Get Outdoors Act, H.R. 4100

[Hangar18]

Something from Gun Owners of America to talk about on a Friday.

"Get Out of Rural America Act" Could Dry Up Hunting/Plinking Lands

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Thursday, May 6, 2004


Long-time GOA activists will remember CARA, known by gun owners and
other opponents as the Condemnation and Relocation [of Hunting and
Shooting Lands] Act.

Well, CARA is back... but under a new name.

The new bill is being dubbed the Get Outdoors (GO) Act, H.R. 4100,
although it is more accurately dubbed the "Get Out of Rural America
Act."

What does H.R. 4100 do?

It would allocate $3.125 billion annually -- much of it for
government bureaucrats to acquire private lands that have been
historically used for hunting and fishing.

But once the land is under government control, there is no guarantee
that such lands would continue to be used for such sporting
purposes. When rural land disappears, opportunities for recreation
-- especially plinking and hunting -- tend to disappear as well.

Republican Representatives Don Young (AK) and George Miller (CA) are
the chief sponsors of this legislation. What is their reason for
offering this legislation, when there is very limited constitutional
authority for the federal government to own land?

"Obesity is a public health crisis of the first order," Miller said.
"And the Get Outdoors Act is a sensible way to help mitigate that
public health crisis."

No, that is not a joke. The ostensible reason for the "GO Act" is
to help slim Americans’ waistlines by providing more opportunities
to hike around the woods.

Obesity is costing Americans $100 billion annually because of
health-related problems. So the $3.125 billion annually they
propose to spend under the "GO Act" is, in their way of thinking, a
bargain.

The Land Rights Network, which opposes this bill, points out that
instead of using the money to steal people's land, they could "buy
15 million really good treadmills for that kind of money and really
help folks fighting obesity."

LRN is just poking fun, of course, because it knows (and so do we)
that there is no authority in the Constitution for setting up a "fat
police."

The real truth is that the land-grabbing radicals are feverishly
trying to use any argument to justify their agenda. In 2001, they
tried to justify CARA in the name of helping sportsmen.

Last year, when they tried to attach CARA to an energy bill, the
implication was that CARA was good for preserving our natural
resources.

Now they're back... but this time it's being done in the name of
reducing obesity. A weighty reason to be sure. But not at the
expense of private hunting lands!

Make no mistake and don't be fooled by what the politicians tell
you. True conservationists want resources protected for the future
USE of sportsmen. Radical preservationists, on the other hand, want
to ban human activity.

H.R. 4100 would give future administrations, working in concert with
environmentalist extremists and even the United Nations, automatic
access to literally billions of tax dollars. The money would
ostensibly be used to preserve lands that would benefit plants and
animals or "conserve open space ... or have historic or cultural
value" -- a blanket authorization that could apply to just about any
land in the United States. As these preservationists are more than
generally unfriendly towards hunting and shooting, the lands could
then be closed to those activities.

Even if you buy the hollow promise of the authors of H.R. 4100 that
recreational use will be considered in these ongoing land grabs,
there is still the fact that the federal government is swallowing up
more and more private property.

Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA) has been an ardent opponent of CARA and
its recent emanations.

"I believe the federal government owns too much land now," he said.
"If the government wants to buy more land, they should sell some and
use the proceeds to buy more."

Well said.

ACTION: Please contact your Representative and urge him or her to
oppose H.R. 4100. You can use the pre-written message below and
send it as an e-mail by visiting the GOA Legislative Action Center
at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm (where phone and fax
numbers are also available).

 

[JoseCuervo]

It looks like the objections to this act are really more of an "anti-Federal" point of view, in that the Government should not own lands.

As someone who relies on hunting and fishing on Public Lands in Idaho, it is ONLY the Public Lands that offer me much of my hunting. And increasing Public Lands (willing sellers) would increase my hunting opportunities.

I think this is exactly what RMEF and IDFG have been doing, buying private lands to provide access/and or habitat for Elk. This all seems like a good thing.

What agency would own these CARA lands? I am not aware of a Federal Agency that does not allow hunting (where safely can occur).

 

[Ithaca 37]

Ya gotta make up your mind if you want more land owned by the FS and BLM or (I'm assuming one or the other will control the land) if you want it to remain in private hands. Remember this, if it's private you won't have much chance of ever using it for anything.

 

[Muledeer4me]

"Make no mistake and don't be fooled by what the politicians tell
you. True conservationists want resources protected for the future
USE of sportsmen. Radical preservationists, on the other hand, want
to ban human activity."


You still need to think about the way the non-hunting public thinks about public lands.
How long will it be before (the people)decide that hunting is no longer what they want to see being done on public lands?

Look at the division on this board alone as to how public lands should be managed .
If it's sold by a "willing seller" there is nothing we can do about it,however that is not always the case,we have groups that will do whatever it take's to push out the private land owner so they have no other option but to sell.


How can we as hunter's think that our sport is safe?

I still see the private lands owner (rancher/farmer) as being way more hunter friendly then most of the groups that would have a say in public land managment.
There need's to be a balance.

 

[BuzzH]

I dont believe this at all: we have groups that will do whatever it take's to push out the private land owner so they have no other option but to sell.

Thats a steaming pile, I'd like to see one instance of an outside group FORCING any landowner to sell.

The ranchers and farmers are their own worse enemies. They've done more to force each other out of business than any other group.

I also dont agree that ranchers/farmers are all that hunter friendly. They are happy to take trespass fees, lease to outfitters, and otherwise make money from public wildlife, who wouldnt be? But, if it wasnt for the fact they see a cash crop every time they look at a deer or elk, there's many that would want them all shot for competing with their livestock.

 

[Oak]

Here's a **LINK** to text of the act for anyone else who might want to read it. I would really appreciate anyone who opposes this act to quote the bad parts from this link. If you oppose it, you've obviously already read it, so it shouldn't take too long. I skimmed through it and nothing really caught my eye.

Oak

 

[JoseCuervo]

The Land Rights Network, which opposes this bill

If you want to read about some radical extremists, go check out the Land Rights group...

 

[Ithaca 37]

Here's the link:

http://www.landrights.org/

 

[Oak]

Anybody? I remember a lot of anti-CARA sentiment among hunters when it was being proposed, but never heard a good argument why it was bad for hunters. How about this one. Is this bad for hunters? Why, specifically, should we be concerned if this passes?

Oak

 

[JoseCuervo]

Oak,

It is obvious, if their is land set aside for people to use for recreation, then the Government will not allow us to buy guns at gunshows, and we will soon have an army of Federal Agents patrolling the land besieging our cities.

 

[Ithaca 37]

EG, Thank you for that explanation, but I'd rather hear MD4Ms answer. Yours was kinda confusing and I'm sure her's will provide more clarity.

 

[Oak]

I suspect those that oppose this never actually read it. They just got an e-mail alert from Organization XYZ that said it's bad for hunters, and so that's their opinion (not referring to you, Hangar, as you never stated your position, and I'm pretty sure you would read it before forming one).

I'm curious, since the title of the orginal posted story is "Get Out of Rural America Act Could Dry Up Hunting/Plinking Lands," how many of you that live between the 105th and 120th meridians do the majority of your hunting and shooting on private property owned by someone other than yourself?

Oak

 

[Ithaca 37]

I don't.

 

[Bambistew]

I dont' see any problem with it at all... Here in good ol MD our past spineless panty waste of a Governor did manage to do one thing that was good for the state. He used left over tax funds to buy 57,000 acres of property on the eastern shore of the Cheasapeke from a timber company. Its been two years and as of right now about half has been open to the public, the other half will be opened up by next summer once hunting leases and what not are satisfied. The property will be managed by the state forest deparment... A good portion of it was logged in the past 5-15 years and consequently needs to be thined, but they have all ready started to... All most all of it is open to hunting, fishing and to what ever else, except ATV's and target shooting, the parts that are not open either are too close to homes, or are now included in state and national parks, but its a very small part of the whole. Less than 500 acres... It will easily tripple the amount of public land on the eastern shore. I am very happy about it. I wish they could have bought more!