Liberty
Matters News Service
April 7, 2004
New Name, Same Scam
Alaska Republican
Representative Don Young is still trying to shove CARA, the Conservation and
Reinvestment Act, down American's throats. This time around, Mr. Young and Rep.
George Miller, (D-CA), have changed the name to the "Get Outdoors Act."
Apparently hoping to capitalize on the current government concern about the
obesity explosion in the United States, these two want to convince Congress to
provide $3.125 billion a year to buy land and build parks and recreation areas
so people can lose weight on government land. The "GO" Act has the backing of
various environmental groups, as well as, hunting and fishing interests and
sports and recreation groups hoping to get a piece of the pie. "This is truly
an infrastructure bill for the American people in terms of their health," said
Frank Hugelmeyer, president of the Outdoor Industry Association. Joking that
his 71 years of outdoor activity has given him the appearance of a 28 year old,
Mr. Young said, "I want everybody to know this is why I am on this bill.
Because the outdoors, our lands, are so important to the future of this
nation." Alaska, of course, would land a big share of those billions, $175.2
million a year to be exact. The current House Resource Chairman, Richard Pombo
(R-CA), does not share Young's enthusiasm for GO Act, however. Resource
Committee spokesman, Brian Kennedy said, "The fact of the matter is that the
federal government owns two-thirds of the land in the U.S. and we need to
decrease that number, put it in the hands of private property owners, rather
than increasing it," he said. "The other side of it is the price
tag."
Young Proposal Would Get More People Outdoors
Diamond Bar Saga Continues
The
U.S. Forest Service has completed the confiscation of the remaining Diamond Bar
cattle and Kit Laney is scheduled to be released from federal custody April 8.
Laney and Sherry Farr own private property within the confines of the Gila
National Forest and argued in lawsuits that they had grazing rights based on
historical use of the land. However, the courts did not agree and ordered the
cattle removed. The cost of removing the cattle was estimated to be an
astronomical $300,000, according to Forest Service officials. So far, 252 head
of cattle have been sold at auction, netting $121,000. Another 162 head are to
be shipped to an undisclosed auction barn this week, bringing the total to 414.
Laney and Farr must reimburse the government for their theft costs and if the
cattle do not sell for enough money it will have to come out of their pockets.
Drive a man from his land, steal his property, throw him in jail, and then make
him pay for it - our government at its best.
Cattle Roundup Rankles N.M. Ranchers
Diamond Bar Cattle Company
Enviros Want to Buy the Ocean
Environmentalists don't want
ranchers on federal land and now apparently, they are trying to force fishermen
from the oceans. Wealthy environmental groups in 2002, successfully convinced
California voters to approve a $3.44 billion bond measure to protect the
state's coastlines and wetlands and now they want to expand the program to buy
boats and fishing licenses to get the pesky fishermen off "their" oceans. The
proposals stem from a $5.5 million study conducted by the left-wing Pew
Charitable Trust, based in Philadelphia that concluded the world's oceans were
threatened by population growth and over fishing. In response to the report,
The Natural Resources Defense Council and Oceans Conservancy believe the answer
is to use public money to buy boats, fishing permits and even underwater land
to achieve their goals of making the oceans off limits to human activity,
creating an ocean "wilderness." Randy Fry, government affairs director for the
6,000 member Coastside Fishing Club said it is clear "corporate environmental
groups" are attempting to establish "ocean zoning" and no-fishing zones in
state-controlled waters. "Their No. 1 agenda is a network of marine reserves
along the coast," he said.
Environmentalists Target Bond Funds to Buy Boats
Supremes Reject Wetland Cases
The Supreme Court has
declined to hear three wetland cases that could have clarified murky federal
wetlands law. The decision means that Michigan landowner, John Rapanos will
have to spend ten months in prison for filling a "wetland" on his own property.
Pacific Legal Foundation attorney, M. Reed Hopper, expressed astonishment that
the Court declined his client's case when three years earlier it had reversed
his conviction and sent the case back to the lower court. In a 2001 landmark
decision, Solid Waster Agency of Northern Cook County vs. U.S., (SWANCC) the
Supremes confirmed that federal permitting authority under the Clean Water Act
extended only to "navigable waters," which have a direct connection to
interstate commerce, and immediately adjacent wetlands. On re-examination, the
lower court ruled in favor of Mr. Rapanos, but the feds demanded their pound of
flesh and appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals where he lost his case
under a very narrow interpretation of SWANCC. PLF petitioned the Supreme Court
to hear his case again because "Mr. Rapanos' property is 20 miles from any
navigable waterway and has no connection to interstate commerce." Hopper said,
"Mr. Rapanos is a landowner, not a criminal. He is going to prison for at least
10 months for not doing the paperwork to get a federal permit before improving
his own property."
Supreme Court Declines to Set National Wetlands Law Straight