Thread: ARRA release

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    1,814

    Default ARRA release

    Just picked this up in email...

    ARRA BREAKING NEWS!!!!!

    The House of Representatives today passed H.R. 3824, the
    Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005, by a
    vote of 229 to 193. This is the first major rewrite of the
    Endangered Species Act in more than 30 years.

    This is good news for ARRA members who have mobilized in favor
    of House passage of H.R. 3824.

    The measure now goes to the U. S. Senate for consideration. The
    timetable for Senate action is uncertain at this time.

    To learn more about this issue, read the October issue of ARRA's
    Washington newsletter which will be posted on this website on
    Monday, October 3.

    www.arra-access.com
    Peace and Mud,
    Patrick, Cyndi, Genavieve, & Rhyse
    www.nissanoffroad.net

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Arizona & East Africa
    Posts
    1,616
    As is always the case with legislation of any kind, it's a really good idea to know who is sponsoring it, a little more about what its details include, and just what the motivations are for it.

    HR 3824 is actually Rep. Pombo's uber-scary attack on not only endangered species (one only has to look at Pombo's record to see who is paying for his motivation) but also national parks and other protected areas.

    Pombo's original bill would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Outer Continental Shelf off America's 26 coastal states to drilling (which is strongly opposed by most officials in both parties in California). It also calls for selling off national parks; selling naming rights to visitor centers, education centers, museums, trails and amphitheaters; and selling $10 million in advertising in maps and guides and on all buses, shuttles, vans, trams and ferries. Can you say Verizon-Yellowstone National Park? Welcome to Coca Cola's Yosemite Park?

    Pombo's bill requires 15 sites to be removed from the national park system and made available "for sale or for energy or commercial development." One of them is Arizona's Fort Bowie National Historical Site, and seven sites in Alaska: Aniakchak National Monument and Preserve; Bering Land Bridge National Preserve; Cape Krusenstern National Monument; Kobuk Valley National Park; Lake Clark National Park and Preserve; Noatak National Preserve; and Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve.

    The most incredible thing is that it would instruct the secretary of the interior to remove Theodore Roosevelt Island from the national park system and "make it available for immediate sale for purposes of commercial and residential development."

    There is supposed to be a new version of this spurious bill soon, if not already. I need to go check the CR. Even if he takes out all the park-ripping stuff, one needs to ask: is this the man to trust with our natural heritage? NO! in my opinion. (Look at the sponsors of the bill, too - not a single moderate Republican - a group to which I whole-heartedly belong - in Arizona the bill have endorsers Flake, Shaddegg and Renzi - Kolbe, our best conservation-Republican in the House, has declined).

    While Jonathan and I are the first to admit that the ESA has some flaws that have been abused by some opportunists and extremists, we feel very strongly that this bill is NOT the way to improve our management and recovery of endangered species. We have a lot of real-time experience working on conservation issues locally and in Washington; i have lobbied there for the NRCS and worked on reform of BLM land management at the national level so that it includes more stakeholder input (read: I have helped to make sure all users, including OHVers, get a fair say).

    One of the great problems in judging just how good or bad a piece of legislation is lies in that reading the original language is practically greek, the summary was written by the sponsors and hardly tells the real story - and so you're stuck with reading interpretations from advocacy groups: read the ARRA's version, and it sounds reasonable; read the Sierra Club's version, and it sounds like a free-for-all. The truth is somewhere in the middle. Where do we find it? I guess just reading all you can, both sides, weighing and making educated decisions.

    But the extremes sure make it hard.

    I'm just hoping we can find that compromise.

    Roseann
    Overland Expo www.OverlandExpo.com
    Get outfitted, get trained, get inspired ~ get going! May 16-18, 2014, Flagstaff, AZ, USA
    www.ConserVentures.org, KE7PDY, FRGS(09)Explorers Club (FN12)
    Current vehicles - 2012 Tacoma w/Four Wheel Camper, BMW R80 G/S, Honda NX250
    Past vehicles - 1984 FJ60 3.0L Intl. turbo-diesel, 1978 FJ55, 1992 4WD 22RE w/FourWheelCamper, 2000 Tacoma XCab 4x4 TRD, 74 BMW 2002

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Pojoaque, NM
    Posts
    3,076
    Great post, Roseann, great post.

    I work in the environmental field doing compliance, often endangered species compliance, and I'll also agree that the ESA needs some revisions. However, this bill does not do that.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •