IT'S BECOME A REAL BATTLEFIELD BILL
House Votes on Public Lands Bill Today
UPDATED March 25, 12:15 PM. Laws are like sausages; you don't want to watch them being made. Here's how the American Revolutionary War and War of 1812 will allow Congress to pass S. 22 and send it to the White House soon, perhaps this week.By Bill Schneider, 3-25-09
 |
|
 | |
| Idaho's Owyhee River Canyon, one of the many battlefields saved in S. 22. Photo by George Wuerthner. | |
|
THIRD UPDATE: March 25, 12:15 PM. The House voted 283-140 to pass public lands bill with 136 Republicans and 4 Democrats voting “nay.” This would have been enough to pass for a super-majority, two-thirds vote.
SECOND UPDATE, March 25, 9:15 am.
This afternoon, the U.S. House of Representatives plans to vote on H.R. 146, the Omnibus Public Lands Bill that has become the Revolutionary Ware Battlefield Bill (see following article for details).
Yesterday, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick J. Rahall (D-WV) scheduled a press conference for 12:30 pm today to discuss the vote, so you could easily interpret that as optimism of a victory.
This will be a simple-majority vote, and since the bill failed to get a two-thirds majority by only two votes two weeks ago, there’s virtually no chance the House leaders won’t round up 50 percent plus one vote.
Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) was allowed six amendments in the Senate, but the Senate defeated all of them except one, which was a minor tweaking of a provision related to protection of paleonological resources.
Opponents to the bill have submitted 14 amendments, but the House Rules Committee has decided to allow no amendments. One of those 14 amendments--from Representatives Doc Hastings (R-WA) and Rob Bishop (R-UT)--would repeal the current regulations on restricting the possession of guns in national parks, which would have made the vote a pro-gun/anti-gun vote recorded for future political use. This could’ve gummed up the works and delayed the bill. Since vote on guns won’t be part of the deal, conservation group insiders working on the bill are very confident it will pass today and be sent to President Obama’s desk soon, perhaps by the end of the week.
UPDATED March 19, 11 a.m. at end of article.
Anybody interested in protecting public land knows about S.22, a massive piece of legislation, a compilation of 190 bills that Congress has been working on for years. Six days ago, it unexpectedly failed (click here), unable to get a super majority in the U.S. House of Representatives by a mere two votes, 282-144, even though the Senate had passed it 73-21.
That bad beat made political insiders scratch their heads. Why would the House leadership bring S. 22 up for a vote under suspension of rules, which requires a two-thirds majority, without the votes to pass it?
I’ve been calling around on to get the answer to that question and to find out what might happen next. Here’s the skinny on the House vote and alas, how President Obama will have the opportunity to sign this bill into law as early as next week. You could call it “revolutionary” politics.
For starters, let me clear up one misconception. The Gun Owners of America (GOA) tried to frame this defeat a victory for the Second Amendment, and the media has reported this claim. But in reality, the House vote had virtually nothing to do with guns.
But false and misleading GOA claims did make Congress antsy, especially rural Democrats, who don’t want an official vote record on any Second Amendment issue. What the press didn’t report was the House leadership agreeing in advance of the vote to a pro-gun amendment offered up by none other than the National Rifle Association (NRA).
The NRA-sponsored add-on, called the Altmire Amendment, “would assure that the provisions of S.22 will not be used to close lands that are currently open to hunting, fishing, trapping, target shooting and other forms of traditional recreation.”
That quote comes from a March 10 letter by Chris Cox, chief lobbyist for the NRA, sent to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Republican Leader John Boehmer (R-OH). In reality, the Altmire Amendment doesn’t accomplish much except double-doing the status quo, but politically, it cr(D-CA) eated a safe landing pad for rural representatives, making their votes on S.22 pro-gun or at least 2A-neutral, regardless of incorrect claims to the contrary by GOA, which is politically right from the NRA. (Witness the GOA describing of the Altmire Amendment as the “Elmer Fudd Protection Act.")
Simply put, S. 22 had nothing to do with the rights of gun owners or hunters. Instead, it was people philosophically opposed to protecting public land for other reasons trying to use the gun issue as cheap political scare tactics.
The real issue was Senator Tom Coburn, a staunchly anti-environmental Republican from Oklahoma who has become the new “Pombo” in Congress. The Senate had a long hard fight with Coburn who wanted to strip S. 22 of many of its most important measures, such as the Wyoming Range Legacy Act, because of false claims it took too much energy production off the market. Wrong! The bill might rob us of as much as six hours of energy consumption, but the Wyoming Range would continue to provide quality outdoor recreation and a stimulus for the local economy for the next hundred years or more. (And, Earth to Senator Coburn, your two conservative comrades from Wyoming, Senators John Barrasso and Mike Enzi, both Republicans, support protecting the Wyoming Range and voted for S. 22.)
Speaker Pelosi was afraid to open S. 22 to amendments in the House, which would force another Senate vote (i.e. another chance for Coburn to gut it), so she decided to bring it up for a vote under the suspension of rules protocol. This procedure disallows amendments, but requires a super majority. Since more than two-thirds of the Senate, considered more conservative than the House, voted for S.22, it seems logical this would also be true in the liberal-leaning House. But I have to ask, why wouldn’t she do a caucus straw vote in advance to be sure? Hello, Nancy. S. 22 is a big deal. Was this a smart move indicative of a strong leader?
Incidentally, three Democrats--Bobby Bright (AL), John Hall (NY), and Suzanne Kosmas (FL)--missed the House vote, which likely would’ve given S. 22 a super majority, and it would already be the law of the land.
Now, we come to the American Revolutionary War and War of 1812.
Congresswoman Pelosi and Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) have a new plan. As I write this on Tuesday morning, Senator Reid is busy inserting the entire contents of S. 22, plus the Altmire Amendment, into H.R. 146, the Revolutionary War and War of 1812 Battlefield Protection Act of 2009.
Reid plans to call for a Senate vote on H.Rs 146 tomorrow, March 18, and the House will probably vote on it under normal rules (50 percent plus one vote) on Monday or Tuesday, immediately sending it to the White House for President Obama to sign.
No I’m not making this up. S. 22 is becoming an “amendment,” albeit the longest one in history, to a small, non-controversial bill to allow acquisition of Revolutionary War and War of 1812 battlefield sites.
Strategically (finally?), this seems like a smart move. It’s complicated, but sparing you mind-blowing details, since the House has already passed H.R. 146 and the Senate has already passed S. 22, combining the two bills limits opportunities for the Coburns of Congress gum up the works with amendments or send the legislation back to committee, which would mean months if not years of delay. Politically, and bluntly, it greases the skids to the White House.
“It’s a real civics lesson,” concludes Paul Spitler of The Wilderness Society after patiently explaining the above to me, “you know, laws and sausages,” referring to the old adage about anybody who likes law or sausage shouldn’t watch either of them being made.
“This bill protects a lot of wildlife habitat,” Chris Hunt of Trout Unlimited said as he just as patiently did the same, “and that translates into more opportunity for anglers and hunters and other recreationists. That’s the bottom line.”
From my perspective, dedicated conservationists Hunt and Spitler and many, many others who have struggled long and hard to pass S. 22 probably would describe it as a war, so it’s apropos that it has become a real battlefield bill.
Related stories: Crapo and the Collaborative Process; House Votes Down Public Lands Bill.
UPDATE: On Thursday morning, March 19, the Senate passed S.22 again and sent it to the House where it may come up for a vote as early as Wednesday or Thursday. The margin, 77-20, was even larger than the first vote, which was 73-21.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
About two dozen of the bills attached to this behemoth bill have never had one public hearing. No public chance to comment, praise, or be critical of any part of them. This is once again legislative slight of hand, and any claim of "openness" by the Administration and the Democrat majority in Congress is just a lie.
The Senate bill that Harry Reid is shepherding and going to get the credit for passing, is really his chance for Reid to shove leadership up a place only Mr. Pelosi might see as he stands behind her. Queen Pelosi, (the woman at the Obama address to the Congress sitting behind the Prez, who was jumping up and down like a Dominican shortstop) screwed up the Omnibus Bill in taking it to a vote without the votes counted beforehand by the Whip. Bad bill management. Reid, who has stolen tens of thousands of acres of prior BLM Wilderness Study Area land for inclusion in Las Vegas by engineered land trades, is knowledgeable about public lands bills. He has used the law to benefit the casino owners and developers of Clark county all during his tenure in the Senate. He is also a water thief of note. Watch your camelback or water bottle in Washington DC, because he will steal it for Las Vegas given the chance.
The Omnibus Wilderness Bill will be forever tainted by secret politics and "sausage making." If this is laudable if only because of the ends justifying the means, you do know the future will be ugly. We are becoming an ugly country, with increasingly ugly governance.
And for you to follow up on, Bill. Is it true that DOD has issued an administrative rule that used military brass now has to be mutilated and sent to scrap? That has been given as a reason for the missing .223 and .308 ammo in the reload market place. I am hearing that lead bullets might soon be disallowed on public lands by the EPA. There is more than one way to skin a cat.
BearBait, I seem to have no problem downing elk and deer on public lands with copper bullets. Plus, this way my family and friends don't eat lead fragments, nor do any birds or critters that might munch on the gut pile or carcass. I've heard lead is bad to eat.
Given that non-lead bullets are much more expensive than lead bullets with no significant difference to either humans or wildlife, the rule that would outlaw lead is arbitrary and based on anti-gun politics rather than fact.
Could you provide a reviewed reference?
"CDC Study Shows No Health Risk
Associated with Traditional Ammunition
A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study on human lead levels of hunters in North Dakota has confirmed what hunters throughout the world have known for hundreds of years, that consuming game harvested with traditional ammunition poses absolutely no health risk to people, including children, and that the call to ban lead ammunition was and remains a scare tactic being pushed by anti-hunting groups to forward their political agenda...."
I'm basing my view on a study conducted last fall by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. I don't believe the MN DNR is "anti-hunting" nor do I believe that the MN DRN conducted this study as a "publicity stunt." Nor does my full freezer indicate to me that I'm "anti-hunting."
You can download the entire study here:
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/hunting/lead/index.html
Lead is a very toxic substance. My family and friends prefer to not eat lead fragments in the elk and deer we kill. We also prefer not to leave these lead fragments in the carcass for other birds or critters to munch on.
If you actually read the study above, you'll see that some of the most common lead bullets result in lead fragmentation up to 18" (a foot and a half!) from the exist wound. I would encourage all hunters to think about this. Thanks.
Your study supports me (beginning of second paragraph):
"To date, no illnesses have been linked to consumption of lead particles in hunter-harvested venison. "
Sure lead is toxic - but it also has to be in a soluable form to be absorbed. Apparently both studies indicate lead bullets aren't a problem in this regard.
All your study did was show that lead bullets fragment. The CDC study showed that the lead from the bullets is not absorbed and poses no health risk.
At some point in time, the lead aversion scares on a daily basis will level out. As was pointed out, lead has to be in a form that is ingestible, and able to get into the blood stream. I doubt if big game killed by a bullet is much of a threat. Probably prions are a larger threat. The deer and elk don't give a damn.
We'll see what the unintended consequences are. They'll manifest, but nothing proper will be done for the same reason that the provisions in this garbage pile had to be lumped together...Congress is too busy with other things to do its job properly and the citizens will suffer for it.
Thanks a bunch.
I'm no cheerleader of Congress generally, but it sure makes me feel better to know that guys like you aren't happy. We'd all probably literally be up s**t creek without a paddle if your special breed of anti-environmentalism had its way.
There are differing points of view about Wilderness. Once Wilderness, forever Wilderness. I still remember the Outward Bound fatality in the Three Sisters Wilderness, and the Piss Fir Willies wouldn't let the powers that be pick the body up with a helicopter. You don't forget stuff like that..
My particular bitch with Wilderness is the fires that roar out of Wilderness, essentially unfought, and then the Piss Fir Willies setting backfires on private land to "save" whatever. And the backfires at least two, or more miles ahead of the fire front. No compensation for the private loss. So this vastly expanded Wilderness acreage of the Omnibus Bill is a threat to private lands in diverse areas. That a dozen or more of the included bills, earmarks, and pork in the bill has never had a hearing, is not good public policy making, nor is it good governance. In fact, it the very same kind of governance that you lefties whined about during the Bush years. So it is only whose ox is being gored that matters. Now is the time of the public goring of the private ox.
A long time ago, a friend of mine's Dad had a dream to start himself a little cattle ranch. Breed some good stock. Sell some bulls. His wife knew his desire, and she did something about it. She snuck off to the 4-H stock sale and bought him the best steer there. Her big surprise for him.
So my Congressman and Senators voted for more Wilderness. To make some people happy for free, you get to hose others at their cost. That is how it works. So for all you "na-na-na" folks out there, what goes around comes around.
The most important thing to remember about the USA. There are more top 25% of the human IQ students in India than there are students in the USA. 40% of births in the USA are to Hispanics who are mostly Catholic or Pentecostal. The genetically selected smartest, most educated, most liberal, of Americans, champion abortion and many choose not to ever have children. When you wipe your butt on that hoop, you do know that sooner than later you are gone and nobody replaced you in that part of the political spectrum. The people having babies will be the voting majority sooner than we all will believe today.
There are major issues of basic competence, conflated with overreach. Even Max Baucus is admitting the porkulus bill was a rush job, improperly handled. Duh.
All I ask of Congress is to not vote on a bill that they have not held hearings on with the relevant and impacted citizenry having had their say, to read every bill and know what they are voting on and why, and give us an honest days work for their more than adequate pay and benefits. The old hooktender told me I could wish in one hand and crap in the other, and he knew which hand would be full first. With Congress, the issue is to keep the hand filler off our heads. My wishing won't fill both hands but I can dream.
We will never know how "bad" George Bush was because we did not have an honest broker of the truth reporting from the 4th Estate. All we got was shrill rhetoric, sneering and snide observations, the pick and chose of out of context photos and recorded sound bites. In the age of digital manipulation, we will never know what was real and what was altered in some degree. It will take years to evaluate the archives and read through the documents to really see what kind of Administration Bush led. I can remember the vitriol against Truman when I was a tad. "Whistle while you work, Truman is a jerk. Mussolini pulled his weanie, now it doesn't work" was sung on my first grade playground by six year olds. The tune was from the first of Disney's cartoon features, the 1937 "Snow White and the 7 Dwarfs." Truman left office stained by the press because of his letter to a newspaper critic about Truman's daughter, who got bad reviews of her musical talents or lack thereof. A President can't be overprotective of his daughter and get away with it, evidently. President Obama was not alive to remember the hubbub over Margaret Truman's vocal debut. But "Give 'em Hell Harry," who said he would have been just as happy as a piano player in a whorehouse as being President, was a lot more less educated than George Bush or Obama. He had been an artillery Captain in WWI, and served with distinction and was literally loved by the men he commanded. Veep Truman became President when Roosevelt died, and he ended WWII, rebuilt Europe and Asia after the war, signed the GI Bill for education and housing, and fired McCarthur when the good general thought his power exceeded the President's in the Korean "Police Action." And he left office as hated as Bush. The Republican distain for his Presidency was palpable. So the country elected Eisenhower, who was mediocre at best, and was not what you would call a hard worker, albeit he had health problems. The Republican regime was short lived, and Ike saw Kennedy take over the office in 1961. If Obama is a quarter the man that Truman was, we will have lucked out. If he is more than Eisenhower, but not by much, we are in trouble.
This is a little early in this administration to be doing much "na-na-na-" shit. The Democrats can easily over reach, and get their ass handed to them in the midterm elections. Then the "na-na-na" crap will have taken a 180 degree turn.
For now, we all should ask for extensive hearings and public comment on any more legislation before we get the Pelosi steamroller legislation rammed through the Congress. The unintended consequences of what already has been passed will not be known for a while, but if any are huge and threatening, the Obama deal will be a circling of the wagons, and defensive for the rest of the term, which will not serve us or them as we all would like. Slow down, Dude! This whole financial crash was about people who had too much money to throw at things, and did, and then all the money was gone. This stage two of throwing money around had better have some spectacular, dynamic, earth shattering results, or we will again have a wholesale change in leadership. And rightfully so. "Na-na-na" sandwiches are hard fare to digest.
If all that takes is copper bullets and steel shot, no big deal.
--mw
Writers on the Range
Let them eat copper
Essay - March 17, 2009 by Ted Williams
I am sitting on the sun-blasted South Rim of the Grand Canyon, tracking condors through binoculars and trying to read the numbers on their wing tags as they dip and wobble above and below me. Next to me is Elaine Leslie, the heroic National Park Service biologist who never gave up on condors, even when a large element of the environmental community advocated "extinction with dignity." Without the courage and tenacity of Leslie and her fellow Park Service and San Diego Zoo condor advocates, we'd have lost these priceless ice-age artifacts to "plumbism."
Plumbism is an especially hard way for an animal or person to die. The agent is lead. Symptoms include anemia, loss of memory, depression, convulsions, brain deterioration, impotence, stillbirth, miscarriage, paralysis, kidney damage and liver damage.
"When lead is ingested or inhaled, the body ‘mistakes' it for calcium and beneficial metals, incorporating it into nerve cells and other vital tissues," explains Leslie, now with the Park Service's Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Directorate. Many people survive plumbism, albeit with diminished motor and mental function. Wild animals usually die.
On March 5, Elaine Leslie sent me this eloquent e-mail: "!" Attached was an intra-agency memo from the Park Service's equally heroic acting director, Dan Wenk, ordering a ban on lead bullets and fishing tackle "in NPS units where those activities are authorized." Leslie flings credit around like confetti, but her fingerprints are all over this bold, belated action.
Condors were in freefall to extinction until October 2007 when another bold, belated action by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger banned lead bullets in the bird's known range. Hunters weren't much inconvenienced. Non-toxic copper bullets are more expensive but have better ballistics.
It's not just condors that are being poisoned; it's everything from eagles to hawks to bears to wolves to songbirds to people. The media paid scant attention to plumbism-by-bullet until 2008, when studies in Midwestern states turned up fragmented lead in venison donated to the poor by the "Sportsmen Against Hunger" program. And research by the North Dakota Department of Health and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention revealed that people who eat wild game killed by lead bullets tend to have elevated blood levels of lead.
I'm against poisoning the poor. But that's not the only problem I have with "Sportsmen Against Hunger," which was hatched by Safari Club International in an attempt to boost an image diminished by "canned hunts," during which members purchase caged animals -- some with names -- and then shoot them. I grew up in a culture in which, if you successfully hunted something, you ate it -- a dictum that was sternly enforced even on a friend who dispatched a skunk.
I have an even greater problem with the mantra from the Safari Club and the gun lobby that all evidence of plumbism-by-bullet has been fabricated as part of a plot to disarm America.
The NRA, which fought viciously against the California lead ban, attributes such reforms to the secret agenda of "environmental and anti-gun extremists." The U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance pooh-poohs the North Dakota and Centers for Disease Control studies with this non sequitur: "Hunters have been feeding their families with deer taken by lead bullets since firearms were invented."
Plumbism was first seen in ducks in 1874, but it wasn't until 1991, that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service got around to banning lead shot for waterfowl. When I was writing about the impending ban back in 1988, I got precisely the same response from the gun lobby I get now. NRA president James Reinke said that "anti-gunners, attacking lead shot under the guise of environmentalism, have succeeded in gaining a beachhead." Neal Knox of the Firearms Coalition called the ‘91 ban "the latest scalp in a well-organized, scarcely recognized series of flanking attacks upon the right to keep and bear arms." And Miles Brueckner of Migratory Waterfowl Hunters Inc. offered this explanation: "Someone's getting wealthy on steel shot."
I never understood why so many of my fellow hunters were fine with annually depleting their game supply by about 300,000 ducks and geese fatally poisoned by lead shot.
We've banned lead in paint, toys, gasoline and shotgun loads for waterfowl. Yet we persist in festooning the landscape with bullets made from this deadly neurotoxin. Elaine Leslie puts it this way: "It is 2009. We are better than this. Time for a change. Time to be accountable to future generations. Time to get the lead out!"
Ted Williams is a contributor to Writers on the Range, a service of High Country News (hcn.org). He is the conservation editor for Fly Rod & Reel Magazine.
My god, such obvious propagandistic lies rival the the most blatent of the anti-gun web sites.
The "Sportsman against Hunger" "incident" was the fraud I mentioned earlier. The doctor was found to have fabricated the evidence.
And as was also discussed earlier, the CDC conclusion was exactly the OPPOSITE of what this liar is saying.
And this is just two of the most obvious lies. And yet people continue to believe this crap.
Typical. The anti-gunners do this too. When confronted with facts, they resort to emotion, or what they call "common sense" or in this case "good sense" and "good citizenship". More propaganda with little or no basis in fact.
The sad thing is that it frequently works since most people don't like to be accused of not having any of these.
See, I told you so. {laughter}
I contend that you're the one deficient in those. If you want to compare "good citizenship" and "good sense" with me, odds are you'll lose. Of course we obviously have a difference of opinion about what constitutes "good sense" and "good citizenship".
No, I'm not willing to pay more and you're seriously underestimating the cost.
So we should be willing to pay more because the lies, fraud, and propaganda say we should? NO! NOT ONE PENNY MORE!
"You'd win a lot more friends among the "anti-gunner" crowd just by being a little more amenable. You're just being stubborn."
This is another anti-gunner tactic that's worked too well over the years. What did it get us? More anti-gun laws. People are finally starting to catch on though. No more "being amenable" - and it's working, much to the chagrin of the anti-gunners.
The Omnibus Wilderness Bill passed both Houses today and is now headed for Obama's desk for signature. That is not assured. After reluctantly signing the Omnibus spending bill alst week , a holdover from the last Congress that was laden with Much Pork , Obama has stated he will not take kindly to signing new bills that have earmarks. Dunno if that is a line in the sand.
Wyomng's very conservative GOP senator, John Barrasso , inserted an amendment in the Wilderness Bill to lavishly compensate ranchers in Wyoming for losses due to Wolves. And I'll be damned if I can find out much about that provision , which apparently made it thru the final markup intact. There is quite a bit on the wires about various provisions of the Omibus Wilderness Bill, state by state, but only the Wyoming Range legacy is categorized for Wyoming. I'm pretty sure the Wolf compensation rider made it thru the mill intact.
I would like to know how that Wolf thing works, how much it costs, who administers the compensation , whether it applies only to federal lands, other public lands, or any livestock loss anywhere in Wyoming ( and apparently , it is only Wyoming who gets this benefit). And is this in fact a spurious earmark or is it closely enough related to the intentions of the Wilderness statute to be included ( I have my doubts).
Hint, hint....
I just heard back from Paul Spitler with the Wilderness Society HQ in Washington D.C.... I queried him earlier about the inclusion of the provision in the Wildlands Bill that passed today regarding a $ 1,000,000 per annum federal program to compensate ranchers for livestock losses due to Wolves...anywhere such predation occurs : federal , state, PRIVATE, or tribal lands. To reinforce existing programs with more money. Funding ( grants) are available immediately---this fiscal year. It does not sunset...
It was inserted by Wyoming's junior senator, the very conservative John Barrasso. It was one of about 160 sub-Bills in among the 1200+ pages
Here are some lines of provision as it appears in the bill: ( somewhat garbled)
Subtitle F-Wolf Livestock Loss
9 SEC. 6502. WOLF COMPENSATION AND PREVENTION PROGRAM.
11 (a) IN GENERAL.-The Secretaries shall establish a
12 5-year demonstration program to provide grants to States
13 and Indian tribes-
14 (1) to assist livestock producers in undertaking
15 proactive, non-lethal activities to reduce the risk of
16 livestock loss due to predation by wolves; and
17 (2) to compensate livestock producers for livestock losses due to
such predation.
consult with
1 States that have implemented State programs that
2 provide assistance to-
3 (A) livestock producers to undertake
4 proactive activities to reduce the risk of livestock loss due to
predation by wolves; or
6 (B) provide compensation to livestock producers for livestock losses due to such preda tion.
21 (e) ELIGIBLE LAND.-Activities and losses described
22 in subsection (a) may occur on Federal, State, or private
23 land, or land owned by, or held in trust for the benefit
24 of, an Indian tribe.
1 (f) FEDERAL COST SHARE.-The Federal share of
2 the cost of any activity provided assistance made available
3 under this subtitle shall not exceed 50 percent of the total
4 cost of the activity.
5 SEC. 6503. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
6 There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out
7 this subtitle $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2009 and each fiscal year
thereafter.
#######
I hate to sound flippant about what is a lot of money to most people; but, $1 million a year isn't anything to get excited about, especially in exchange for the protection of this much wilderness and especially 1) since it includes provisions for funding "proactive, non-lethal activities" that might be beneficial if we get the right people into position to manage the program and can get most of the money spent there and 2) since Barrasso effectively built a "sunset" into the provision himself by specifying a flat $1 million a year (less than ten years of inflation will cut it in half and ten years after that it will be down to much less than a quarter of the value it is now). I doubt Obama will bat an eye at signing the bill with this provision in it. Now, please don't take these comments as any indication that I don't think Barrasso is pond scum; I do. I just don't think this provision is big enough or bad enough to be a major algal outbreak. It's just Barrasso's way of nodding to his constituents back home during a period in which his lack of power in the Senate makes doing that on a grand scale difficult to impossible. I think and hope that Obama lets him have his gesture and signs the bill.
I wonder why Barrasso didnt also include livestock losses due to Grizzly bears in Wyo, which are considerably greater in number than Wolf kills, so far. Only Wolves. One top tier predator , not both.
All the publicity in Wyoming on the Wildlands Bill has been the issue of the Wyoming Range being withdrawn from oil & gas exploration , and the creation of the Snake River Headwaters Wild & Scenic river...I think there were something like 35 Wild & Scenic designations in this bill. Blah blah blah.
The Wolf Compensation provision to appease Wyoming stockmen is at the least just that : appeasement, and at worse just a political litmus test. Insert the magic paper strip into the Red Herring , extract, and see what color it turned...red or blue.
The Omnibus Wilderness Bill was 1200 pages long. The Wyoming thing was a couple paragraphs. That baby must really be loaded up...