October 20, 2019

Sen. Feinstein’s Gun Ban Proposal Seeking a Civil War

Our government officials now believe, I suppose because of a rigged election, that Americans want dictatorial rule in the form and shape of a potpourri of totalitarianism, socialism and communism, i.e. Satanic rule. One such despotic oppressor, Sen. Diane Feinstein of Kalifornia, plans to introduced a beefed up version of Bill Clinton’s assault weapons ban, which includes confiscation of handguns and complete registration of all guns.

Feinstein’s website posts her proposal along with numerous false studies, riddled with lies, bad information and terribly misleading information to support her claims that taking guns away from lawful citizens will put an end to violent crime.

While rational people know this is not true, perhaps readers should take a moment and get a quick review of historical data of what becomes of a society that has their rights, including gun ownership, taken away from them. Below is a video that a reader of the Black Bear Blog posted the link to earlier today.

I shiver when I consider the consequences of Congressional action to confiscate guns from Americans.

Share

Agenda 21 Is Being Rammed Down The Throats Of Local Communities All Over America

Have you ever heard of Agenda 21? If not, don’t feel bad, because most Americans haven’t. It is essentially a blueprint for a “sustainable world” that was introduced at the UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992. Since then, it has been adopted by more than 200 counties and it has been modified and updated at other UN environmental summits. The philosophy behind Agenda 21 is that our environmental problems are the number one problem that we are facing, and that those problems are being caused by human activity. Therefore, according to Agenda 21 human activity needs to be tightly monitored, regulated and controlled for the greater good. Individual liberties and freedoms must be sacrificed for the good of the planet. If you are thinking that this sounds like it is exactly the opposite of what our founding fathers intended when they established this nation, you would be on the right track. Those that promote the philosophy underlying Agenda 21 believe that human activity must be “managed” and that letting people make their own decisions is “destructive” and “dangerous”. Sadly, the principles behind Agenda 21 are being rammed down the throats of local communities all over America, and most of the people living in those communities don’t even realize it.<<<Read More from The Economic Collapse>>>

Share

Maine Sen. Saviello Will Sponsor George Smith’s Turkey Hunting Bill

George Smith, former executive director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, now writer and activist, has evidently convinced Maine Senator Tom Saviello to sponsor a turkey hunting bill he has crafted.

First, we should commend Smith for his efforts to increase turkey hunting opportunities for Maine hunters, while finding ways to keep or cut costs to encourage more participation in the sport.

Briefly, Smith’s bill proposes to eliminate an extra fee to hunt turkeys. A big or small game license will allow for hunting turkeys.

Registering of turkeys will be done Online or by telephone.

Bag limits suggested are for two Toms (males) in the spring hunt and expand the fall hunt to two turkeys of either sex for the entire month of October; also an expansion.

Smith’s bill would allow spring shooting all day, as is done in the fall.

Most of this bill I can support except perhaps for two items. First I have some concerns that this bill sets bag limits while circumventing the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW). I would hope that such a bill would not take away the fish and game department’s authority to adjust season lengths and bag limits according to need for sustainable yield.

Smith indicated that he is of the opinion that Maine has far more turkeys than the 50,000 estimated by MDIFW. If that is the case, then I understand the need perhaps to increase opportunities in order to decrease or slow down the growth rate of wild turkeys. This is all a management issue that shouldn’t have to come back to the Legislature to get changed, I wouldn’t think. My concern here is the proper management of turkeys and setting season dates, bag limits and shooting times are major concerns.

The second issue goes along with this and that is the shooting in the afternoons during the spring hunt. Generally, it is believed that protecting nesting hens during spring hunts helps to sustain the population. This is why, as Smith proposes in his bill, that harvest in spring will be two male turkeys only. Depending upon the exact timing of the spring hunt and the mating/nesting season of turkeys, hens do not leave their nests until after noon. With this, it is believed that hens would become more susceptible to being killed if shooting is allowed after noon. Not only would the hen run the risk of being killed but a dead hen means dead poults.

If Smith’s bill to allow shooting all day during the spring hunt is for the purpose of reducing growth and/or populations of turkeys, then I understand the intent (aside from providing more shooting time.) However, I still have concerns about taking away the authority of MDIFW to regulate this activity. Otherwise, it appears to me that each season there may be a need to go to the Legislature to change the items that would be enacted in this bill.

Share

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Turns Against America’s Sportsmen

In the fight we face to hang on to the right to hunt and fish we now have new enemies. Unfortunately, among them are many of the state wildlife agencies which the sportsmen of this country worked so hard to found 75 to 100 years ago, and which those same sportsmen have financially supported through the years.

Following is an open letter/e-mail sent to Bass Pro Shops C.E.O. Johnny Morris, warning him of the dangers that lie ahead when members of the shooting-hunting-fishing industry openly support those agencies and organizations with a new non-consumptive agenda.

Has the time come to withhold Pittman-Robertson Funds from those state agencies which have strayed from the intent of the Pittman-Robertson Act…and the intent of the sportsmen who founded and supported those agencies?

Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH
www.lobowatch.com

Johnny,

Have you ever taken the time to sit down and read the legislation which established the Pittman-Robertson Act?

One line reads… “laws for the conservation of wildlife which shall include a prohibition against the diversion of license fees paid by hunters for any other purpose than the administration of said State fish and game department…”

The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies is one of the “conservation organizations” which you are now strongly involved with – and an organization which no longer follows the intent of Pittman-Robertson, or for that matter the intent of sportsmen when state game and fish agencies were being established 75 to 100 years ago. The new agenda of AFWA is to heavily promote the non-consumptive use of non-hunted and non-fished wildlife, technically illegally using monies provided by sportsmen – such as monies provided through the sales of hunting and fishing licenses, and the excise taxes collected on hunting and fishing equipment for the sole purpose of improving GAME and FISH habitat, and building healthy populations of GAME and FISH for consumptive harvest.

http://www.theoutdoorwire.com/story/13488190983tyzsqb7rvx

The AFWA news release published at this link may appear to stick another “Feather for Conservation” in the Bass Pro Shops hat, but does it really? The sportsmen of this country are now feeling extremely used by organizations and agencies with a whole new agenda – to eliminate hunting and fishing. The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies is one organization/association/band of thieves now in the crosshairs. Following is a link to another release of an entirely different color…

http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2010/09/18/hunters%E2%80%99-dollars-misused-to-promote-nongame-outdoor-recreation-agenda/

Is this the direction our “game departments” will continue to take? Following is a link to an article that emphatically says that it is…

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/03/14200590-californias-department-of-fish-and-game-gets-a-name-change-and-controversy?lite

This summer the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, against the wishes of the vast majority of those who hunt and fish in that state (and who are your customers), held a train wreck known as the “Wildlife Summit”. The intent of that three-days of manipulation (using the Delphi Technique) by professional moderators and carefully selected speakers, plus a number of plants in the audience, was to make the sportsmen of the state feel good about that agency seeking funding from non-hunting and non-fishing groups, and even the same anti-hunting organizations which have allowed a glut of predators to destroy the past 50 to 75 years of big game conservation in Idaho.

The very same Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies which you support, and which recently awarded you their “Citizen Conservationist of the Year” award, is very much behind this movement. Every time you look at the award handed you, I hope you take a minute to reflect on what it has and will continue to cost Bass Pro Shops – and what your support of using the money provided by hunters and fishermen to fund non-consumptive wildlife management will cost the sportsmen and sportswomen of this country.

Let’s get back to the practices and management which rewarded us with the bounty of wildlife we enjoyed through the 1980s and 1990s. It is time for a real division between “Game & Fish” and “Wildlife”. If the non-consumptive watchable wildlife crowd, bird watchers, nature photographers, hikers, etc. feel a need to support that area of outdoor recreation, then it is also time for every state to establish an entirely separate Department of Wildlife, which should be funded entirely with monies OTHER than what sportsmen spend on hunting and fishing licenses, or by the excise taxes collected on firearms, ammunition, archery gear or fishing tackle. Sportsman dollars should be used entirely and exclusively for improving habitat for harvestable fish and game, and to promote those consumptive outdoor sports.

The sportsmen of this country have tired of being used, and there will be an ever growing call for the elimination of Pittman-Robertson funds being distributed to any state agency that takes on a non-consumptive agenda.

Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH
www.lobowatch.com

Share

Who’s Counting Deer in Maine Anyway?


Photo editorial compliments of Richard Paradis

While some media outlets across the state of Maine are reporting on Gov. LePage signing a handful of bills to fund portions of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW), from the perspective of someone who has a slightly higher than average grasp of the deer herd situation in Maine, I have to wonder who’s counting deer and making deer density estimates. Somewhat in fairness to those who might be creating the numbers, what makes its way into press pieces may be more of a product of poor reporting, the result of accepting numbers without substantiating the claims.

The Portland Press Herald this morning reports on the governor’s efforts to do something about saving the deer herd. In laying out claims of deer densities across the state, the article states that, “it hovers around 40 to 50 [per square mile] in southern and some coastal areas and islands”, as they say was reported to them by David Trahan, who is Executive Director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine. It should be made clear here that all of “Southern Maine” is not populated with deer densities running 40 – 50 per square miles. I think this is a matter of poor choice of words to describe that in some pockets of Southern Maine and some coastal areas and some islands, you will find those densities. It is not the norm.

But the blaring error, at least from my perspective and I don’t think I’m alone, is the claim that Maine’s deer population is around 250,000. In Maine’s hay day years of record deer populations of around 300,000 plus, historically the harvest struggled to reach 10% or 30,000 deer. If Maine’s present deer population was 250,000 one might expect the harvest numbers to be approaching 25,000. The deer harvest over the last 3 hunting seasons has averaged just under 19,000 animals. That statistic alone would draw one to conclude that the population might be closer to 200,000 than 250,000, a near 25% difference.


Photo editorial compliments of Richard Paradis

In the Press Herald report was the following: “a new law that expands the mission of a state deer-management fund to include preserving deer yards, in addition to its traditional focus on controlling coyotes.” (Emphasis added)

The “new law” in reference here will do little to “preserve deer yards”. At 19,000 deer tagged, times 2 dollars is $38,000. While all help should be welcomed, let’s not paint a picture of something that isn’t going to happen on $38,000 a year. There is a bond issue that awaits the Governor’s signature (most doubt he will sign it) that would appropriate hundreds of thousands of dollars to Land for Maine’s Future. Some of that money is to be used in the “protection/preservation of deer yards”. Even George Smith, former executive director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, says this amount of money will do little in buying up and protecting deer yards. Perhaps if a plan could be devised first, it might be helpful.

Laughable was the phrase, “traditional focus on controlling coyotes”. Traditional? Before something can become a tradition, it first has to have been tried…..at least once if I may be so generous. Maine has no tradition of focusing on controlling coyotes. Quiet the contrary. Maine’s tradition has been more to ignore problems and protect the predator, while members of the MDIFW, along with animal rights groups and environmentalists lay false claims that coyotes make for a healthy ecosystem.

I would also like to point out another thing that caught my eye in media accounts of Gov. LePage’s bill signing. I found it in the Press Herald article as well as other press releases.

Deer hunting and viewing in Maine generate at least $200 million per year in spending on guide and outfitting services, hunting camps, motels, restaurants and related businesses, Burns said.

Burns refers to Rep. David Burns, R-Whiting, who is the sponsor of one of the pieces of legislation that Gov. LePage signed. What has happened here, as has happened all across the nation, is that environmentalists have hijacked the claims of revenue generated from hunting and related businesses to include “viewing”. It’s a farce and a shame really. There are no statistics or studies to prove that so-called wildlife viewing generates any substantial amount of revenue to the state. Some have attempted to steal the reality by invoking information provided by polls done that show how many people like to “watch wildlife”. What has never been differentiated in these polls is how many “wildlife watchers” are hunters and how many pure “wildlife watchers” there really are.

A prime example of this hijacking is found in Yellowstone Park. Officials there polled visitors and asked them if they saw wolves or would like to see wolves. They took those responses and concluded that that number of people came to Yellowstone Park for the sole purpose of viewing wolves. They attempt to use these numbers to falsely pin a monetary value to wolf watching. It’s almost criminal.

At the rate the environmentalists are laying claim to things they don’t own, or had anything to do with, they will soon be claiming they are responsible for every nickel that comes into the state and as a result will demand control over it. Oh, wait! They already are!

Tom Remington

Share

My Letter to Governor LePage – Re: LD372 and Bond Issues

Governor Paul Lepage – Thank you for signing LD372 and other bills to appropriate money and further your commitment to control predators that are seriously harming the state’s deer herd and other species. I hope you will also join other sportsmen in keeping a watchful eye on the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife to ensure that they will use the funds as mandated by the Legislature and use it effectively.

I hope that you will consider not signing the Bond issues for mostly economic reasons. You’re doing a great job working to get Maine out of debt, we don’t need millions in bond debt piled on now. In particular the bond that would provide money to Land for Maine’s Future, is a proposal that comes premature. It is one thing to seek funding for this program, some of which through wording of the bond proposal, would earmark money to be spent on saving deer wintering areas. This effort may sound good and is certainly well intentioned but, it is quite another to appropriate this money without a real plan. Millions of dollars should not be appropriated to a program that has no viable plan on how it is going to use that money.

Some in Maine, have said that this money to save deer yards is critical and yet they also state that no landowner is going to sell the state a stand-alone deer yard. Where is the plan? Until Maine produces a workable plan that is agreeable to landowners, appropriating money, particularly through a bond is irresponsible…at best.

Thank you again for your efforts and considerations on the upcoming bond issues.

Tom Remington

Share

Maine Gov. LePage Signs Bill To Appropriate Money for Predator Control

I had reported on Maine’s efforts to pass appropriations legislation for predator control to help rebuild a seriously depleted deer herd. The linked-to article questioned Maine’s full commitment to saving the herd and thus saving the hunting industry.

According George Smith, blogger and former executive director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, Governor Paul LePage has signed LD 372 that would add another $100,000 to the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) budget to be used for predator control. In addition to this bill, the governor signed other MDIFW related bills appropriating funds for fish stocking, increased tagging agents’ fees and adding a “check-off” on the licensing application for sportsmen to donate money toward predator control.

I applaud Governor LePage’s signing of LD 372 as it seems to indicate more of a commitment to save the deer herd. He promised during his campaign he would and while it has taken 2 years, this is certainly better than nothing. However, Maine still lacks real commitment from all stake holders to make this happen.

The other issue is that Maine sportsmen are now left wondering if the money will actually be spent on killing predators that kill deer, i.e. coyotes/wolves, bears, and bobcats. Last winter MDIFW had $50,000 budgeted for coyote control and only used $15,000, in a piddling effort in only 9 deer yards scattered across the state, to kill coyotes. The excuse was it was a poor winter to kill coyotes in deer yards.

Time will reveal now whether MDIFW has the stomach and determination to kill predators to save a dying species. Sportsmen should keep a watchful eye on MDIFW to make sure this money gets spent on what it was legislated for and that real effort is made to reduce the number of predators that kill deer.

In addition, email the Governor’s office and thank him for signing these bills and remind him to make sure MDIFW does what it has been commissioned by the Legislature to do. Governor@maine.gov

Tom Remington

Share

Maine Not “All In” In Commitment To Restore Deer Herd But We Should be Encouraged

According to George Smith, blogger and former executive director for the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, the Maine Legislative Appropriations Committee, approved a supplemental spending budget for the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) for $350,000, of which $100,000 is supposed to be used for “LD 372, An Act to Reduce Deer Predation”.

On January 24, 2012, in an article comparing efforts by outdoor sportsmen groups from Maine and Utah, I seriously questioned whether or not promises made by Maine’s Governor Paul LePage, during his gubernatorial campaign, was all talk and no action.

If Maine and the governor honestly are committed to the rebuilding of the deer herd to keep a vibrant industry providing jobs and upholding traditions and heritage, the value of investment would be realized and the Governor and Legislature would find the money to kill a lot of coyotes, reduce bear populations, protect wintering habitat, etc.

To continue my expounding on the doubts of Maine’s total commitment to deer hunting as a necessary part of that state’s economy, along with the long and storied heritage that has been a part of what makes Maine great, on March 15, 2012, I exposed MDIFW’s sparce commitment due to it’s lack of a publicly written and easily accessed “mission statement.

In all honesty, how can the people of Maine feel any kind of certainty that MDIFW is committed to managing it’s game population for surplus harvest, if they cannot publicly state that? Not doing so only leads us to believe that is NOT their goal and as such, why throw away tax dollars for MDIFW’s wildlife hobbies?

On March 28, 2012, I wrote an article in which I questioned whether Maine was “all in” when it comes to this commitment to rebuild a deer herd. I asked many questions.

So, where is Maine’s commitment? What has IFW done? Are there studies that could be done with a commitment of money? Who is finding that money? What has the governor done? When was the last time that senators Snowe and Collins got involved in Maine’s commitment to restore the deer herd? If Sen. Reid can find millions of dollars, can we assume that Snowe and/or Collins could as well? Have all Maine’s hunters and trappers and outdoor sportsman’s groups anted up?

If the commitment is lacking, then perhaps there is also lacking a firm belief in the seriousness of the problem. Or, the belief exists but a poor job of selling and recruiting all influential people stands in the way.

On May 1, 2012, I wrote:

I am assuming, which might be a mistake, that before the Governor and MDIFW made a public announcement of their commitment to rebuild Maine’s deer herd, they crunched some numbers and explored all aspects of the hunting industry in order to decide whether or not declaring “all in” was an investment that was responsible and in the best interest of the people of Maine.

Surprising many, the Maine Appropriations Committee has coughed up $138,000 on two programs to be used to directly or indirectly help the deer herd. It’s now up to the Governor to sign these bills. Will he?

If Gov. LePage signs these bills, it will be far from “all in” but it would be far more encouraging than the crickets we were hearing prior to this and no positive words that any money would be available.

I suggest sportsmen get on the phone and email and let the governor’s office know you urge him to sign these bills.

Tom Remington

Share

David Trahan and Gerry Lavigne On a $5 Million Bond to Protect Winter Deer Yards

The Bangor Daily News carries an opinion piece coauthored by David Trahan, Executive Director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine(SAM), and Gerry Lavigne, former deer biologist for the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife(MDIFW) and member of SAM. The piece is a call to the governor, the Legislature and voters of Maine to pass LD852, a $5 million bond to fund Land for Maine’s Future.

For readers to better understand exactly what this means as it pertains to protecting deer wintering areas, first please consider the Summary as provided in LD852:

The funds provided in this bond issue are to recapitalize the Land for Maine’s Future program with $36,000,000 to continue Maine’s land conservation efforts, leveraging a minimum of $36,000,000 in required matching funds. It provides $12,000,000 for natural resource industry based infrastructure improvements and enhancement related to natural resource industry and to provide capital for state park maintenance and improvements. It also gives land conservation projects that protect and enhance deer wintering habitat preference and directs the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and the Department of Conservation to pursue projects that protect and conserve deer wintering habitat(emboldening added).

I would strongly suggest that all voters thorough read and understand LD852 before voting on it. Below is part of LD852 which speaks of disbursement of funds if the bond is passed. I’ve highlighted some key points as it relates to protection of deer yards.

Sec. 5. Disbursement of bond proceeds. The proceeds of the bonds must be expended as set out in this Act under the direction and supervision of the Executive Department, State Planning Office; the Department of Conservation; the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Resources; and the Department of Marine Resources.

1. The proceeds of the bonds for the Land for Maine’s Future Board as set out in section 6 must be expended by the Executive Department, State Planning Office for acquisition of land and interest in land for conservation, water access, outdoor recreation, wildlife and fish habitat, farmland preservation in accordance with the provisions for such acquisitions under the Maine Revised Statutes, Title 5, chapter 353 and working waterfront preservation in accordance with the terms of this Act, including all costs associated with such acquisitions, except that use of the proceeds of these bonds is subject to the following conditions and requirements.

A. Hunting, fishing, trapping and public access may not be prohibited on land acquired with bond proceeds, except to the extent of applicable state, local or federal laws, rules and regulations and except for working waterfront projects and farmland protection projects.

B. Payment from bond proceeds for acquisitions of local or regional significance, as determined by the Land for Maine’s Future Board, may be made directly to cooperating entities as defined in Title 5, section 6201, subsection 2 for acquisition of land and interest in land by cooperating entities, subject to terms and conditions enforceable by the State to ensure its use for the purposes of this Act. In addition to the considerations required under Title 5, chapter 353, the board shall give a preference to acquisitions under this paragraph that achieve benefits for multiple towns and that address regional conservation needs including public recreational access, wildlife, open space and farmland.

C. The bond funds expended for conservation, recreation, farmland and water access must be matched with at least $36,000,000 in public and private contributions. Seventy percent of that amount must be in the form of cash or other tangible assets, including the value of land and real property interest acquired by or contributed to cooperating entities, as defined in Title 5, section 6201, subsection 2, when property interests have a direct relationship to the property proposed for protection, as determined by the Land for Maine’s Future Board. The remaining 30% may be matching contributions and may include the value of project-related, in-kind contributions of goods and services to and by cooperating entities.

D. Of the bond proceeds allocated to the Land for Maine’s Future Board, $4,000,000 must be made available to protect farmland in accordance with Title 5, section 6207.

E. Of the bond proceeds allocated to the Land for Maine’s Future Board, $4,000,000 must be made available to protect working waterfront properties in accordance with Public Law 2005, chapter 462, Part B, section 6.

F. Because portions of the State have deer populations that are struggling and deer wintering habitat protection is vital to the survival and enhancement of these populations, projects that conserve and protect deer wintering areas are considered to have special value and must receive preferential consideration during scoring of new applications for support under Title 5, section 6200, et seq.

2. The proceeds of the bonds for the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Resources must be expended on agricultural infrastructure improvements.

3. The Department of Conservation and the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife shall take a proactive approach to pursuing land conservation projects that include significant wildlife habitat conservation, including conservation of deer wintering areas. The departments shall include in conservation negotiations under this section provisions for the appropriate management of deer wintering areas. The proceeds of the bonds for the Department of Conservation must be expended as follows.

A. Two million dollars allocated to the Maine Forest Service must be used for forestry infrastructure improvements.

B. Two million dollars allocated to the Bureau of Parks and Lands must be used for public recreation infrastructure improvements.

C. Four million dollars allocated to the Bureau of Parks and Lands must be used to preserve state parks and lands managed by the Department of Conservation.

4. The proceeds of the bonds for the Department of Marine Resources must be expended on commercial fishing infrastructure improvements.

5. To the extent the purposes are consistent with the disbursement provisions in this Act, 100% of the bond proceeds may be considered as state match for any federal funding to be made available to the State.

Yesterday, I shared some thoughts on this subject.

Tom Remington

Share

Witnesses Testify National Park Service Management Plans Severely Limit Access, Harm Local Economy, Endanger Jobs

WASHINGTON, D.C., April 27, 2012 – Today, the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands held a joint legislative and oversight hearing on H.R. 4094, the “Preserving Access to Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area Act,” and, “Access Denied: Turning Away Visitors to National Parks.”

“Although today we focused on two examples, Biscayne National Park in Florida and Cape Hatteras in North Carolina, these overly restrictive policies show signs of developing into a nation-wide problem. This is a continuation of anti-visitation policies driven by the Obama Administration that will undercut the tourism industry, hurt local businesses, and destroy jobs,” said Subcommittee Chairman Rob Bishop (UT-01).

The National Park Service has severely limited access to Cape Hatteras National Recreational Area through the implementation of a restrictive management plan and environmental lawsuits from activist environmental groups.

H.R. 4094, sponsored by Rep. Walter Jones, would overturn a final rule implemented by the National Park Service as well as a 2008 U.S. Court Consent Decree by reinstituting the Park Service’s 2007 Interim Management Strategy to govern visitor access and species protection at Cape Hatteras. The legislation will restore visitor’s access to Cape Hatteras while also ensuring the protection of local wildlife and its habitat. Re-opening this Congressionally designated “recreation area” will stimulate the Island’s recreation-dependent economy and foster job creation.

“This bill is about jobs and taxpayers’ right to access the recreational areas they own. H.R. 4094 will restore balance and common sense Park Service management in Cape Hatteras National Recreational Area. It will reverse the significant job loss and economic decline that Hatteras Island has experienced since access was cut off to many of the most popular areas of the seashore,” said Rep. Walter B. Jones (NC-03).

The National Park Service is pushing a new management plan at Biscayne National Park that will eliminate access to over 10,000 acres of sport fishing waters and dissuade visitation to other areas of the park despite strong objections from the surrounding community and opposition by the world renowned scientists of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Fishing, boating, diving and other recreational activities within the Park drive the local economy and support hundreds of jobs. Prohibiting these activities and restricting Park access will negatively impact the local economy, dissuade tourism and cause job loss.

“Biscayne National Park is part of the heritage of our community and is of great significance to many South Florida families. My intent is to help preserve the unique culture surrounding South Florida’s water-centered way of life, while also protecting our environment and maintaining access,” said Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL-18).

“No one cares more about Biscayne National Park than Floridians and those who utilize the park. Restricting access should be a last resort after all other alternatives have been exhausted. It is my hope that we can all work together on a plan that both protects the Park and remains accessible for the public to enjoy,” said Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (FL-21).

Share