Park officials said Monday that 720 snowmobiles would be allowed into the park daily beginning Dec. 15. That's more than double the 318 proposed just two weeks ago. The move marked the latest turn in a decadeslong struggle between snowmobile advocates, who want more recreational access, and conservation groups that say too many of the machines degrade the park's natural beauty. The 720 figure matches the number of snowmobiles allowed for the past three winters in the park, which straddles the borders of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. But the new cap appears to defy a September ruling by U.S. District Judge Andrew Sullivan in Washington, D.C....
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Yellowstone drops plan to reduce snowmobiles Yellowstone National Park abruptly dropped plans to sharply reduce the number of snowmobiles allowed this winter, drawing a quick backlash from conservationists who want fewer of the machines. 
Park officials said Monday that 720 snowmobiles would be allowed into the park daily beginning Dec. 15. That's more than double the 318 proposed just two weeks ago. The move marked the latest turn in a decadeslong struggle between snowmobile advocates, who want more recreational access, and conservation groups that say too many of the machines degrade the park's natural beauty. The 720 figure matches the number of snowmobiles allowed for the past three winters in the park, which straddles the borders of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. But the new cap appears to defy a September ruling by U.S. District Judge Andrew Sullivan in Washington, D.C....
Park officials said Monday that 720 snowmobiles would be allowed into the park daily beginning Dec. 15. That's more than double the 318 proposed just two weeks ago. The move marked the latest turn in a decadeslong struggle between snowmobile advocates, who want more recreational access, and conservation groups that say too many of the machines degrade the park's natural beauty. The 720 figure matches the number of snowmobiles allowed for the past three winters in the park, which straddles the borders of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. But the new cap appears to defy a September ruling by U.S. District Judge Andrew Sullivan in Washington, D.C....
Canada Confirms 16th BSE Case The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) confirmed its 16th case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). The latest case was discovered in a 7-year-old dairy cow from British Columbia; no part of the animal’s carcass entered the human food or animal feed systems, the agency said. CFIA is investigating the source of the infection, including the animal's birth farm and herdmates. The age and the location of the infected animal are consistent with previous cases. Canada remains a Controlled Risk country for BSE, as determined by OIE, so this announcement should not affect exports of cattle or beef from the country....
DAN THE TEAM ROPER AND THE WOMEN WHO LOVE HIM Due to an overwhelming flood of followers to the Dan the Team Roper stories, women who want to meet Dan are creating a tidal of wave of queries about him. For the many that wish to be placed on Dan's "sort" list, please send photo and appropriate information to dantheteamroper@gmail.com. Decent photos will be placed on this site for Dan to browse. Comments and votes will be accepted from his many supporting friends....From Julie Carter, the Cowgirl Sass & Savvy columnist. Looks like they're have fun over there
EPA Proposes "Cow Tax"
The Environmental Protection Agency issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking public comment on whether it is appropriate to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from automobiles under the Clean Air Act. In order to regulate automobile emissions, the EPA would first have to make a finding that all greenhouse gases endanger public health and safety and should be classified as a "pollutant."
Essentially, the EPA is ruling on whether or not GHG emissions should be classified as endangering public safety. If that finding is made, all GHGs including carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide would have to be regulated under the Clean Air Act.
The problem with this approach is that once an endangerment finding is made, other provisions of the Clean Air Act are automatically triggered, creating much broader, costly regulation of other sectors of the economy, including agriculture.
IMPACT:
Once an endangerment finding is made, Title V of the Clean Air Act requires that any entity with the potential to emit more than 100 tons per year of a regulated pollutant must obtain a permit in order to continue to operate.
For previously regulated pollutants, a threshold of 100 tons meant that only the largest of emitters were required to be permitted. For greenhouse gases, the situation is much different. Not only would power plants and factories, but also many office and apartment buildings, schools, hospitals, large churches and even large homes would be regulated. Literally hundreds of thousands of entities would be required to obtain permits.
The vast majority of livestock operations would easily meet the 100 ton threshold and fall under regulation. In fact, USDA has stated that any operation with more than 25 dairy cows, or 50 beef cattle would have to obtain permits. According to USDA statistics, this would cover about 99 percent of dairy production and over 90 percent of beef production in the United States.
As the proposal stands today, the permit fees would equate to a "tax" of $175 per dairy cow and $87.50 per beef cow.
Greenhouse gas regulation under the Clean Air Act would not only adversely impact livestock producers but all farmers. Crop production emits nitrous oxide from fertilizer and methane from rice production, and fields that emit 100 tons of carbon would also be subject to permitting requirements as well. Any Florida farm with 500 acres of corn, 250 acres of soybeans, 350 acres of potatoes or only 35 acres of rice would be forced to obtain Clean Air Act permits.
Emissions from farm machinery and energy used in production might also be added. Regulation of other economic sectors will result in increased fuel, fertilizer and energy costs for all farmers and ranchers.
ACTION:
CLICK HERE to send a message to EPA letting them know how regulation of greenhouse gasses under the Clean Air Act would adversely affect agriculture.
Source: Florida Farm Bureau
The EPA Fed.Reg. notice is here.
The Environmental Protection Agency issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking public comment on whether it is appropriate to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from automobiles under the Clean Air Act. In order to regulate automobile emissions, the EPA would first have to make a finding that all greenhouse gases endanger public health and safety and should be classified as a "pollutant."
Essentially, the EPA is ruling on whether or not GHG emissions should be classified as endangering public safety. If that finding is made, all GHGs including carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide would have to be regulated under the Clean Air Act.
The problem with this approach is that once an endangerment finding is made, other provisions of the Clean Air Act are automatically triggered, creating much broader, costly regulation of other sectors of the economy, including agriculture.
IMPACT:
Once an endangerment finding is made, Title V of the Clean Air Act requires that any entity with the potential to emit more than 100 tons per year of a regulated pollutant must obtain a permit in order to continue to operate.
For previously regulated pollutants, a threshold of 100 tons meant that only the largest of emitters were required to be permitted. For greenhouse gases, the situation is much different. Not only would power plants and factories, but also many office and apartment buildings, schools, hospitals, large churches and even large homes would be regulated. Literally hundreds of thousands of entities would be required to obtain permits.
The vast majority of livestock operations would easily meet the 100 ton threshold and fall under regulation. In fact, USDA has stated that any operation with more than 25 dairy cows, or 50 beef cattle would have to obtain permits. According to USDA statistics, this would cover about 99 percent of dairy production and over 90 percent of beef production in the United States.
As the proposal stands today, the permit fees would equate to a "tax" of $175 per dairy cow and $87.50 per beef cow.
Greenhouse gas regulation under the Clean Air Act would not only adversely impact livestock producers but all farmers. Crop production emits nitrous oxide from fertilizer and methane from rice production, and fields that emit 100 tons of carbon would also be subject to permitting requirements as well. Any Florida farm with 500 acres of corn, 250 acres of soybeans, 350 acres of potatoes or only 35 acres of rice would be forced to obtain Clean Air Act permits.
Emissions from farm machinery and energy used in production might also be added. Regulation of other economic sectors will result in increased fuel, fertilizer and energy costs for all farmers and ranchers.
ACTION:
CLICK HERE to send a message to EPA letting them know how regulation of greenhouse gasses under the Clean Air Act would adversely affect agriculture.
Source: Florida Farm Bureau
The EPA Fed.Reg. notice is here.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Administration Moves to Protect Key Appointees Just weeks before leaving office, the Interior Department's top lawyer has shifted half a dozen key deputies -- including two former political appointees who have been involved in controversial environmental decisions -- into senior civil service posts. The transfer of political appointees into permanent federal positions, called "burrowing" by career officials, creates security for those employees, and at least initially will deprive the incoming Obama administration of the chance to install its preferred appointees in some key jobs. Similar efforts are taking place at other agencies....
A Dramatic Rescue for Doomed Wild Horses of the West The unwanted horses seemed destined for death. The wheels had been set in motion to put down about 2,000 healthy mustangs, those in a federally maintained herd of wild horses and burros that no one wanted to adopt. The Bureau of Land Management knew that euthanasia was a legal alternative, but officials were proceeding slowly, afraid of an intense public outcry. The wild horses had become too expensive to maintain, and cattlemen argued that turning them loose would be a drain on the already scarce grazing lands of the West. Then yesterday, at a public hearing in Reno, Nev., to discuss the issue, a solution arrived on a white horse, so to speak. Madeleine Pickens, wife of billionaire T. Boone Pickens, made known her intentions to adopt not just the doomed wild horses but most or all of the 30,000 horses and burros kept in federal holding pens. Lifelong animal lovers, the Pickenses just a few years ago led the fight to close the last horse slaughterhouse in the United States. Madeleine Pickens is looking for land in the West that would be an appropriate home for the horses....
High-tech approach to taming New Mexico's wild horses National Forest Service rangers in New Mexico's Jicarilla Wild Horse Territory (part of the Carson National Forest, near the Colorado border) are expecting some high-tech help to aid their efforts to capture and relocate the growing number of wild horses overpopulating the area and threatening to cut off the food supply. Sandia National Laboratories researchers Casey Giron and Josh Jacob are designing a sensor system that can better detect the location of wild horses so they can be more easily trapped and relocated. Although Jicarilla has enough grass and foliage to feed as many as 105 horses, according to a 2004 National Forest Service assessment, more than 425 of the animals are crowded into the territory and have thinned out the food supply. Rustling up that many horses isn't easy. Once the rangers find a group of horses, they have to build a corral and bait it with salt, minerals and hay—and hope the horses come. The horses often shy away from the corrals, because they sense people are nearby (in fact, the trappers watch the corral via surveillance camera from a trailer located 50 to 100 yards (45.7 to 91.4 meters) away and remotely close the gate after horses wander in). The use of heat or air-conditioning in the trailer is even more likely to drive off the animals, which makes for uncomfortable monitoring conditions inside the trailer in extreme weather. Giron and Jacob are building a system that not only allows the trappers to monitor the corral and work the gate from as far away as five miles, but it also alerts the trappers when horses approach the corral, negating the need for them to watch the video screens for hours or even days....I know some old time cowboys who will be guffawin' over this.
The Greenie Wars But in reality, many groups and individuals which fall under this umbrella term have vastly different agendas. Groups commonly termed “greenies” include animal rights supporters, conservation groups and animal welfare advocates, as well as environmentalists. But how exactly do these groups differ in terms of their priorities and goals, and how on earth could they ever come into conflict? For animal rights advocates, the main priority is the rights of individual sentient animals and supporters are essentially in opposition to sacrificing any animal to advance the greater good. All animals, be they endangered or an introduced pest, are given equal rights and consideration. In contrast, the primary aim of conservation groups is to maintain biodiversity, with the focus being on species, populations and ecosystems. Conservationists generally recognize the integral links between wildlife and their habitat and allow that sometimes human intervention may be necessary to prevent loss of biodiversity. Again, this view can result in conflict between conservationists and animal rights groups, and sometimes welfarists too. The most common clashes occur over plans to eradicate non-native species in order to prevent native species declining or becoming extinct. More extreme animal rights supporters consider the killing of any individual animal in order to conserve a native species to be ‘environmental fascism’....
Enviros' Obama To-Do List: Safeguard Climate, Water, Wildlife The end of the Bush administration can't come soon enough for U.S. conservation groups, who believe that the election of Barack Obama has ushered in a "new era of hope" for the environment. "Eight dismal years of environmental abuse and neglect are now coming to an end," said Betsy Loyless, the National Audubon Society's senior vice president for policy. Loyless joined other conservation leaders in a telephone briefing with reporters on Thursday, outlining their commitment to press President-elect Obama to quickly reverse some of the Bush administration's controversial environmental policies. The conservation groups urged Obama to swiftly change current federal drilling policies, tackle climate change and strengthen protections for endangered species and public lands....
National forests see fewer visitors National forests have long been prime recreation spots in the Pacific Northwest and around the nation, but new federal figures show far fewer people are visiting them since 2004 -- especially in this region.
Now researchers are trying to determine why people are staying away from the prized public playgrounds, including the nearby Mount Hood, Gifford Pinchot and Deschutes national forests. Their ideas include high gas prices, rising visitor fees, youths glued to television and video games and a busy, urban society with little time for outdoor pursuits. The visitor decline turned up last month when the Forest Service released new figures from visitor monitoring in 2007. The numbers provided the first comparison against figures from 2004. The figures are estimates based on surveys and counts around each national forest. Total forest visits dropped from 204.8 million in 2004 to 178.6million in 2007, a 13 percent decline. Visitors to national forests do not seem unhappy: More than 80 percent said they were satisfied with facilities and services at developed sites. The most common activity for forest visitors was viewing natural features, with 51 percent saying that was one of their pursuits. Only 12 percent said they engaged in more traditional pursuits, such as fishing, and 9 percent hunted. Visits to undeveloped national forest wilderness areas also dropped, from 8.8 million in 2004 to 6.3 million in 2007. Wilderness visits typically involve longer hikes or backpacking. About two-thirds of wilderness visitors were men....The stats show the public is rejecting these wilderness areas, so why are the deep thinkers in Congress creating more?
Now researchers are trying to determine why people are staying away from the prized public playgrounds, including the nearby Mount Hood, Gifford Pinchot and Deschutes national forests. Their ideas include high gas prices, rising visitor fees, youths glued to television and video games and a busy, urban society with little time for outdoor pursuits. The visitor decline turned up last month when the Forest Service released new figures from visitor monitoring in 2007. The numbers provided the first comparison against figures from 2004. The figures are estimates based on surveys and counts around each national forest. Total forest visits dropped from 204.8 million in 2004 to 178.6million in 2007, a 13 percent decline. Visitors to national forests do not seem unhappy: More than 80 percent said they were satisfied with facilities and services at developed sites. The most common activity for forest visitors was viewing natural features, with 51 percent saying that was one of their pursuits. Only 12 percent said they engaged in more traditional pursuits, such as fishing, and 9 percent hunted. Visits to undeveloped national forest wilderness areas also dropped, from 8.8 million in 2004 to 6.3 million in 2007. Wilderness visits typically involve longer hikes or backpacking. About two-thirds of wilderness visitors were men....The stats show the public is rejecting these wilderness areas, so why are the deep thinkers in Congress creating more?
In Fighting Wildfires, Concerns About Chemicals The red clouds of fire retardant dropped onto the flames near Santa Barbara, Calif., on Friday were a welcome sight for owners of the hillside homes there. “Critical,” Bill Payne, deputy chief of aviation for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, said of the retardant’s role in helping to steer the fire away from populated areas, including the exclusive enclave of Montecito. Retardant, whether released by small planes that sweep low through smoky canyons or by DC-10s in 12,000-gallon bursts, has become an increasingly common tool for fighting wildfires. Yet while many residents praise — and even demand — the use of retardant to protect their homes and neighborhoods, the potent mix of chemicals in the most common type can leave scars of its own, hurting watersheds and the fish and other animals that live in them. The use of the most common type of retardant, a fertilizer-like, phosphate-based compound, can vary by state or by who oversees the land where a fire is spreading. Among federal agencies, the Park Service is relatively cautious with retardant because part of its mission is to protect natural and cultural resources for public use. The State of California, however, has the largest aviation fire operation of any state and uses retardant aggressively not only to contain fires — retardant’s intended purpose — but also to try to extinguish them before they reach populated areas. The Forest Service, which oversees the largest share of the nation’s wildfire-fighting operations, has a laboratory devoted to testing retardant produced by private companies. In a sign of how contentious the issue has become, the agency is being sued in federal court in Montana by a group that says retardant threatens endangered species, including salmon, a claim the agency rejects....
New Poll Finds that Majority of African-Americans Oppose Public Lands Bill Senator Harry Reid's effort to pass the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act this week will be a key test of whether congressional liberals continue to take African-American support for granted, says the Washington, DC-based National Center for Public Policy Research. But according to a new poll just released this morning by The National Center for Public Policy Research's Public Opinion and Policy Center, 52% of African-Americans oppose the legislation while only 37% support it. Minorities are particularly vulnerable to home price increases and prices would likely rise following National Heritage Area designation. The poll surveyed 800 African-American adults and has a margin of error of +-3.46%....
Blackfeet pin hopes on oil Blackfeet Indian Reservation officials are hinging their hopes of shifting the tribe's economic fortunes on a billionaire's oil company and an advanced drilling technique that has been successful in Montana.
The Blackfeet Tribe and the Bureau of Indian Affairs in Browning are working with oil giant Anschutz Exploration Corporation of Denver to dig beneath the reservation's lands along the Rocky Mountain Front in search of oil. Oil rig crews on Wednesday finished exploring the first of two areas between the Canadian border and the reservation community of Heart Butte. Crews will next examine samples from both areas to see if a productive oil well can be established at the sites. Officials are optimistic that their five-year journey to drill on the reservation was time well spent. This agreement allows the tribe to tap into the natural resources beneath the reservation, which is something the tribe has been trying to do for years, said tribal Chairman Willie Sharp Jr. "We hope that it's a producing well," Sharp said of the project....Our nation's first environmentalists are saying Drill Baby Drill!
The Blackfeet Tribe and the Bureau of Indian Affairs in Browning are working with oil giant Anschutz Exploration Corporation of Denver to dig beneath the reservation's lands along the Rocky Mountain Front in search of oil. Oil rig crews on Wednesday finished exploring the first of two areas between the Canadian border and the reservation community of Heart Butte. Crews will next examine samples from both areas to see if a productive oil well can be established at the sites. Officials are optimistic that their five-year journey to drill on the reservation was time well spent. This agreement allows the tribe to tap into the natural resources beneath the reservation, which is something the tribe has been trying to do for years, said tribal Chairman Willie Sharp Jr. "We hope that it's a producing well," Sharp said of the project....Our nation's first environmentalists are saying Drill Baby Drill!
Scientists propose grizzly genetic research Researchers are proposing genetic testing to determine whether grizzly bears in the Yellowstone region interbreed with grizzlies from elsewhere. Scientists with the U.S. Geological Survey proposed the study Wednesday in a meeting of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee in West Yellowstone, Mont. Federal judges in Montana and Idaho are presiding over three separate lawsuits challenging a decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in April to remove grizzlies from the endangered species list. One argument against delisting is the population's lack of genetic diversity. Some say that could threaten the long-term health of bears in the ecosystem. Scientists say grizzlies from Canada or northwest Montana must breed with bears in the Yellowstone ecosystem at least once every generation to maintain the genetic diversity of the Yellowstone population....Our nation's scientists are saying Drill Bear Drill!
Environmentalists' hysteria loses Last Wednesday, the United States Supreme Court overturned a 9th U.S. Circuit injunction prohibiting certain Navy training exercises in the Pacific Ocean. The decision was a big win for the Navy and for America´s national security interests.
The court's ruling was an ever bigger victory for the role of common sense in the realm of environmental regulation. After 30 years of the federal courts acting as a rubber stamp for the fear mongering of environmentalist groups, the high court has finally restore a modicum of balance to the law. These exercises were going according to plan until a lawsuit filed by several environmentalist groups sought to stop them, alleging that the sonar might harm whales and dolphins in the Pacific. Amazingly, a federal judge agreed and issued an injunction prohibiting the Navy from continuing to train as it had for some 40 years. This travesty had its roots at the intersection of environmental law and the legal rules governing injunctions. Those rules are old and generally uniform; a party seeking to enjoin some activity must show that the harm from not stopping the activity would be greater than the harm of stopping it. Those asking for injunctions also must show a court that the injunction is in the public's interest. But in 1978, the Supreme Court tilted the playing field in environmental cases. Where certain threatened species were potentially at risk, the court said in the infamous TVA vs. Hill, protection of these species must take precedence "above all else." Thus, federal courts were given license to issue injunctions regardless of the social or economic value of the activity being prohibited. For the next three decades, the Endangered Species Act was a virtual super-statute, lording over all other federal and state laws. Using the language of the TVA case, the federal courts would forgo the traditional balancing and public interest tests in injunction cases, signing off on injunctions at the mere invocation of the words "endangered species."....
The court's ruling was an ever bigger victory for the role of common sense in the realm of environmental regulation. After 30 years of the federal courts acting as a rubber stamp for the fear mongering of environmentalist groups, the high court has finally restore a modicum of balance to the law. These exercises were going according to plan until a lawsuit filed by several environmentalist groups sought to stop them, alleging that the sonar might harm whales and dolphins in the Pacific. Amazingly, a federal judge agreed and issued an injunction prohibiting the Navy from continuing to train as it had for some 40 years. This travesty had its roots at the intersection of environmental law and the legal rules governing injunctions. Those rules are old and generally uniform; a party seeking to enjoin some activity must show that the harm from not stopping the activity would be greater than the harm of stopping it. Those asking for injunctions also must show a court that the injunction is in the public's interest. But in 1978, the Supreme Court tilted the playing field in environmental cases. Where certain threatened species were potentially at risk, the court said in the infamous TVA vs. Hill, protection of these species must take precedence "above all else." Thus, federal courts were given license to issue injunctions regardless of the social or economic value of the activity being prohibited. For the next three decades, the Endangered Species Act was a virtual super-statute, lording over all other federal and state laws. Using the language of the TVA case, the federal courts would forgo the traditional balancing and public interest tests in injunction cases, signing off on injunctions at the mere invocation of the words "endangered species."....
Economists to test water rights system Two economists and a hydrologist are exploring a water market model in which farmers could trade water rights in real-time via computer and see the impact of their actions on the waterway. Economists from The University of New Mexico and the University of Chicago and a hydrologist from Sandia National Laboratories are testing whether such a market would work in the lab. Soon, they'll try it out for real in the upper Mimbres River basin. If the model works, a similar water market could be developed for other New Mexico rivers. The water market model has been developed with the input of about 20 upper Mimbres River farmers in southern New Mexico. The market would allow senior water rights holders on the upper Mimbres River to lease water to other farmers in the basin.
OWYHEE INITIATIVE BILL TO BE PRESENTED IN NEW CONGRESS
.
From: Fred Kelly Grant, Chairman Owyhee Initiative Work Group
Jerry Hoagland, Chairman Owyhee County, Idaho Commissioners
Sent: Monday, 11/17/08 6:13 pm
It appears clear that the Owyhee Initiative Bill will not be voted on in the lame duck session of Congress, but will be re-introduced by Senator Crapo in January in the new Congress. Since being recommended for passage by a unanimous vote in the Energy-Natural Resources committee, the committee and Senate leadership packaged it into the Omnibus Public Lands Bill with 149 other bills.
Just prior to the pre-election recess of Congress, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced that the lands package would be called to the floor for a vote during the lame duck session which began today. Last Friday, a spokesman for Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told the press that the Omnibus Lands Bill will not be voted on during this session.
Today, Owyhee County Commissioners and the Chairman of the Owyhee Initiative Work Group have confirmed with several sources in DC that the bill will not be voted on during the lame duck session. The sources, Eastern, Mid-Western and Western Senators-key staff members-and special interest representatives on the Hill have relayed their belief that the bill will not be brought forward for vote. They also confirm that Senator Reid has assured the sponsors of the 150 bills that the delay does not diminish in any way his commitment to lead the bill to a vote when the new Congress convenes in January, 2009.
Senate sources say that the bill is being delayed because of Senator Coburn’s (R-OK) threatened filibuster of the bill, which could tie the Senate up for a good full three days. With all the funding problems facing the Senate during the economic crisis, leadership does not believe that the three days can be wasted in the short lame duck session. Senate Coburn has opposed the bills in the package because of expenditures of $4 billion over a period of years, and because so many acres of public land will be removed from energy. 60 Senators would be needed to stop the filibuster. Senator Reid said that with the new Democrats coming in for the January session, there will be far less trouble getting the 60 necessary votes for cloture.
So, the Owyhee Initiative Bill will have to wait also until the new Congress convenes. The Owyhee Work Group, a broad base coalition, has worked on the Owyhee Agreement and the implementing bill for nearly 8 years. The sponsor, Senator Mike Crapo, has praised the efforts of ranchers, county officials, conservation groups and recreation groups to put together a local solution to local land use problems....
From: Fred Kelly Grant, Chairman Owyhee Initiative Work Group
Jerry Hoagland, Chairman Owyhee County, Idaho Commissioners
Sent: Monday, 11/17/08 6:13 pm
It appears clear that the Owyhee Initiative Bill will not be voted on in the lame duck session of Congress, but will be re-introduced by Senator Crapo in January in the new Congress. Since being recommended for passage by a unanimous vote in the Energy-Natural Resources committee, the committee and Senate leadership packaged it into the Omnibus Public Lands Bill with 149 other bills.
Just prior to the pre-election recess of Congress, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced that the lands package would be called to the floor for a vote during the lame duck session which began today. Last Friday, a spokesman for Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told the press that the Omnibus Lands Bill will not be voted on during this session.
Today, Owyhee County Commissioners and the Chairman of the Owyhee Initiative Work Group have confirmed with several sources in DC that the bill will not be voted on during the lame duck session. The sources, Eastern, Mid-Western and Western Senators-key staff members-and special interest representatives on the Hill have relayed their belief that the bill will not be brought forward for vote. They also confirm that Senator Reid has assured the sponsors of the 150 bills that the delay does not diminish in any way his commitment to lead the bill to a vote when the new Congress convenes in January, 2009.
Senate sources say that the bill is being delayed because of Senator Coburn’s (R-OK) threatened filibuster of the bill, which could tie the Senate up for a good full three days. With all the funding problems facing the Senate during the economic crisis, leadership does not believe that the three days can be wasted in the short lame duck session. Senate Coburn has opposed the bills in the package because of expenditures of $4 billion over a period of years, and because so many acres of public land will be removed from energy. 60 Senators would be needed to stop the filibuster. Senator Reid said that with the new Democrats coming in for the January session, there will be far less trouble getting the 60 necessary votes for cloture.
So, the Owyhee Initiative Bill will have to wait also until the new Congress convenes. The Owyhee Work Group, a broad base coalition, has worked on the Owyhee Agreement and the implementing bill for nearly 8 years. The sponsor, Senator Mike Crapo, has praised the efforts of ranchers, county officials, conservation groups and recreation groups to put together a local solution to local land use problems....
Monday, November 17, 2008
GAO Reports
.
Federal Land Management: Use of Stewardship Contracting Is Increasing, but Agencies Could Benefit from Better Data and Contracting Strategies. GAO-09-23, November 13.
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-09-23
Highlights - http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d0923high.pdf
Bureau of Land Management: Effective Long-Term Options Needed to Manage Unadoptable Wild Horses. GAO-09-77, October 9.
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-09-77
Highlights - http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d0977high.pdf
Oil and Gas Leasing: Interior Could Do More to Encourage Diligent Development. GAO-09-74, October 3.
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-09-74
Highlights - http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d0974high.pdf
Federal Land Management: Use of Stewardship Contracting Is Increasing, but Agencies Could Benefit from Better Data and Contracting Strategies. GAO-09-23, November 13.
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-09-23
Highlights - http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d0923high.pdf
Bureau of Land Management: Effective Long-Term Options Needed to Manage Unadoptable Wild Horses. GAO-09-77, October 9.
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-09-77
Highlights - http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d0977high.pdf
Oil and Gas Leasing: Interior Could Do More to Encourage Diligent Development. GAO-09-74, October 3.
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-09-74
Highlights - http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d0974high.pdf
Cow farts measured for global warming study
.
See the story here. Hat Tip to The Green Line and thanks to Laura at Wolf Crossing for the email.
Let's have a contest.
Who can come up with the best caption for this photo?
The prize will be...well...international recognition for your ingenuity.
See the story here. Hat Tip to The Green Line and thanks to Laura at Wolf Crossing for the email.
Let's have a contest.
Who can come up with the best caption for this photo?
The prize will be...well...international recognition for your ingenuity.
Threat of filibuster endangers lands bill A massive lands bill that would have created two new wilderness areas in southwest Oregon appears to be dead for the year, a victim of a filibuster threat and the need to focus on the nation's growing economic woes. A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the Nevada Democrat strongly supports the lands package, but his first priorities in a lame-duck session next week are a planned rescue for the auto industry and extension of unemployment insurance benefits. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., has threatened to filibuster the lands bill over what he calls its excessive spending — nearly $4 billion over five years — and the removal of millions of acres of federal property from oil and gas development. "The outlook for this legislation does not look real good," said Bill Wicker, a spokesman for Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. "The two big problems right now are the clock and the economy." Coburn's threat meant the Senate could have spent up to three days debating the lands package — time that Reid and other Senate leaders say should be devoted to the auto bailout and other legislation responding to the country's economic crisis....Chuck Cushman with the ALRA sent out an email Sunday saying, "You may hear that the Omnibus Federal Lands Bill has as died. Don’t believe it. Until Congress goes home from the Lame Duck Session, you are not safe. You must act, call, fax, and e-mail both your Senators and your Congressman until Congress leaves town." You can read two recent press releases from Senator Coburn here and here and an analysis of the bill by the Congressional Research Service here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)