LWCF - October 1, 2018

Excuse my ignorance here, but just trying to understand it all. So the LWCF was not reauthorized. What is the next step or is there a next step? In one of the recent articles I turned up about it stated that this is the third time it has expired in two years. So is there anyway the LWCF money can be started up again or go into a similar program? In terms of contacting politicians now that it has expired what should be said? Or is it done done?

Pertinent Info...
https://www.backcountryhunters.org/...ion_fund_sunset_bha_redoubles_push_for_action

Latest.....
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...l-saving-conservation-fund-for-national-parks

There is a next step. The Senate Energy and Natural Resource Committee passed a bill from Senator Cantwell (D-WA) yesterday. Without a few Republicans (Daines, Gardner, Alexander, Capito, and Portman) voting for it, it would have never got through the committee. All the Democrats on that Committee voted for it.

Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) introduced seven amendments to try kill it, of which only one harmless amendment passed. He is now the lead guy for the anti-public land agenda. He is going to cost the Republicans some Senate seats in the next few years, so we shall see how long they will continue to let him be the blowhard anti-public land guy, when it is a loser's bet in any state outside Utah, and even wearing thin in the Beehive state.

The House is always a different story, with the sanity level there being on a much different plane than in the Senate.

Cantwell's bill would have fully funded and permanently authorized LWCF. The funding mechanism, offshore royalties, is still in place. It's not like they are refunding the royalty money back to the producers. They are just using/diverting it to other pet projects, same as they have for years and years.

What can be done? Continue to push your Senators and House members to support the Cantwell bill, or other bills, that fully fund and permanently extend the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).

As disappointing as it is, we are seeing some western delegates start to worry that they could have problems ahead as it relates to public land issues. It is a slow and grinding battle, but in the past, those Republican senators would have been told by leadership to vote against this bill. They now see that this issue is being elevated to a point where it can cost/win some seats in key western states. To me, compared to the tone deafness of the last decade, that is a measurement that the pressure is starting to be felt. Keep the pressure on and make sure your folks in DC know where you stand and that this is a priority issue for you.

They now see that this issue is being elevated to a point where it can cost/win some seats in key western states.


Any reason for optimism and/or any victory no matter how small - a good thing.
However...
My BS detector keeps faintly going off.
The cynicism in politics has me constantly wondering if the real powers actually give marching orders to the Daines'es of key states, suggesting they go ahead and "support" public lands issues to garner votes in their respective states. Just like many on here express, public lands issues are not critical as other issues to many. "Throw a bone to the public lands" whiners, things will work out in the long run.....
Really hope and would be happy to know I'm wrong……..

FYI, Reichert here in WA, my R rep, fully supports reauthorizing the fund, "I had a great meeting with The Nature Conservancy this week to talk about the importance of reauthorizing the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) before its expiration. LWCF is set to expire on September 30th. I am committed to seeing it reauthorized as soon as possible" - Reichert

If they actually cared, they wouldn't have let it expire.

Glad it's moving forward, but shame on them for letting it go in the first place.

When we say that a politician’s position will cost their party senate seats based on this issue, I sometimes wonder if that is overstating the influence of public lands advocacy. I hope Finn is right, but if you picked a random state out of a hat, then picked a random 50 people registered to vote in each party and asked them to write a 1-3 paragraph synopsis of public lands issues, and summarize their party’s position and the opposing party’s position, do you think 5 (10%) could do it?
If you asked them to list their top 5 political priorities, would public lands make the list?

I feel like public land advocates and public land opponents talking to others that generally agree with them may have an unrealistic sense of how important- or not this issue is to the general electorate.
I hope I’m totally off base here.

I'm seeing Rob Bishop starting to be forced to discuss public land unlike he had to before. A third-party candidate, Eric Eliason, qualified for the major debate vs Bishop running almost solely on public land. This is the first third-party candidate to qualify for the official debate in recent memory in Utah. It's always been one Republican vs one Democrat.

I had a staunch democrat (she sits on the local board) stop by my house a few weeks ago to talk about public lands as she'd seen my yard signs and wanted my perspective.

People are starting to pay more attention to public lands and protecting them than before. We just need to keep the conversation moving in the right direction.

If you asked them to list their top 5 political priorities, would public lands make the list?

Click to expand...

Some of the research polls in Montana seem to indicate that it's a big deal for Montanans. You're probably correct about voters in other than western states. However, with the National Parks funding backlog and the Monuments issues, there has been quite a bit of national attention on public lands, so who knows how that resonates with folks east of the Mississippi.

MTGomer said:

When we say that a politician’s position will cost their party senate seats based on this issue, I sometimes wonder if that is overstating the influence of public lands advocacy. I hope Finn is right, but if you picked a random state out of a hat, then picked a random 50 people registered to vote in each party and asked them to write a 1-3 paragraph synopsis of public lands issues, and summarize their party’s position and the opposing party’s position, do you think 5 (10%) could do it?
If you asked them to list their top 5 political priorities, would public lands make the list?

I feel like public land advocates and public land opponents talking to others that generally agree with them may have an unrealistic sense of how important- or not this issue is to the general electorate.
I hope I’m totally off base here.

Click to expand...

I think you're largely right, but reactions like the one we saw with Jason Chaffetz give me hope.

MTGomer said:

I feel like public land advocates and public land opponents talking to others that generally agree with them may have an unrealistic sense of how important- or not this issue is to the general electorate.
I hope I’m totally off base here.

Click to expand...

In the big picture of the entire US, you are correct. But, the Senate leaders are not going to risk a MT, CO, NM, AZ, or NV Senate seat just to placate some dumb asses. That is why the issue has far more leverage today than when the Senate is a 45-55 or 60-40 split. So nationally, the assessment is correct, strategically/regionally, it is incorrect.

In MT, CO, AZ, NV, and NM it is a big enough issue to sway a Senate election. It is probably the issue that allowed Tester to mop the floor with Rehberg in 2012. It is a big part of what will help Heinrich and Tester if they win in 2018. It will be a very important issue for Daines and Gardner when they defend their seats in 2020.

In a 51-49 Senate, the Chairmanship positions of every powergrabbing Senator is at stake when the Senate flips or doesn't flip. It is why so much money is being spent on MT's Senate race. Those current Chairmen are not going to give up their seats of power easily and those desiring the same seats of power are going to do all they can to be the butt that gets to warm that seat for the next two years.

A Senator from KY who holds a Committee Chairmanship is not too keen on some tangential, mostly western issue, such as public lands, costing his party the majority and thus his powerful position in the Senate. If Tester and Heinrich win, and it can be shown to be in part due to public land issues, expect that KY, FL, GA, (insert state here) Senator to start asking why they are letting some dumbasses from Utah cost them smaller margins in the Senate than otherwise would be there, and possibly even cost them the Senate majority in 2020 when many of their party Senate seats are up for re-election.

It is that effective of an issue, if used properly. And there are people from DC who read Hunt Talk and will probably email me when they see this comment, same as they do when I present the same case on our podcast. Further proof of how this issue has attention of those not wanting to lose power and those wanting to gain power.

Thanks for the information. Will continue to contact politicians, and encourage others to do the same.