 |
|
|
|
11/2/99
ALRA ALERT
CARA MAY REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF LAND AVAILABLE FOR HUNTING AND FISHING
Keep Private Lands in Private Hands Coalition
PO Box 423
Battle Ground WA 98604
Phone: 360-687-2471
Fax: 360-687-2973
Email: <[email protected]>
http://www.landrights.orgSTOP CARA!!! STOP CARA!!! STOP CARA!!! STOP CARA!!! STOP CARA!!!
DC Representative: Mike Hardiman 202-251-3473
Here are several reasons to oppose marking up CARA HR701 S25:
CARA MAY REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF LAND AVAILABLE FOR HUNTING AND FISHING:
The Administration's animal rights and environmentalist allies are anxiously awaiting CARA's Annual Billion Dollar Land Grab.
The Animal Protection Institute (api4animals.org), a coalition of 38 animal rights outfits, lists as one of its Advocacy Campaigns "Stopping Sport Hunting. Through litigation, API is challenging the expansion of sport hunting on our public lands, including National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges."
API claims that the following are "Myths:" a) "Hunting is seen as a popular recreational pursuit by many Americans," b) "Hunting is a necessary management tool that controls surplus animals and prevents overpopulation and starvation," c) "State wildlife agencies work to protect wildlife and their habitats," the list goes on but you get the point. These people are nuts.
API then describes the history of the Pittman-Robertson Act, and encourages its membership to "change the constituency of power within our wildlife management agencies and the funding sources that maintain these government agencies." CARA fits right into their plans.
A billion dollars annually in new funds will greatly expand the ability of agencies to purchase private lands used for hunting and fishing. However, once the property is government controlled, its previous use can be prohibited, resulting in a net loss of land available for hunters and fishermen.
The National Wildlife Federation was founded by hunters and sportsmen many years ago. However, its top legislative priority now is the approval of a trust fund "for state wildlife management programs, with a special emphasis on 'non-game' species that are not hunted or fished, such as songbirds."
The National Rifle Association's letter endorsing HR 701 is silent on the issue of possible net loss of hunting lands. The NRA is concerned with avoiding new taxes on its membership, stating "Title III is important for what it does not do. It does not impose new excise taxes."
If the CARA Annual Billion Dollar Land Grab becomes law, there may actually be a net loss of land available for sportsmen. Animal rights activists plan to influence the land purchase process and cut back opportunities for hunters and fishermen.
CARA WILL INCREASE THREATS TO PRIVATE PROPERTY:
CARA sets the "willing seller" scam in motion. Here is how a property owner is forced off his land despite a "willing seller" provision, using API as an example.
API members, perhaps with the encouragement of like minded state or federal agency staff, target for elimination a private hunt club or private ranch that allows hunting. With a billion dollar annual gusher of funds, the agency has the money, but the club or ranch does not want to sell.
API then harasses through protests and financially drains through frivolous lawsuits the club or ranch. A federal agency warns the club that their land may be habitat for an endangered species, and a state agency threatens to recommend new zoning regulations that will restrict existing activities. Under pressure, the property owner sells out. He is usually forced to sell for a reduced price, since no one else will make an offer on the property after witnessing the harassment. The government holds all the cards.
The property owner is technically a "willing seller," but practically speaking he has been forced off his land.
The "willing seller" scam occurs now at current funding levels when an agency cooperates with an advocacy group to force someone off their land. The CARA Annual Billion Dollar Land Grab will vastly increase opportunities for this unfair treatment of people. Most property owners do not have the financial or emotional ability to endlessly fight off a deep pocketed government agency combined with a foundation financed advocacy group.
Condemnation: CARA prohibits condemnation (eminent domain) by federal agencies. However, there is no restriction on states using federal funds to condemn property and force someone off their land without even using the charade of "willing seller."
Property owner protections may be stripped from the bill. Even if the substitute adequately protects property owners, the bill will come under immediate attack from environmental groups. The Defenders of Wildlife says "serious restrictions on land acquisition . . . must be corrected in final legislation." The Sierra Club opposes HR 701 and S 25 "because they would impose such restrictions" on LWCF funds. The National Wildlife Federation demands "no new restrictions for land purchase."
Most disturbing is the powerful coalition of 156 groups calling itself the Americans for Our Heritage and Recreation (AHR) (ahrinfo.org). AHR opposes all property owner protections. "CARA currently contains unacceptable restrictions on LWCF's federal program including: restricting acquisition to federal inholdings, requiring two-thirds of funds to be expended east of the 100th meridian, requiring congressional authorization for acquisitions costing more than $1 million, and including a restrictive ban on condemnation."
AHR's 'Guiding Principles' "adamantly oppose any restrictions on the Land and Water Conservation Fund . . . especially those that limit acquisition to federal inholdings or adjacent lands, employ arbitrary geographic restrictions on the use of funds, require new authorizations, or prevent condemnation."
If AHR prevails in the legislative process, not one acre of private land anywhere in the United States will be safe from the whims of a state or federal agency, or any advocacy group allied with them. They will have one billion dollars per year, every year, in guaranteed funding exempt from the Congressional appropriations process to harass property owners with the "willing seller" charade, or simply kick them off their land with condemnation.
And AHR has a friend in the White House. George Frampton, Chairman of the President's Council on Environmental Quality, was President of the Wilderness Society for eight years immediately before joining the Clinton Administration. The Wilderness Society is one of the main proponents of AHR's extreme anti-private property positions.
CARA WILL REDUCE ACCESS OF ALL KINDS:
As the CARA Annual Billion Dollar Land Grab turns more property over to government agencies, environmental outfits will have more opportunity to shut down multiple use, or any human use of acquired property converted from the private to the public sector.
Just in the past month, the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance won a shut down of public land in New Mexico, the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance sued to shut down public land in Utah, and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility issued a report to shut down public land in California.
WHY CARA SHOULD NOT BE MARKED UP IN 1999:
Pittman-Robertson abuses need to be dealt with legislatively, and it should be included as part of CARA. Resources Committee investigations this year have shown that Pittman-Robertson funds have been slated for grants to anti-hunting organizations, and also to purchase a remote island with ten game birds for $30 million dollars. That's three million dollars per duck.
Agreeing with the need for reform is the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, which supports HR 701. At its 1999 annual convention, it approved a lengthy resolution critical of United States Fish and Wildlife Service use of Pittman-Robertson administrative funds.
There should be language mandating no net loss of land available for hunting or fishing.
It is likely that property rights protections will be stripped from the bill if CARA leaves the Resources or Energy and Natural Resources Committees. There is no agreement yet with the Administration to protect property rights language or improve legislative oversight.
There should be legislative language assuring that multiple uses are considered for lands purchased under CARA, so recreational and other access is not arbitrarily cut off under pressure from animal rights activists and extreme environmental groups.
STOP CARA!!! STOP CARA!!! STOP CARA!!! STOP CARA!!! STOP CARA!!!
Be informed! Don't allow yourself to be snowed by CARA.
Email us with questions or comments about this web site.
All pages on this website are ©1999-2006, American Land Rights Association. Permission is granted to use any and all information herein, as long as credit is given to ALRA.
