🚀 go-pugleaf

  What do these guys really want?  What do you think?  Is "property
  rights" just a sell-tag?  Does it sound like that is their real goal?
  Concern for the common tax payer??  

=======  "Property "rights""  ====== "Wise Use" part 2  (much deleted)


 U> House Votes #2 and 5:  Federal Grazing Permits

 U> Approximately 27,000 ranchers hold livestock grazing permits on nearly
 U> 300  million acres of Federal lands in the Western States.   Recent
 U> Congressional and Clinton Administration attempts to radically change 
 U> the terms and conditions of grazing permits (including the grazing fee
 U> formula) are designed to  capture their value for the
     public by charging market value and realistic costs to the ranchers.
     "Property "rights"" and "Wise Use" were opposed to this.  They
     seemingly want public tax money supporting ranching.  Why?

 U> House Vote #2:  Grazing Fees Moratorium

 U> Rep. Ralph Regula (R OH) moved to instruct House conferees to oppose
 U> the  Senate passed provision (see Senate Vote #4 for a fuller
 U> explanation)  prohibiting the Clinton Administration from raising
 U> Federal grazing fees and  implementing new grazing regulations during
 U> Fiscal Year 1994.  

 U> House Votes #3, 4 and 6:  National Biological Survey  [NBS]

 U> Secretary of the Interior [Nat. Parks] Bruce Babbitt's proposal to 
 U> create a National  Biological Survey to inventory the nation's
 U> biological resources sparked an intense
 U> debate in the House about  property rights and environmental
 U> regulation.  Supporters of the NBS argued  that the new agency would
 U> merely gather scientific information; how the  information was used was
 U> another question entirely.  Opponents responded that  the survey was
 U> nothing more than a feeder program for the Endangered Species  Act.  
 
 U> House Vote #6:  NBS Passage

 U> to  establish a National Biological Survey within the Department of the
 U> Interior.   The final vote was 255 Yes to 165 No.  Although H.R. 1845
 U> was vastly improved  by the various amendments adopted, the NBS still
 U> poses enormous threats to the  rights of property owners.  The correct
 U> vote therefore is No. 
 
 U> House Votes #7 and 8:  Mining Law Repeal

 U> The General Mining Law of 1872 provides incentives to encourage people
 U> to develop valuable hardrock mineral deposits on B.L.M.
 U> and Forest Service lands in the Western States.  The central incentive
 U> is the right to stake a claim on 
     Public property at tiny fractions of it's true worth to the 
     American taxpayer.  The claimant may eaisily be able
 U> to patent his claims that is, receive fee simple title to both the
 U> surface and subsurface.   

 U> House Vote #7:  Mining Reclamation

 U>  Rep.  Barbara Vucanovich (R NV) proposed to require
 U> reclamation to the maximum extent  
     that was convenient only.   The Vucanovich
 U> amendment was defeated by the House on  November 16, 1993.  The vote
 U> was 149 Yes to 278 No.  Property rights  supporters voted Yes.

 U> House Vote #8:  Mining Law Passage

 U> Rep. Nick Joe Rahall's (D WV) bill to destroy the General Mining Law,
 U> H.R. 322,  passed the House on November 18, 1993.  The final vote was
   This was an important "property "rights"" vote. 
 U>  No was clearly the correct vote. 
 
 U> House Vote #9:  Montana Wilderness

 U> Rep. Pat Williams' (D MT) bill would create new Wilderness Areas in
 U> Montana  totaling 1.6 million acres.  
 U> On May 17, 1994, the House voted to pass H.R. 2473 by 308 Yes to 111
 U> No.  No  was the property rights position.  

 U> House Votes #10, 11, 12, 13 and 14:  California Desert

 U> of debate spread out over three months and numerous roll call votes to
 U> pass the California Desert Protection Act.   
 
 U> House Vote #10:  Access

 U> Rep. Richard Pombo (R CA) proposed to keep open 200 roads and trails
 U> now used  by motorized vehicles through designated Wilderness Areas. 
 U>   Yes was the pro property rights vote. 
 
 U> House Vote #11:  Prohibiting Condemnation

 U> Rep. Tom DeLay (R TX) proposed to prohibit condemnation of private
 U> land within  the new Mojave National Park.
 U>   It failed on
 U> a vote of 145 Yes to 274 No.   Property rights supporters voted Yes.

 U> House Vote #12:  Endangered Species and Appraised Value
 
 U> regulations.  For example,  a 6,000 acre stand of virgin redwoods
 U> appraised at half a billion dollars might  be worth only 5   10% of
 U> that after the stand is designated critical habitat  for an endangered
 U> species.  Rep. Richard Pombo (R CA) first proposed in  committee to
 U> prohibit using the Endangered Species Act to diminish the value  of
 U> private land targeted for Federal purchase.  (His amendment failed on
 U> a  voice vote.)  
 
 U> Rep. Billy Tauzin (D LA) offered a similar amendment
 U> to the  California Desert Bill.  Most of the desert is habitat for the
 U> endangered  Desert Tortoise.  The House approved Tauzin's amendment on
 U> July 14, 1994.   The vote was 281 Yes to 148 No.  Yes was clearly the
 U> correct vote. 
 
 U> House Vote #13:  Eliminating NPS Acquisition Backlogs

 U> The National Park Service has multi billion dollar backlogs for land 
 U> acquisition and Park maintenance and construction.  
 
 U> It was rejected by the House
 U> on July 27, 1994 by a vote of 138 Yes to 288 No. Calvert's amendment
 U> would have improved the lot of many National Park inholders  throughout
 U> the system who may want to sell.  It is the position of the League that
 U> land should be purchased from only willing sellers.  Many inholders do
 U> not want to sell their land.  Yes was the private property vote.

 U> House Vote #14:  California Desert Passage

 U> On July 27, 1994, the House passed and sent to the Senate H.R. 518,
 U> the  California Desert Protection Act.  The vote was 298 Yes to 128 No.
 U> Supporters  of property rights voted No.  As the LPPV Index went to
 U> press, the Senate and  House had not resolved the differences between
 U> their two versions, but final  passage was still likely.


... You may be an idiot, but try not to be stupid.  -- Forest Gump

AddSig

... Technology makes "overpopulation" a mislabeled term. : Carl Marx