Thursday, June 17, 2004
Contact Brian Kennedy or Matt Streit at (202) 226-9019

Victory Today for Recreation and Access
House Defeats Amendment Banning Snowmobiles

Washington, DC - Today the House of Representatives voted to defeat an amendment to the Interior Appropriations bill that would have banned snowmobile use in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks.

"Common sense and balance between preservation and access won the day," said Chairman of the Resources Committee Richard W. Pombo (R-CA). "This was an arbitrary, extreme, and unnecessary proposal that would have locked the public out of these parks and devastated local economies."

President Roosevelt eloquently stated the intent of the park when he dedicated the arch to the north entrance by saying, "This Park was created and is now administered for the benefit and enjoyment of the people...it is the property of Uncle Sam and therefore of us all."

"Many of the radical environmentalists pushing for this ban want to put the parks in a museum where we can only view them through a glass wall," said Rep. Barbara Cubin (R-WY). "People in Wyoming know better. Those parks are there for all of us to enjoy, and they provide a living for thousands of people. This ban was a bad idea the first time it came up, it's a bad idea now, and I'm proud that I was able to help fight it off for another year."

Each winter roughly 65,000 snowmobiles enter Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks for recreation. In fact, 90 percent of Yellowstone's winter visitors choose to travel by snowmobile. Accordingly, much of local economies in Montana and Wyoming depend on winter snowmobile recreation. The Wyoming Department of State Parks and Cultural Resources has stated that banning snowmobiles from the parks would cost approximately $11.8 million in lost labor income a year and would cost Wyoming 938 jobs.

For Wyoming, a state with less than 500,000 people (2000, U.S. Census Bureau), the loss of 938 jobs has a tremendous impact on the economy. To put that in perspective, these net job losses in Wyoming are equivalent to 67,743 lost jobs in California, 37, 952 lost jobs in New York, and 12,698 lost jobs in Massachusetts.

New generation snowmobiles emit 90 percent fewer hydrocarbons, 70 percent less carbon monoxide and are 50 percent quieter than older, two-stroke snowmobiles.

PRESS RELEASE

June 17, 2004
Contact: John Stewart
Director of Environmental Affairs
United Four Wheel Drive Associations
619-390-8747 or E-mail: landuse@ufwda.org

######

RECREATION GAINS IN BUDGET BATTLE

The annual budget battles are heating up in the halls of Congress.
The Fiscal Year 2005 Appropriations Bill for the Department of
Interior has been a hotly contested issue during the week. Over a
dozen amendments were offered; some accepted and some rejected.
Three amendments had a major impact on recreation and access to
public lands.

One amendment, submitted by Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA-52),
concerned an amendment to prohibit the use of funds in the bill for
salaries and expenses of any employee for the expenditure of user
fees for the costs, in whole or in part of the biological monitoring
of a species on the endangered list.

This amendment is the result of a monitoring program for the
contested Peirson's Milk Vetch (PMV) in the Imperial Sand Dunes
Recreation Area of southern California. Bureau of Land Management
officials entered into a massive monitoring study of the PMV funded
by almost $800,000 of user fees paid by recreationists. The
amendment was accepted by a voice vote. This action affirms
recreation advocates position that the original intent of the Fee
Demo program was to enhance the recreation experience: not to spend
user fees for environmental studies.

For recreationists, this is the culmination of three years of effort
including numerous trips to Washington, DC by recreation advocates.
The Off-Road Business Association (ORBA), a non-profit trade
association, has organized those trips bringing a variety of
recreation advocates together to lobby elected representatives for
sensible recreation regulations.

In other action, the ban on snowmobiles in Yellowstone and Grand
Teton National Parks and an amendment to prohibit the use of funds to
finalize or implement proposed revisions to Forest Service rules
relating to National Forest System Planning for Land and Resource
Management Plans were defeated.

These actions are viewed as a positive step for recreation and access
to public lands. The efforts of ORBA and other recreation advocates
are credited with raising the awareness of the issues with the
elected representatives.

ORBA, California Off Highway Vehicle Association (CORVA), California
Association of 4 Wheel Drive Clubs (CA4WDC), American Sand
Association (ASA) and San Diego Off Road Coalition recently joined to
retain a Washington, DC based lobbyist. They join BlueRibbon
Coalition (BRC), International Snowmobile Manufacturing Association
(ISMA), and American Motorcycle Association (AMA) with Washington
lobbyists supporting multiple use recreation.

######

Here is the testimony on the Hunter amendment (I bolded the areas that will put the Pastor into action ):

Here's the link to the testimony... scroll down a little to find it.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r108...80Fbjjh:e18711:

FU*K .... that is going to SUCK ....

hopefully they will atleast LOWER the FEE to something more realistic ...

maybe $5 a day or $35 a season ....

especially since there is very, very limited services out there ....

two sentences is Hunters testimony concern me.

Your right, I forgot to highlite it... Here it is again.

Peronally I don't think it should prevent them from using demo fee money on vehicles. As long as those vehicles are used to improve visitor experience as the fees were originally ment to.

To me having more Search and Rescue vehicles falls under improving the visitor experience and for that I'd much rather see them get a purpose built buggy than a modifed truck. It's the right tool for the job.

But I do see this putting a stop to the things that everyone has agreed need to stop, like paying for uniforms, paying for congressionally mandated monitoring, basically paying for things that should already be funded by the federal government to meet the basic needs of running a recreation area.

It's not a 100% solution to all of the problems. We still need congress to step up and hold the BLM accountable for their spending and we still need congress to stop up and fund the BLM to a point that lets them do everything congress has tasked them with.

But it is most definately a big step in the right direction and I think it's about time we found some good news to celebrate instead of doom and gloom.

Tom I think you're not reading it clearly at all. I'm not a lawyer and neither are you, and english is a confusing language.

But this is pretty cut and dry stuff that does say what you're saying it dosn't say so I have to assume you're just not reading it very carefully.

As for the buggy - well yeah....they can't exactly make this retroactive can they? That's one of the big reasons this got put in because they did that. It certinally raised a few eyebrows and got some people talking to some people in washington and as a result congress is now telling the BLM "No, you can't do that kind of thing".

Why would an ammendment added last week to a bill that isn't even law yet stop the BLM from doing something last year?

But because the BLM did that last year and it was picked up on by a number of people fighting to stop this kind of abuse it was brought to the attention of the right people and congress is now working to prevent it from happening again.

This is a heck of a lot clearer than most legaleeze I've seen - it says they can't spend money on this kind of stuff anymore and lays it out pretty cut and dry. Why you can't see that I can't begin to figure out. I'd suggest taking a few deep breaths and reading it though again nice and slow.

Jason, perhaps your right. And perhaps you could help me. Im open.

Tom it's not something that you can break down and still get the same meaning out of, nor can you just replace words with similar (but slightly differnet in menaing) words and get the correct meaning.

And if you think English is an easy language you really need to get out more, it's one of the most confusing languages in the world and very easy to misunderstand if you don't know all the subultities of different usages.

I'm not going to go in circles with you and I'm not going to get into a discussion of language and with you. I've said my peace and you've said yours. We both read this differently and let's leave it at that. What really matters is how the lawyers read it, you can talk to lawyers you know and I'll talk to those I know if we really want to know the full impact of this.

I honestly see no benefit in wasting any more time trying to have a respectful discussion with you so I'll stop here before things get nasty.

Tom-
It says the "cost" of monitoring, in whole or in part, can NOT be paid for by these fees. The cost therefore of a buggy purchased for monitoring purposes could not be done with fee demo money. The cost of a subcontractor to do monitoring could not be done with fee demo money. Any thing that is done for the purpose of monitoring a species that is on, or being considered for, the Endangered Species list is not to be paid for, in whole or in part, by fee demo money.

Qoute:
Sec. . NONE of the funds provided under this Act may be used for the salaries and expenses of any employee for the expenditure of any fee collected under Section 3
15(f) of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996 (as contained in Section 101(c ) of Public Law 104-134) for the costs, in whole or in part, of the biological monitoring for a species that is included in a list published under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(c )), or that is a candidate for inclusion in such a list.

We talked about this quite a bit this weekend.

We are, of course, the bad guys again because we see something we don't understand and we're questioning it. That's okay... as long as we get an answer, fire away

The speeches and the testimony were great (well, except that part about working to make the fee demo permanent) but I've worked around lawyers all of my workig life and I know that saying one thing verbally doesn't mean jack unless when it translates to the written word it says the same thing.

What we are celebrating is an appropriations amendment that is heading for senate vote, which will keep fee demo money from being used for species monitoring. But it doesn't seem that's what the amendment clearly states. I wish to heck it did, but I'm struggling with it.

My "take" on this is, since this is an appropriations bill, it can only dictate how appropriations dollars are spent. If that's the case, since fee demo money is not the same as appropation dollars, it simply cannot dictate or even limit how fee demo dollars are spent.

As such, what I believe "salaries and expenses of any employee for the expenditure of any fee collected" means is that, appropriated dollars cannot be used to pay the salary or expenses of the land management employee who is using fee demo money for species monitoring.

It is definitely limiting but is no where near eliminating the use of fee demo money for species monitoring.

We applaud the limit and we certainly applaud [most of] the testimony that was given to support it. But we want to be certain we are seeing as it truly is and not as we wish it to be. That way there are no nasty surprises if it's not as rosey as we hope.

As Tom said, we are researching this further and will hopefully have a definitive answer very soon.

Vicki

Ugh...I don't think anyone is seeing this as a way to "attack" someone who isn't seeing the same thing, maybe it is those of us who are reading it as a "good" thing that are misunderstanding here

I have one question-does anyone know what this "Section 3
15(f) of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996 (as contained in Section 101(c ) of Public Law 104-134) " act actually is or where I can read it?

Julie, I was referring mostly to Jason's threat of turning nasty

I'll try to locate that code for you...

Vicki

I would appreciate it-I "assumed" it was referring to demo fee, but if not it would put a whole different spin on things

Thanks Jason. Hopefully someone else can find that line for me. It must be hidden in there somewhere.

Perhaps Bukithed knows where it is. So I'll ask, where does it say no fee money will be used for salaries, expenses, equipment, maintainence, subcontractors...
Just highlite that for me, please.

This is a one sentence amendment that discusses employee salaries. One sentence. Thats it. In that one sentence, equipment is never mentioned. In that one sentence, the ONLY thing mentioned is the salary and expense of an employee, and where that employees salary or expenses cannot come from.
Now if there was a second sentence that said none of the cost realted to the monitoring, that would be a different story. Unfortunatly, a new buggy is not an employee expense. A subcontractor is not an employee expense.



Nobody should be misunderstanding my point here. Im not saying Im opposed to the amendment. I fully understand what everyone wants ity to say. I know what the intent was supossed to be. I know what you believe it to say. My point is only that it is mis-worded, and leaves loopholes that any decent attorney (government official, green land grabbing politician...) will jump thru.
I think perhaps people are so bound up in what they want it to sat that they are not breaking it down word for word
But you better believe when the government wants to spend our money on monitoring, they will break this one sentance down word for word.

Huh? That is exactly what it does say It is in the sentence that I (sorry, hubby was logged in) highlighted above.

Quote:
Sec. . None of the funds provided under this Act may be used for the salaries and expenses of any employee for the expenditure of any fee collected under Section 315(f) of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996 (as contained in Section 101(c ) of Public Law 104-134) for the costs, in whole or in part, of the biological monitoring for a species that is included in a list published under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(c )), or that is a candidate for inclusion in such a list.

None "limits" it to zero. For the costs, in whole or part means ANY cost associated with doing the monitoring. If they had to spend money to hire a subcontractor, that would be a "cost" and would be limited to zero dollars of fee demo money. If they had to spend money on a truck, rail, etc., that would be a "cost" and would be limited to zero dollars of fee demo money. I'm not sure how you are seeing it as being only limiting towards paying employees salaries?

Maybe try it this way-IF the Act IS Demo fee, take out the wording about the Act and insert "Demo Fee", i.e:

None of the funds provided under this Act may be used for the salaries and expenses of any employee for the expenditure of any fee collected under "DEMO FEE" for the costs, in whole or in part, of the biological monitoring for a species that is included in a list published under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(c )), or that is a candidate for inclusion in such a list.

Now, again, that is "assuming" that is what the act is-which like I said above was my original belief and that Vicki concurs above. Just to be on the safe side though, like I said before, if the Act does not pertain to DF it would put a different spin on things.

Okay, calls have been made so hopefully we'll get a definitive answer soon.

To clarify one thing in the meantime, in Hunter's amendment where it reads "Sec. . None of the funds provided under this Act may be used…" he is referring to the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005.

Here is a more complete section of the transcript from Hunter's proposed amendment:

Julie, I understand that the sentance starts with "none of the funds."
But it says "none of the funds can be used for salaries or expenses of an employee..."

Thats were the problem is. In the wording of the sentence, the inability to use funds is limited to employee salaries and expenses for the expenditure (expending, spending)of fees collected.

I don't think you are trying to be difficult Tom-just as I'm not trying to be either. I'm seeing it as the whole sentence, which includes "for the costs, in whole or in part" which expands on the beginning of the sentence and I read as including ANY costs, you see it as only limiting them from spending the money on employees salaries and expenses.
I will say, from reading all of the testimony, it is definitely Hunter's "idea" that none of the costs be paid for in any way from Demo Fee-including buggies or any other equipment neccessary to do the monitoring. Hopefully we will find that the translation into the amendment itself backs that up.
One other thing I have seen before-mistakes in transcripts and public records. A comma or even the addition or deletion of one letter can make a big difference.

One thing to consider when reading legislation...what generally bites you in the a$$ is what the bill DOESN'T say. Anything left to interpretation is always exploited by someone.

Julie, Thanks fro not thinking Im being difficult. Heck, Im not even trying to be aruementitive.

I undrstand how you are reading it. I think what most people are doing is breaking down one sentence into two statments, On ebeing about salaries, the other being costs. Now if Hunter would have added one little word, that would have made more sence. Let me show you

None of the funds provided under this Act may be used for the salaries and expenses of any employee for the expenditure of any fee collected under "DEMO FEE" or for the costs, in whole or in part, of the biological monitoring for a species that is included in a list published under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(c )), or that is a candidate for inclusion in such a list.


One little word would change the complection of the whole sentence

Ok, I said I was going to stay out of this but I have to point this out.

Tom what you're saying Julie is doing is exactly what I feel you're doing - and your breakdown analysis seems to confim this. You're not reading it as a single statement you're only reading the first half and then basically ignoring the second entirely.

That was precisely why I stopped debating this in the first place, you kept breaking this single statement down into several parts creating confusing and misunderstading (whether intentially or not that was the result of your misreading, at least as you describe it.)

Adding an or like you suggest would have the exact opposite effect of what you want, it's a logic mistake you're making. An AND would would have the results you're requesting but the wording of the statement when taken as a whole already does that and the extra AND is unnecessray. An OR as you suggest would create exactly the loophole you claim it would close.

Lots of people get OR and AND confused when they're constructing logical statements, it's a common problem. (And one I have to deal with all the time when building search functions which is why they normally get hidden behind check boxes for "expand results" vs. "contract results" instead to prevent allowing people to make that mistake.)

Jason, Accualy you are right, as used, OR is not the best word.

What it should say is the money cant be used for salaries, expenses OR costs for monitoring.

Or somthing like this...

I was curious about why this particular word was used,so I looked it up to be sure it meant what I though it meant. It did.

"expenditure" means "disbursement" which means "funds paid out"

One more thing...

I have read and re-read this quote...and without inserting the "or used" as Tom has suggested, or something to that effect, the wording of that section is not correct.

Yikes! I was trying to post Hunter's press release, had some trouble so I deleted the post and the next thing I knew I had deleted two posts (at least).

So, if anyone is missing a post after Frankie's here, my heartfelt apologies and please post it again

Vicki