Bi-partisan Sportsmen's Act - Call to Action

[Ben Lamb]

We're #3 on the list of priority bills for floor action in the Senate. That means we need some calls and emails into Senate leadership on both sides to impress upon our dear elected leaders that we're sick of BS and want them to act now to protect our public lands, public wildlife and our ability to access them:

http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/open-country/2014/06/call-action-help-bring-sportsmens-act-vote

More on the bill:
http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/op...ance-pass-critical-conservation-package-again

We can make a difference here. But it takes your voice, and thousands of others like it to help get this done in the Senate.

 

[Southwind]

Will do../// Done took less than 5 minutes.

 

[Wapiti Warrior]

Done and I also included MT representatives!

John

 

[Ben Lamb]

Done and I also included MT representatives!

John

Thanks guys. Let's keep lighting them up!

 

[Hunts]

Done. Thanks Ben.

 

[Redwood]

Done, good heads up.

 

[Big Fin]

Done and shared on all our FB platforms. Five minutes of time that can provide decades of benefits for hunters and anglers. Thanks for the link.

 

[Jwill]

Sent messages to Reid, McConnell, Kaine, and Warner.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Let's keep the fires burning folks. Please submit your comments using the link in the first post!

 

[Southwind]

As "On Your Own" sportsman I think access issues are of critical importance to our way of life and I would encourage everyone who visits these pages and are concerned about our privileges to trek and hunt public grounds to take 5 minutes to do this. I contacted my two senators as well as Reid and McConnell.

 

[Ben Lamb]

You guys are rock stars.

Keep at it!

 

[What Map]

Emails send to Senate leadership. Thanks for the heads up, Ben.

 

[elkslayer100]

sounds like another way for big government to screw things up. I don't like the idea of taking private land away just to give access to public. Now if you want to work with landowner and buy the property, im down with that.

 

[Jwill]

sounds like another way for big government to screw things up. I don't like the idea of taking private land away just to give access to public. Now if you want to work with landowner and buy the property, im down with that.

As worded it sets aside money for purchasing access points from willing sellers. So no taking.

 

[Ben Lamb]

sounds like another way for big government to screw things up. I don't like the idea of taking private land away just to give access to public. Now if you want to work with landowner and buy the property, im down with that.

Not sure where you got that, but no private land is going to be taken away from anyone. Any agreement under Making Public Lands Public Access has to be through a willing seller/willing buyer agreement. Then, it only means that 1.5% of the Land & Water Conservation Fund monies could be used to help secure access easements or purchasing small tracts of land (Similar to what RMEF did in the Red Hills).

If a landowner wants to sell their land to the public, then LWCF can help be a part of the funding that brings the land into public hands, but again - it has to be a willing seller/willing buyer arrangement.

 

[Big Fin]

sounds like another way for big government to screw things up. I don't like the idea of taking private land away just to give access to public. Now if you want to work with landowner and buy the property, im down with that.

I'm looking for any part that "sounds like" what you mention. Can't find it. Got a link to help me out?

 

[jryoung]

I was glad to the the RMEF post this to FB and send out and email, been a lot of traffic on it in our part of cyberspace. I hope the chatter gets inside the beltway.

 

[wdkrings]

Done. Thank you Ben!

 

[Stillhunterman]

Done...