Great American Outdoors Act

[FlatlanderAZ]

I reached out to my local reps and expressed my support for this legislation. I was more than disapppinted to receive the following response from my house rep. As @Big Fin has said, I am member of the party of hunting and fishing. I am also a registered republican, but because their platform has seemed to incorporate privatizing public lands I am voting off ticket more commonly now. Let’s reach out to our reps and send a message. We shouldn’t have to choose between candidates who are pro-gun and pro-public lands.

Call, email, write. Whatever it takes.

 

[nontyp]

Here is a list of your senators that voted NAY yesterday on the procedural vote to advance the legislation. Please let them know what you think of their vote. Jerry Moran will be getting some calls.

 

[seeth07]

Here is a list of your senators that voted NAY yesterday on the procedural vote to advance the legislation.

This doesn't mean that they are voting "nay" on the bill. Just means that they were voting to end the discussion.

 

[hank4elk]

My rep's are on it.

 

[nontyp]

This doesn't mean that they are voting "nay" on the bill. Just means that they were voting to end the discussion.

Could you expand on this point? I don’t fully understand these type of votes, but it does seem to me that many of the folks that voted nay are the same ones who will likely vote nay on the final package. Can you help us out @Big Fin ? I am also privy to some conversations that have happened between conservation groups in KS and they are blindsided by Jerry Morans vote.

 

[seeth07]

Could you expand on this point?

I'm going to just briefly go over this as an essay could be wrote about this process if someone really wanted to...

Basically when a new bill is introduced, there is a grace period giving the representatives/senators a chance to review the bill and collaborate with their constituents (you and me). For this Bill it was introduced back in March 09th and placed on the schedule in general orders. The time that passes between varies but its generally about 2-3 months depending on the time of year the bill is actually introduced.

When its time comes up on the schedule, the bill is debated, amended, etc. Once someone is sick of talking about the bill, they go "I motion we vote to close the topic and vote on it". They then literally vote on the idea of voting on it. Someone voting "nay" means either a) they have items in the bill they still want to debate/amend/etc. or b) they are strongly against the bill and knowingly feel it will pass if it goes to a vote

They then schedule a vote for the bill at a later date and that's it.

 

[nontyp]

Well I just got a communication that came directly from Jerry Morans staff and the wording of the communication looks like something Mike Lee would write. I need to get confirmation if I am allowed to share it. if so i will post here.

 

[JTHOMP]

I sent emails prior but also called Kennedy and Cassidy earlier today. Can’t help but feel like there is a trash can under a basketball goal where the intern taking the call sends the message.
Cassidy has stated he would vote against it if his amendment doesn’t get added, Kennedy will likely follow suite. Guy from Alabama said the same thing.

 

[seeth07]

Can’t help but feel like there is a trash can under a basketball goal where the intern taking the call sends the message

Actually you would be surprised. Representatives don't actually get that many calls because sadly most Americans won't take the time to do it. The interns do generally just record you being in favor or against and then report that.

 

[FlatlanderAZ]

I think the Senate vote is tomorrow AM. Might be worth a late night reminder email. I have been doing my best to light up Andy Biggs via social media even though he is a House Rep and not a Senator. Way too many R’s opposing this. They must not have gotten the message when Jason Chaffetz tried to privatize public lands a few years ago.

 

[MO Betta]

One of my Senators (Roy Blunt) is a cosponsor on the bill, and his response to me about it was great. The other (Hawley) I did not receive a response from. I'll be keeping an eye on the vote and keep that in mind come election time.

 

[seeth07]

I think the Senate vote is tomorrow AM

One news article stated it was on the schedule for Thursday but in the past I've seen reports for what the schedule looks like to be wrong.

 

[ChrisC]

I reached out to my local reps and expressed my support for this legislation. I was more than disapppinted to receive the following response from my house rep. As @Big Fin has said, I am member of the party of hunting and fishing. I am also a registered republican, but because their platform has seemed to incorporate privatizing public lands I am voting off ticket more commonly now. Let’s reach out to our reps and send a message. We shouldn’t have to choose between candidates who are pro-gun and pro-public lands.

Call, email, write. Whatever it takes.

I'm reluctant (and embarassed) to share how little I know relative to most everyone else here on HT, so please excuse me if I'm making a glaring mistake with my interpretation of the GAOA and this congressman's letter.

If I recall correctly, I believe the LWCF can have up to $900M in funds for a given year. A quick wikipedia search says that has only been met twice and the funds are usually diverted to other places. Now If I understand the letter correctly, he is saying that the LWCF has not done a good job at managing lands and thus, he isn't really considering voting for the GAOA. Now the BHA email I received says the GAOA will "fully dedicate $900M to the LWCF." To put it all together, it sounds like he isn't happy with the LWCF doing its job so he will not vote for something (GAOA) that will fully fund it so that the LWCF can be more effective?

 

[FI460]

I'm reluctant (and embarassed) to share how little I know relative to most everyone else here on HT, so please excuse me if I'm making a glaring mistake with my interpretation of the GAOA and this congressman's letter.

If I recall correctly, I believe the LWCF can have up to $900M in funds for a given year. A quick wikipedia search says that has only been met twice and the funds are usually diverted to other places. Now If I understand the letter correctly, he is saying that the LWCF has not done a good job at managing lands and thus, he isn't really considering voting for the GAOA. Now the BHA email I received says the GAOA will "fully dedicate $900M to the LWCF." To put it all together, it sounds like he isn't happy with the LWCF doing its job so he will not vote for something (GAOA) that will fully fund it so that the LWCF can be more effective?

You'll often find that politicians opposed to public lands claim that the federal government has done a terrible job of managing it. What they almost always fail to acknowledge is that since it's very inception America's public lands have rarely been adequately funded.

On one hand they talk about how poorly managed the land is, and they slash it's budget with the other hand.

 

[Northwoods Labs]

I contacted Ron Johnson, but that turd is always on the wrong side of these things. Really looks like this will pass regardless

 

[JLS]

I contacted both of my Senators earlier today. It only takes minutes to call.

 

[rwc101]

Here's the response from Enzi.

 

[seeth07]

The main actual objection to the bill is the fact that part of the funding has to be used for aquiring new lands. The idea of maintenance not being able to keep up on what is already owned and then adding more land doesn't really make much sense.

 

[JLS]

The main actual objection to the bill is the fact that part of the funding has to be used for aquiring new lands. The idea of maintenance not being able to keep up on what is already owned and then adding more land doesn't really make much sense.

This is the intent of the LWCF

The United States' Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is a Federal program that was established by Act of Congress in 1965 to provide funds and matching grants to federal, state and local governments for the acquisition of land and water, and easements on land and water, for the benefit of all Americans.

NPS maintenance SHOULD come from congressional appropriations.

Garder said the president also wants to cut $191 million from the Park Service's construction accounts -- down from the $389 million currently provided by Congress -- which help attack the agency's estimated $12 billion maintenance backlog.

While the administration failed to target budget increases to help with the maintenance backlog, they beseeched Congress to provide funding to make substantial inroads into the backlog.

It's easy to say federal lands are poorly managed when you don't fund the management. Objecting to this on the basis of poor management is as disingenuous as it gets.

 

[seeth07]

The GAOA isn't all just full funding of the LWAF. I'm not saying I'm thinking or leaning this way but just pointing out that those senators against it are against it because they feel maintenance should be handled first before buying more land.