren't aware of until it is to late then you want to blame someone else for it.This bill seems to be a bit fishy. If it were me I wouldn't vote for it either.It's like obamacare let's vote it in to see what's inside.It was a total disaster and we really haven't got started with it yet. So for ALL you duck hunters and river rats that want your land and hunting rights taken away all you have to do is side with your senator and you can kiss your rights good bye.Obama is out to destroy this country any way he can and this is just one of them . You better think about your 2nd amendment rights before you jump on board with these senators who want to pass this bill. My senator voted NO for it and I stand behind him 100%. THINK ABOUT IT!!!!!!!!!!!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from MT_mulies wrote 1 year 18 weeks ago

This is an interesting article followed by lots of interesting posts. Anybody throwing out statements like "vote yes" or "vote no" who hasn't read the bill should read the proposed laws and rules before they do anything. I'm going to go look it up now before I decide whether to jump on the "yes" or "no" bandwagon.

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

from blevenson wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Glad my Dems from MN voted to keep it. Maybe the Republicans want to sell the land to the highest bidder?

+6 Good Comment? | | Report
from wisc14 wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

thats a lot of r's after those names....

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from ingebrigtsen wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

i have informed my yahoo group in an effort to help u yanks out a bit in keeping your rights to hunt..

keep pushing!

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Davidd wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Ohio is split as well. our Dem voted for and our Rep. voted against. I will contact my Republican Senator.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from jryoung wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

It was a procedural "no" vote, because the NRA was going to score the floor vote and none of those voting no want to tarnish their NRA scorecard.

This bill is funded by the $10 increase in duck stamp fees, this fee was blessed by every group supporting it, particularly Duck Unlimited.

The bill was audited and would reduce the deficit by $5M over the next 10 years, that doesn't even count the potential increase from more people hunting (more access to public land), more people shooting (more public shooting ranges), and all the additional spending that comes with those activities.

If the EPA gets to regulate ammunition and fishing tackle, how much do you think that will costs the tax payer?

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from amoor983 wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

I agree that government needs to be smaller and less expensive. The percent of the federal budget that goes toward conservation is less than 1%. Federal law and the North American model of wildlife conservation dictates that wildlife is property of the states, to be managed in a wise manner by individual states (or the federal government in the case of migratory species). Most wildlife inhabit private land. As of yet there is no widespread, readily available economic incentive for private landowners to conserve wildlife or their habitats. If the states and federal government wish to succeed in their task of conserving wildlife, they must not only manage game harvest, but manage habitat on public lands, and assist private landowners in conservation. Considering that much of the remaining 99% of the budget goes towards at least some things that the feds arguably have no business engaging in (social security?) and other things that are incredibly wasteful, I do not think it is unreasonable to dedicate a little more funding for conservation. At the very least, it should be reduced in proportion to other programs. Conservation funding is a great bargain; in many instances it is matched by non-profits, states and other sources (non-federal sources match NAWCA funds 3:1). Conservation can also generate income through hunting and tourism. And how do you put a price on intangibles such as conserving soil, protecting water quality and quantity, recharging aquifers, reducing flood damage, and sequestering carbon?

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from jryoung wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

So why didn't they raise issue back in September? Why not raise issue at all before now? Simple, if they killed it on a last minute procedural motion, they avoid being graded by the NRA and the kill it with almost no time to spare for re-tooling.

They voted 84/12 on November 15th. Why play politics now?

All that aside the budget rule violation is suspect at best. I say that because the increase in Duck Stamp Fees is not a tax, but a fee that the overwhelming majority of the 90 million sportsman and women support. All 47 hunting, fishing and shooting groups supported the increase in fee. We recognize that this is a pay to play and once again us sportsman are willing to shoulder the burden. It is arguable whether this "fee" violates the budget rule. But, again this bill reduces the deficit by $5M over 10 years.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ga hunter wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Emailed my senator! Just hoping I'm not on some kind of mail list now!

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from rock rat wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Just started calling on down the list, my senators both voted Y but I figured give the staffers in someone else's office an earful. It was pretty fun. Bet they haven't had to answer many phone calls before asking them why they voted against hunting and shooting. Only made it as far as Saxby Chamblis, maybe someone else can start there.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from jryoung wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Gascozark, how come you fail to include sections that note
"(5) CONSERVATION; CONSERVE; MANAGE; MANAGEMENT- The terms ‘conservation’, ‘conserve’, ‘manage’, and ‘management’ mean to protect, sustain, and, where appropriate, restore and enhance, using methods and procedures associated with modern scientific resource programs (including protection, research, census, law enforcement, habitat management, propagation, live trapping and transplantation, and regulated taking)"

And Instead add words like "seizure".

You also neglect to note

"(2) PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION- Nothing in this subtitle permits the use of funds made available to carry out this subtitle to acquire real property or a real property interest without the written consent of each owner of the real property or real property interest."

"funds made available" is all funds, you're stretching here and spreading misinformation. It's likely you are a representative of the HSUS or Center for Biological Diversity or other anti-hunting and shooting group trying to sink this bill. If you're not, you should re-read the bill and realize non-passage is a huge blow to hunting, fishing and shooting.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from ejunk wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

oh hey, a partisan vote in the Senate? man, that's weird.

WV's guys voted correctly so maybe I'll send them a thank you note.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from curmudge1 wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Please let's be clear, this vote was a procedural vote whether to ignore previous budget legislation, and the Republicans (apparently) stood on principal that new spending has to be paid for.

You can disagree with that, or complain that the cost was only $14 million (according to the Only Guns And Money blog, I'm not an expert). But to say that those who voted no on this particular procedural vote were against the Sportsmen's Act does not seem to tell the whole story.

I would suggest that a lot of the no votes here would vote to approve the bill, if it was within the current budget limits.

Just sayin' ....

--
Dave

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from 357 wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

I just called my two senators to thank them for voting for sportsmen and sportswomen. I know it's a tough time financially but it's not time to start sharting on our natural resources.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from 1ojolsen wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

The party of no didn't seem to learn much in Nov. I have Susan Collins on speed dial.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from srlarson wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

I agree with the second two points of the bill, using fees we agree to for our interest is good.....using other Govt $ not good...people we have to be serious in these financial times and spending $'s we don't have. So let's look to tweak the bill and only use $'s we add to the mix.....We need to do our part and not spend additional Federal dollars. Gov't needs to be smaller not larger!!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Yes it's a procedural vote. But a no vote on a motion to bring a bill to the floor is still a "no vote." There is no rational or principled or conservative case against this bill.

I have emailed Sen. Kyl, and phoned Sen. McCain asking them to advance the bill to the floor. I encourage all other AZ residents to do the same.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from rock rat wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Just started calling on down the list, my senators both voted Y but I figured give the staffers in someone else's office an earful. It was pretty fun. Bet they haven't had to answer many phone calls before asking them why they voted against hunting and shooting. Only made it as far as Saxby Chamblis, maybe someone else can start there.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Anthony Salgado wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

I just wrote to my senator urging him to reconsider his stance on this act. I hope others in Ohio will do the same, the more voices heard the better the chance of making a change.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Gascozark wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

There are more parts to this bill that most people don't know about. As a private landowner with property bordering a river, I cannot support this bill.

THE CENTRAL PROBLEM WITH S. 3525

The central problem with the bill is that it allows seizure of private lands for “aquatic habitats” [Sections 201(8) and 204 (d) (2)]. The definition of this term is limitless and includes seizure of lands in order to “protec[t] the quality and quantity of water sources” and to “serv[e] as a buffer protecting the aquatic environment.” [Section 201 (2)]
Thus, a factory that “pollutes” can be seized to protect an “aquatic habitat.” The only real limit on seizure in Section 204 is the requirement that the government manage the seized property “in accordance with the purposes of this subtitle.”
WHO ARE THE DECISION MAKERS?

The National Fish Habitat Board consists of 27 members. The initial members (Obama appointees) select the remaining members. Thus while the “commercial fishing industry” supposedly has a representative, you can bet that that fisherman is an Obama-supporter and will support his agenda.
The board then enters into “partnerships” with, inter alia, outside groups. And you can bet that every liberal environmental organization in the country will now be feeding at this pig sty. The outside groups recommend fish habitat programs and plans for seizing private lands.
Bottom line: This will give immense powers to unelected bureaucrats -- a clear violation of the Separation of Powers which our Founders implemented as a way of protecting our rights.
WHAT ABOUT SECTION 211 (e) (2)?

This supposedly requires the consent of landowners prior to having their lands seized. But, note the sneaky loophole: Section 211 (e) (2) applies only to property that is being seized with federal funds and, under Section 204 (e), half the funds need to come from non-federal sources.
So while this section is put forward as a “protection,” it actually doesn’t provide total immunity because the government can take a land owner’s property using non-federal funds -- and there is no protection in the bill against that.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Gallo Pazzesco wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

Wow - it is such a shame to see that F&S has become such a liberal progressive mag and schill for Obama and his ilk. Some of you really have no clue what this is all about, do you?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bryan Rose wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Gascozark, thank you for including details.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from rock rat wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

Good catch, GAscozark's very first comment. I suspect Gun Owners of America, which is not much different than HSUS or CBD.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Burghpunk wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

And if your Senators are both already on board - give them a call to thank them. That kind of stuff doesn't happen often, and can go a long way

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from dudleyhow wrote 1 year 18 weeks ago

I agree with gascozark. these bills hide a lot of things that you aren't aware of until it is to late then you want to blame someone else for it.This bill seems to be a bit fishy. If it were me I wouldn't vote for it either.It's like obamacare let's vote it in to see what's inside.It was a total disaster and we really haven't got started with it yet. So for ALL you duck hunters and river rats that want your land and hunting rights taken away all you have to do is side with your senator and you can kiss your rights good bye.Obama is out to destroy this country any way he can and this is just one of them . You better think about your 2nd amendment rights before you jump on board with these senators who want to pass this bill. My senator voted NO for it and I stand behind him 100%. THINK ABOUT IT!!!!!!!!!!!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from MT_mulies wrote 1 year 18 weeks ago

This is an interesting article followed by lots of interesting posts. Anybody throwing out statements like "vote yes" or "vote no" who hasn't read the bill should read the proposed laws and rules before they do anything. I'm going to go look it up now before I decide whether to jump on the "yes" or "no" bandwagon.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dcast wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

I know I will be raked over the coals on this, but there were rules in place that are to be followed and they were not therefore the people following the rules voted no and rightfully. It's no different than someone shoplifting you abide by the laws set forth or pay the consequences. This could have easily passed and was well on track to pass until a procedural motion to waive the "BUDGET RULES". My problem here is not that they didn't vote for it which I do support the act, but the fact none of you probably know this, and if you do you still support the breaking of rules. If this is the case then all rules should be thrown out including those that protect us! Believe me I'm not pure as the wind driven snow but these are very powerful people representing all of us and they are to be held at a higher standard than we are, and they need to follow rules to the "T". Lets hear what you have to say.

-3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dcast wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Jryoung, I don't know if they did or didn't. I don't know if this was a typical politics game where something was added in at the last minute. I simply don't know what went on, for all I know this is a political card played, but it still is a issue. Drop the $10 increase and pass it, how hard is that? Then if it doesn't pass we can scream at the top of our lungs at these politicians until then my views won't change. Both parties do this nonsense all the frucken time, adding something here or there for no reason causing political gridlock. I vote we get rid of the US government in general and let the people vote on each issue, then we can't point fingers or play the blame game. I'm tired of government, people wanting something for nothing, and busting my frucken @$$ for seemingly no reason other than pride.

-4 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment