(SD) Daschle sponsors bill to open new land for hunting.


November 2, 2003, 11:24 AM

Daschle sponsors bill to open new land for hunting


As he prepares to head home for his annual hunting trip to the Winner and Gregory areas of south central South Dakota, Sen. Tom Daschle is sponsoring a bill to open new land to the hunting public.

"The demand for good places to hunt is beginning to exceed the supply," he said. "That problem seems to be getting worse every year."

Daschle and Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., will introduce an "Open Fields" program which would provide incentive payments to farmers and ranchers who allow public access on their land for hunting and other outdoor activities.

The legislation would provide the framework, but individual states would have the flexibility to decide the specifics, including payment levels.

Daschle and Conrad are proposing a $50 million annual federal appropriation to fund the program.

"Open Fields" legislation would complement the three million acre increase in the Conservation Reserve Program included in the new farm bill. South Dakota received a smaller than expected allotment of CRP acres and Daschle said he has written to Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman for an explanation.

The legislation could also encourage more commercial hunting development, he said. Hunting provides a tremendous recreational opportunity in South Dakota.

"Our basic premise is we want to find more and more ways to encourage hunters to come into states like ours," Daschle said.

Meanwhile, he also told reporters in a conference call that for the first time uninsured National Guard and reserve forces will have access to the military health care system even when not on active duty.

A Senate conference committee negotiating the Iraq supplemental appropriations bill agreed to allow members of the Guard and reserves who don't have access to private insurance to purchase Tricare coverage for a modest premium of about $1 a day. The premium is about $430 per year for an individual and about $1,440 for a family.

"That's a big, big start," he said of the committee's approval. "It's a very solid beginning."

No progress was made in moving the energy bill closer to final passage within the last week, Daschle said.

"There are those in the House who want to roll back many of the significant and critical issues which benefit ethanol, on the tax side and policy side," he said.

"It may not get out of conference if this standoff continues," Daschle said.

Supporters of renewable fuels, including all three members of the South Dakota delegation, have been battling opponents.

"I would say the power of the special interests have fought us tooth and nail," Daschle said.

If you enjoyed reading about "(SD) Daschle sponsors bill to open new land for hunting." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
November 2, 2003, 11:46 AM
I'll take a vote in our favor anywhere I can get it, but the big thing to keep in mind with Senator Daschle is that he's up for re-election next year. IIRC, W carried Daschle's state by a pretty good margin in 2000. And, thanks to his actions in 2001-02, W has put a big bulls-eye on Daschle. He wants him gone.

OTOH, why aren't they using it as leverage on judicial nominations?

November 2, 2003, 01:48 PM
I think Daschle has kissed off getting re-elected. He and his rich lobbiest wife purchase a Georgetown house in DC, a traditional signal that the politician is about to spend more time with his // her family.

Oh, hunting land? Vaccination against claims of being anti-second amendment. The strategy is clearly to draw a hard line between hunters and all other gun shooters. Suck up to the hunting community. The anti-second amendment gang will then be able to vilify and attack non-hunters. Restrictive legislation will be written about the use of firearms for hunting.

Silly season rolls around and a budding politician can with a straight face say, "hey, I support the second amendment because I supported expanded hunting ranges." Then somewhere else same politician can say, "I support reasonable restrictions on firearms. I am not concerned about firearms used for hunting but I just see no need for military assault weapons to be in the hands of untrained, unstable, and questionable civilians."

November 2, 2003, 02:00 PM
Yeah, they still want us to believe that the 2A is little more than a sporting goods debate.

Covey Rise
November 2, 2003, 03:29 PM
you will have to use a single shot .410 because he supports about every anti-gun law and group. The only reason he tries to act reasonalbe towards gun is to keep the sportsmen vote in SD.

November 2, 2003, 07:04 PM
Bush Supports New Extension Of Assault-Weapons Ban

Bush Backs Renewing Assault Weapons Ban

I promise you that Bush, who btw sets up so-called first amendment zones (unconstitutional, IMHO) far away from any of his invitation-only speeches, is very much in favor of all the control over people that the government will give him.

November 2, 2003, 07:37 PM
A bunch of political crap to me. Why don't they just say, "If it is public land, it is open to hunting, except the lands that are military reservations."
The lands on military reservations should be opened up for hunting at the discretion of the base commanders.

November 2, 2003, 07:48 PM
And to throw further cold water on this from the point of view of many on this board:

Daschle and Conrad are proposing a $50 million annual federal appropriation to fund the program.

November 2, 2003, 09:54 PM
The lands on military reservations should be opened up for hunting at the discretion of the base commanders.

Most of them are, although units wanting to use the land for training get first dibs. Of course, tanks driving around and firefights, even with blanks, tend to spook the critters anyway.

Actually, at least at Ft Lewis, hunting on the base seemed to me to be a bit safer than on other public land, since all hunters were required to check in with the post outdoor rec office and tell them roughtly where they would be. That same office could let them know roughly where other hunters where in the same area, hopefully reducing the chances of a 'friendly fire' accident.

November 2, 2003, 10:53 PM
Grey Davis just signed something along the same lines here in CA. He's paying $30/acre/yr to landowners who open their land to hunters.

Seems like the Democratic strategy across the Country is to push hunting as "gun rights." Not that I don't like more opportunities to hunt, but hunting and guns are very separate issues that the dems are blending together.

November 2, 2003, 10:58 PM
And just where is the money for these wonderous pro-hunting (and therefore pro-2nd:barf: :rolleyes: :barf: ) initiatives coming from? Hmmm?

John Q. Taxpayer is paying twice for hunting. His permit and his benevolent goobermint's handouts.:cuss:

November 3, 2003, 12:26 AM
John Q. Taxpayer is paying twice for hunting.
Yup. As a hunter, I would be amenbable to paying for more opportunities to hunt more areas, but it's unfair to have all taxpayers pay for me. If it was done with something like a deer tag, where you pay X amount of dollars on top of your regular license to hunt in these "new" areas, that would be fair.

Covey Rise
November 3, 2003, 12:42 AM
The farmer is the most screwed worker in America, he deserves some money if anyone does.

November 3, 2003, 12:48 AM
What does anyone here want to bet that there will be an amendment to the legislation to raid Pittman-Robertson funds for this aquisition?

Ya heard it here first.

November 4, 2003, 05:04 PM
I dont mind giving the farmer some moneyNeither do I. I too think that the farmer is very deserving of some cash. I think that I should be the one handing it to him personally, and not everyone in the nation. There's a difference.

I am sure that he wouldnt mind a deer-quarter either.:)

If you enjoyed reading about "(SD) Daschle sponsors bill to open new land for hunting." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!