Great American Outdoors Act Passes Congr
General Topic
Good work all the way around
Heard that great news from multiple sources today. It’s truly a big deal and will expand access to hunting and fishing. Know that SCI’s DC Office had been working pretty tirelessly trying to further it. It’s also a great day for the Congressional Sportsman’s Caucus.
SCI was all over this bill. Well done by politicians. It’s not often they get it right.
Good on them for passing it and on Trump if he signs it. I hear he said he would. Good deal.
Woot! Pretty rare that we get good news for sportsmen out of DC. Big kudos to all involved.
Many groups worked hard on this and it paid off. Though I disagree with my representatives on many things, I’m proud that they were all cosponsors. I didn’t have to make a single call encouraging them to vote for it, so I’ll spend a bit of time writing to them to thank them for their support.
My rep voted against this. I will be asking him why in person.
I bet Junior had input on this one. I like it.
Interesting that only Republican senators voted against the Great American Outdoors Act. I haven't see the House vote yet. Anyone have any vote records on the House vote?
Some good stuff but a whole lot of spending. I'm cautiously optimistic that it will be good on balance.
Introduced by Rep Cory Gardner (R) from Colorado. See link
Cant insert link - Go the Denver Post for more info
Definitely great news! Here’s a good article about it from the MeatEater website. It includes a link to the House roll call detailing how the votes were cast.
Definitely great news! Here’s a good article about it from the MeatEater website. It includes a link to the House roll call detailing how the votes were cast.
Good news for a change thanks!
Wow, my apologies for the multiple posts! My phone appeared to freeze up so I could not tell the posts were going thru.
Anytime practically every democrat votes in favor of anything, gives me pause.
This is good news and a long time in coming.
Interesting that nearly all NO votes were Republicans. Regardless, good on Trump if he signs it.
Trump will sign it. He’s tweeted a few times in support of it, including yesterday before the vote. He won’t pass up a nice win this close to the election.
Sounds great! Hope it goes thru...………………….
I am all for the permanent funding but what I find interesting and hypocritical is that the funds come from off shore oil and many groups that are for the bill are against the oil and gas industry, if I am not mistaken Obama/Biden wanted to kill the off shore oil. Where's the money going to come from if Biden gets in office and starts dismantling the oil and gas industry by 2035, we only get 15 years of the permanent fund?
In NM all I ever hear from many of the same groups that are for the LWCF is hatred towards NM's oil and gas and yet it provides a fund for NM that is our states safety net, of which the democrats are constantly wanting to tap into and spend the fund. Off shore oil is okay but NM's oil and gas is not?
Very pleased to see a pro-conservation piece of legislation come out of this administration.
Matt
Stix and KS are correct about the Oklahoma senators. They are against any public land and any regulation or taxation of oil and gas. I'm sure they didn't even read this bill. Just vote NAY. Inhofe and Langford would vote no on grandma's apple pie if oil and gas had to peel the apples.
I can only assume that the ag and cattleman’s lobby persuaded our rep to vote against it. Those lobbies are strongly against proper management and preservation of our public lands for any purpose other than being grazed to bare dirt.
Nauseating having to listen to Pelosi at the signing ceremony.
I'm very happy to see this - it's been a very positive spark of good news to me.
Strange, I don’t see KPC pontificating on this thread. Some much for his only vote republican mantra if you are a hunter or outdoorsman.
So many were concerned about Trump and conservation when he was elected and he ends up being the one who will sign the single most important conservation legislation of most of our liftetimes into law.
Deep down inside though I know there will be negatives or pork buried in anything that the Democrats have their tentacles in....
mrelite - I agree. If a Democrat destroys the Oil and Gas Industry it will destroy the source funding this bill provides. Most people seem to brush over that most important fact.
Cut and pasting this Stix thanks
I see that all the Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming senators voted against this. I would have thought that these states would definitely have been promoting outdoor activities. Of course they are all Republican, so I shouldn't be too surprised.
https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2020155
104 of the 107 House 'nay' votes were Republican. There was a time when 'conservation' was understood to be a part of 'conservatism.' Apparently we are post- that.
^^^ same old partisan bullshitte.
One side is more favorable to the public land access crowd but terrible on gun rights and willing to drive us off a financial cliff as a country.
The other side cares very little about public land access, but is strong in 2A support, and also driving us off a financial cliff but in a slower car atleast.
Cast your ballots! Lol
I am not sire why anyone would surprised considering that public land transfer is in the Republican party platform.
Spot on TEmbry. Glad to see at least some of the KS Republicans voted for it.
My (R) Congressman voted against it with no explanation to his constituents. What's wrong with him? He actually lives near/in the very Federal land that this bill is supposed to help out.
“At a time when the federal government is running deficits of almost $1 trillion a month, it is absurd that Congress would pass a bill that would make spending for more land acquisition mandatory. Why should federal land acquisition be made mandatory before benefits for veterans? Or funding for soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines?” Lee wrote.
“The federal government already owns too much land. The last thing we should be doing is enabling the federal government to acquire more land without any scrutiny from Congress.”
Sen Mike Lee
Most of the opposition I have seen is about the amount and where the spending will be, big money not subject to appropriations (congressional oversight), the mandatory land acquisition part and a change that dropped a requirement of new land acquisition being limited to 15% in the western 1/2 of the country.
Rep. Johnson's (R-SD) response to my query as to why he voted against:
"As you know, the Great American Outdoors Act (S. 3422) would make funding for the LWCF permanent, as well as establish a National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund to support deferred maintenance projects on federal lands. While I strongly support funding for the LWCF, I have concerns about a permanent funding. It is the responsibility of Congress to routinely evaluate the effectiveness of all programs and permanent authorization and funding removes Congress’ role in the process. I’m glad this bill makes efforts to address our maintenance backlog, but in the long term I believe the American people deserve a voice, and expect periodic review, in how these funds are spent to maximize our stewardship of existing public lands and recreation."
The reader's digest version: "Since congress can't control this spending to be directed toward whichever special interests our lobbyist friends dictate I choose to vote against any funding for conservation."
Wonder why KS sen. Moran did not like it?
Meanwhile the Trump administration has come out in favor or the Pebble Mine in Alaska. Jerks.
