simon
Member
"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
http://www.gunowners.org
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
Act."
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
bargain.
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
police."
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
resources.
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.
Sincerely,
****************************
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
[email protected] with the word unsubscribe in
the subject line or use the url below.
Problems, questions or comments? The main GOA e-mail address
[email protected] 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.
---
Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org
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
Act."
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
bargain.
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
police."
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
resources.
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.
Sincerely,
****************************
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
[email protected] with the word unsubscribe in
the subject line or use the url below.
Problems, questions or comments? The main GOA e-mail address
[email protected] 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.
---
