Goa Alert!!


May 6, 2004, 06:05 PM
"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

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

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

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

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

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).

----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear Representative:

As an avid sportsman and defender of the right to keep and bear
arms, I cannot support H.R. 4100, the Get Outdoors Act.

The sponsors of this legislation say they want to reduce obesity in
this nation. But let's be serious. There is no constitutional
authority for the federal government to act as the "fat police" or
to spend billions of dollars to buy up private lands in the name of
getting more people outdoors.

Letting government bureaucrats grab more land is never the avenue to
achieving more freedom. The history of government-controlled land
has been one of betrayal to gun owners and sportsmen. The trend has
been to close off more and more government-controlled lands to
anyone but unarmed hikers.

Please let me know your views on this legislation. Thank you.


Please do not reply directly to this message, as your reply will
bounce back as undeliverable.

To subscribe to free, low-volume GOA alerts, go to
http://www.gunowners.org/ean.htm on the web. Change of e-mail
address may also be made at that location.

To unsubscribe send a message to
gunowners_list@capwiz.mailmanager.net with the word unsubscribe in
the subject line or use the url below.

Problems, questions or comments? The main GOA e-mail address
goamail@gunowners.org is at your disposal. Please do not add that
address to distribution lists sending more than ten messages per
week or lists associated with issues other than gun rights.


If you enjoyed reading about "Goa Alert!!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
R.H. Lee
May 6, 2004, 06:18 PM
Republican Representatives Don Young (AK) and George Miller (CA) are
the chief sponsors of this legislation

First, George Miller is no Republican. He is one of the most partisan leftists in Congress. Second, who is Don Young and why does he call himself a "Republican"?

We need to return to a part time legislature, and pay them only expenses and a stipend.

This is outta control.:fire:

May 6, 2004, 06:48 PM
Second, who is Don Young and why does he call himself a "Republican"?

Whoa, hold on there a minute Pilgrim..Don Young is our sole Alaska representaitve...and he is probably the most consistent defender of our right to bear arms, hunt fish and the like in the US congress..... In fact, Im callin Don right now to get his thoughts on this bill...


May 6, 2004, 06:58 PM
What wild said

most AK representives/senators are pro hunting, pro gun, pro thehighroad because they know if they arn't they wont get relected ;)

R.H. Lee
May 6, 2004, 07:40 PM
Whoa, hold on there a minute Pilgrim..Don Young is our sole Alaska representaitve...and he is probably the most consistent defender of our right to bear arms, hunt fish and the like in the US congress..... In fact, Im callin Don right now to get his thoughts on this bill...

Good. Keep him honest. Don't let him sell you out.

I can't do anything about George Miller.

Ben Shepherd
May 6, 2004, 08:28 PM
While WildAlaska has more personal knowledge about one of the sponsors, I'm still leaning towards not liking this. Why?

Sounds like more federal control no matter how it's sliced. And this I DO NOT LIKE.

However, I will reserve judgement until I learn more about it.

How's your rep. about defending states' rights from federal interference, I wonder?

How 'bout the results of your phonecall?

May 7, 2004, 12:38 AM
I remember seeing Ted Stevens saying " nobody needs a silencer". He believed only hitmen and murderers would want to make their guns quieter. :rolleyes:

Sylvilagus Aquaticus
May 7, 2004, 01:49 AM
Ok, so they want to spend Federal Taxpayer dollars to buy/tie up lands so fat people can go there and walk, yet be far away from emergency services when they have a heat stroke, with no law enforcement nearby when the criminals follow them to rob and steal, and to bring the problems inherent in urban/suburban sprawl and congestion to my beloved sticks?

What, walking tracks and city parks aren't good enough anymore?

I think they've already done this sort of damage to Yellowstone as a pilot project, right?

I bet as soon as they try snapping up New Federal Lands someone is going to try to commercialize it. With roads come people, people bring dollars and pollution, dollars bring S Mart. Probably make it strictly firearm free, too..

it's for Bambi and it's good for yer heart!

I'd rather NOT be taxed more and buy my own damned Stairmaster (not that I want one), thanks.


May 7, 2004, 10:41 AM
If carrying in a national park is a problem, then this would just be more land hostile to the 2nd amendment, wouldn't it? It also rules out hunting, doesn't it?

Personally, I think a standard for a national park should be a reserved area for a shooting range. I have that in a national park near me and appreciate it. That still doesn't address CCW.

May 7, 2004, 11:00 AM
I know thisn't isn't true everywhere in the country, but there is more goverment owned land around here then we even need. Between Federal, State, County, and City land we have more park, conservation areas, and other such places then a fat man could walk on in a month

May 7, 2004, 01:40 PM
What a wierd, wierd piece of legislation. In the abstract, I guess it would lead to more open space, but... it's kind of also a license for officals to condemn and sieze real estate belonging to people they don't like?

I doubt it would help the morbidly obese in any way.

R.H. Lee
May 7, 2004, 01:46 PM
I doubt it would help the morbidly obese in any way.

I don't think that is the purpose. The left is notorious for hiding a selfish motive under a "good" one. It's just another power grab for the purpose of consolidating and continuing power. Same as the "AWB".

The left's motives should ALWAYS be suspect. That goes for their co-conspirators (read: RINO'S), too.

May 7, 2004, 02:05 PM
More than half the land area of the state of Oregon is owned by the federal government. I think they have enough ... okay, I'll say what I really think ... they have too much already.

May 7, 2004, 02:10 PM
There is plenty of room for excercise in this country, even in the middle of most cities. If folks want to sit of a couch, over eat and watch "reality" shows, making more pretty parks isn't going to change them.

Developing too much wilderness is bad. It doesn't matter what the purpose is. Generally, people and wilderness clash and unfortunately the wilderness will always lose in the end. It's not like nature is making any new forests.

May 7, 2004, 02:13 PM
And this is a time of budget deficit!

May 7, 2004, 02:19 PM
I've already sent Don Young and e-mail voicing my displeasure at his support and sponsorship of this bill. I reminded him that only 1% of land in AK is in private hands with the feds holding most of the real estate up here. Furthermore, when the feds succeed with their land grabs they tend to restrict access to private holdings adjacent fed land or attempt to run private landowners off of lands adjacent federal holdings.
I also requested he rethink the issue and withdraw his support for the bill.

WA is correct in his statement of Don Young as a 2A defender. We just have to call BS on this particular issue and educate him on private property rights. No need to toss the baby out with the bath water.;)

May 7, 2004, 02:24 PM
I don't know enough about it to say if it's good or bad. Usually if GOA has a position on something I check it out. I usually end up agreeing with them.

Also, one way I judge something in a bill is check out it's biggest cheerleaders. Certain politicians I use as a red flag when they get behind something. Miller is one of them. Schumer, Feinstein, Nadler, Daschle, Gephart, The Ex-First Lady, Rangel, etc. are tops on that list. Usually if they're "fer it, I'm agin' it".

May 7, 2004, 02:52 PM
Another thing to keep in mind is that with the instability in Saudi Arabia and the increasing oil prices, the Alaskan oil business is likely to wake up again. Guess what more federal land enables?

Dave R
May 7, 2004, 02:59 PM
IN Idaho, I believe the Fed. Gov't owns 60% (!!!!) of the land. That is already entirely too much.

And remember when Clinton bought a big chunk of Southern Utah to prevent its coal reserves from being developed?

(I have to admit that this is not ALL bad...one of my favorite places to shoot is on BLM land, which is Fed owned.)

If you enjoyed reading about "Goa Alert!!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!