Reponse from my elected officials

[beginnerhunter]

Topic gets beat like a dead horse around here but I thought I'd share what I learned.

I didn't realize that when you "sign the petition" on sportsmen's access, it actually emails your representatives, lol. Well, I got a couple of responses. Senator Boozman's office sent me an email saying they would respond but haven't gotten anything yet. Here are the two I have. I edited out some unimportant parts:

Tom Cotton, (R) Senate:
"As you know, Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) introduced Senate Amendment 838 to the Senate Budget Resolution (S.Con.Res. 11). This amendment would establish a spending-neutral reserve fund relating to the disposal of certain Federal land. I supported this amendment, which was agreed to by a vote of 51-49.

Despite claims to the contrary, this amendment does not sell any federal land. Should the administration desire to sell federal lands in the future, any such sale would be required to go through the traditional legislative process and be signed into law. In addition, any land within a national park, or within a national preserve or national monument will not be eligible for sale.

As you know, hunting, fishing, and the sportsman way of life are central to Arkansas's identity. I grew up on a farm and spent my childhood hunting and fishing with my dad. When I'm at home in Dardanelle, I often go for runs on Mt. Nebo, one of Arkansas's many state parks. As a Senator representing the Natural State, I believe the conservation of our public land is important for the recreational activities of Arkansans."

So he doesn't believe the Budget Resolution would lead to the selling of land, or he is being opaque. Like most easterners, he links hunting to private property.

French Hill, (R) House:
"I understand your concerns regarding the transfer of public lands from Federal management to the states, and I am committed to preserving our Nation's parks and public lands for future generations. Recently, some western state legislatures have put forward proposals to transfer ownership and management of public lands in the state from the federal government to the state. Further, the House Committee on Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT) expressed his support for conveying federal lands to state, local, and tribal governments to help resolve budget difficulties.

I believe we must ensure proper and effective management of our public lands. Last year, with bipartisan support, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) contained important provisions to improve the federal management of U.S. public lands and natural resources, provide job opportunities, and community development while protecting our Nation's treasured areas.

I understand the importance of our public lands in the United States, and will keep in mind your concerns as Congress continues to address this issue."

I'm sure you guys know more about the NDAA than I do. Supposedly, any land that is sold must also be offset by the acquisition of other land by the federal government.

Both of them give tacit support for public land preservation. French Hill brings up some of the western legislators but doesn't really say whether or not he supports their efforts so idk. Both are pretty noncommittal.

 

[Dave N]

Despite claims to the contrary, this amendment does not sell any federal land. Should the administration desire to sell federal lands in the future, any such sale would be required to go through the traditional legislative process and be signed into law. In addition, any land within a national park, or within a national preserve or national monument will not be eligible for sale.

OK, might mean nothing, but would selling be the same as transferring to the individual states? By giving the land to the states they would avoid the not selling part of the amendment. Lawyers can double-talk things around almost any roadblock.

 

[quarterhorse]

Very similar to responses I have gotten from mine. A nice pat on the head and then some support about their position. At least you spoke your opinion and enough others do they may get the point. Getting the federal land into state lands is not the end game here it's just the first step. States can sell the land much easier than the Feds and have proven that they will.

 

[hank4elk]

At least you got some response.
I usually get the semi-agreement with my position,the pat on the head,then the reason the politco will do the exact opposite of what I am for........or what they should stand for. The people.

Funny most legislators complain about regulations & costs/fees/budgets, but they are the ones that legistate them. And or forget the reason for said legislation.

 

[beginnerhunter]

Here is an update since I just got a response from Senator Boozman (R), Senate:

"Thank you for contacting me to share your support for America's public lands. It is good to hear from you.

Like you, I believe our natural resources and treasures should be protected in a responsible and sustainable manner. These resources provide opportunities for recreation, preserve many wildlife species, and support local economies. As an avid outdoorsman, I know how important it is to preserve our public lands and we should continue to encourage public access and enjoyment now and in the future. Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have supported many conservation programs and believe we should always seek a balanced approached to land management. Please be assured that I value your thoughts on this matter and will keep them in mind should legislation affecting our public lands and resources come before the U.S. Senate.

Again, thank you for contacting me to share your views. Please visit www.boozman.senate.gov to sign up for my e-newsletter, request assistance with a federal agency, or learn more about my efforts on behalf of the people of Arkansas. I look forward to hearing from you in the future.

Sincerely,

John Boozman
U.S. Senator"