It seems someone wanted the ability under the guise of climate control to shut down public access to government lands. This was supported by “Defenders of Wildlife and the Wilderness Society and the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council. ” They wanted the right to close down access not based by the present situation only on the threat of climate change causing disruption to nature. Another power grab defeated. I have not found the vote count at this time.
This is from the 4th of February 2014. Are they through trying this? I’ll expect it gets brought up again under another guise. As usual for the public’s good they would be restricted. No problem about restricting access during times of drought or other natural disaster but on just the possibility of an unspecified impact?
The western front of the United States Capitol. The Capitol serves as the seat of government for the United States Congress, the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government. It is located in Washington, D.C., on top of Capitol Hill at the east end of the National Mall. The building is marked by its central dome above a rotunda and two wings. It is an exemplar of the Neoclassical architecture style. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Excerpts from http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r113:3:./temp/~r113eMi9WT::
113th Congress (2013-2014)
SPORTSMEN’S HERITAGE AND RECREATIONAL ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2013 — (House of Representatives – February 04, 2014)
TITLE IX–CLIMATE CHANGE
Sportsmen are among the first to notice the effects of our changing climate as changes in seasonal distribution of game and diminished natural habitats becomes more evident. As the climate continues to change, we will experience worse drought, flood, wildfire, and extreme weather events.
For public lands and recreation there, climate change will mean changes in hunting seasons, migratory patterns, and the native and invasive species populations. We will experience sea level rise, wildfire, drought, and other manifestations of climate change. All of these are altering the landscape and changing the existing opportunities for hunting, fishing, and recreation on public lands. These should be considered. These will have a greater effect on sportsmen and on fishermen and hunters than all of the other things we have been talking about today.
More than 75 percent of the Federal lands are open now for recreational hunting, fishing and shooting, but climate change would transform irreversibly, and in fact is transforming irreversibly, our public lands in ways that will limit the ability of sportsmen to enjoy recreational activities in these areas.
So this amendment says the Department should consider those things. In fact, it is even more limited than that. It says nothing will prevent the Department from considering these things. That is what this amendment is. I would hope that the House will accept this. I have been joined by a number of members of the House Sustainable Energy Coalition in offering this amendment. It is supported by Defenders of Wildlife and the Wilderness Society and the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington
Now the gentleman is proposing that we give the Secretary another new tool to close lands, without scientific decision making, without accounting for their actions. The gentleman proposes that we simply grant the Secretary the sole authority to dictate that we close off any and all of our Nation’s lands from hunting and fishing based simply on the Secretary’s mere opinion that hunting and fishing are a threat to our Nation’s land because of climate change.
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.