Like Causes?

Install the App
TRY NOW
Countable Is Officially Causes.com

house Bill H.R. 2075

Removing 832 Acres From a Wilderness Area in Oregon to Prevent Wildfire From Reaching an Adjacent Community

Argument in favor

This is a commonsense bill that’d allow crews to thin overstocked juniper that poses an extreme wildfire risk to the 5,500 resident community of Crooked River Ranch, Oregon by removing 832 acres from a wilderness area.

VAF's Opinion
···
07/11/2018
The government should NOT be owning land unless it has tourism value like Yosemite or the Grand Canyon. Private individuals know better how to manage the land than do bureaucrats in DC. Look at Maleure in Oregon. Good ranchers went to jail because DC in its land power grab decided to declare their prudent land management practices acts of terrorism. Thank God President Trump pardoned them.
Like (24)
Follow
Share
SneakyPete's Opinion
···
07/11/2018
H.R. 2075 (Crooked River Ranch Fire Protection Act.) I’m in support of the bill H.R. 2075 - the Crooked River Ranch Fire Protection Act — which would require the Dept. of the Interior to adjust the eastern boundary of the Deschutes Canyon-Steelhead Falls Wilderness Study Area in Oregon to exclude 832 acres specified on an April 2017 map to facilitate fire prevention on those lands. Those activities would aim to protect the adjacent 5,500 resident community of Crooked River Ranch. These lands are classified in the highest risk category for wildfire due to overstocked juniper, but mechanical thinning (ie logging) of the juniper stands is currently prohibited because of its designation as a wilderness study area. This is a commonsense bill that’d allow crews to thin overstocked juniper that poses an extreme wildfire risk to the 5,500 resident community of Crooked River Ranch, Oregon by removing 832 acres from a wilderness area. 7*11*18 ..... SEE: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr2075/text
Like (5)
Follow
Share
ProudAmerican's Opinion
···
07/12/2018
This area totals over 18,000 acres of land and this proposal wouldn’t put a dent into the protected area. However, I don’t ever like voting in favor of reducing protected lands and reserves.
Like (5)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

This bill should at least make the remaining acreage a permanent wilderness area if it’s going to permanently remove 832 acres that’s currently protected. That’d allow for wildfire prevention and keep nearby lands as wilderness.

Ben's Opinion
···
07/11/2018
Past present and future development needs to be done prioritizing a thriving natural environment, destroying forests to prevent fires is cutting off your nose to spite your face
Like (89)
Follow
Share
Sean's Opinion
···
07/11/2018
Just one more way Trump privatizes our parks for profit ! Bullshit on this . It’s not about fire It’s about money
Like (61)
Follow
Share
Etb1025's Opinion
···
07/11/2018
Thin the juniper outside the bounds of the wilderness area. It is the fault if the towns builders and those that bought homes on the border. Make better decisions. If you had planned your town better you wouldn't have to ask for this...
Like (29)
Follow
Share

bill Progress

  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
      senate Committees
      Public Lands, Forests, and Mining Subcommittee
      Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
  • The house Passed July 11th, 2018
    Passed by Voice Vote
      house Committees
      National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands
      Committee on Natural Resources
    IntroducedApril 6th, 2017
Log in or create an account to see how your Reps voted!

Bill Activity

  • action
    Introduced in House
  • referral
    Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
  • referral
    Referred to the Subcommittee on Federal Lands.
  • action
    Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
  • calendar
    Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 20 - 13.
  • action
    Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 115-281.
  • calendar
    Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 201.
  • action
    Mr. McClintock moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
  • action
    Considered under suspension of the rules.
  • action
    DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2075.
  • vote
    On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.
  • action
    Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
  • action
    The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
  • referral
    Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  • hearings
    Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining. Hearings held.
  • calendar
    Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.

bill Progress

  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
      senate Committees
      Public Lands, Forests, and Mining Subcommittee
      Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
  • The house Passed July 11th, 2018
    Passed by Voice Vote
      house Committees
      National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands
      Committee on Natural Resources
    IntroducedApril 6th, 2017
Log in or create an account to see how your Reps voted!
    VAF's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    07/11/2018
    The government should NOT be owning land unless it has tourism value like Yosemite or the Grand Canyon. Private individuals know better how to manage the land than do bureaucrats in DC. Look at Maleure in Oregon. Good ranchers went to jail because DC in its land power grab decided to declare their prudent land management practices acts of terrorism. Thank God President Trump pardoned them.
    Like (24)
    Follow
    Share
    Ben's Opinion Against
    ···
    07/11/2018
    Past present and future development needs to be done prioritizing a thriving natural environment, destroying forests to prevent fires is cutting off your nose to spite your face
    Like (89)
    Follow
    Share
    Sean's Opinion Against
    ···
    07/11/2018
    Just one more way Trump privatizes our parks for profit ! Bullshit on this . It’s not about fire It’s about money
    Like (61)
    Follow
    Share
    Etb1025's Opinion Against
    ···
    07/11/2018
    Thin the juniper outside the bounds of the wilderness area. It is the fault if the towns builders and those that bought homes on the border. Make better decisions. If you had planned your town better you wouldn't have to ask for this...
    Like (29)
    Follow
    Share
    KansasTamale's Opinion Against
    ···
    07/11/2018
    This sounds like it’s s good deal, but all it does is take our beautiful land that belongs to all the people & puts it in a situation where Trump can make money in it. The best money-making job Trump has had is the one he has now. Fleecing the taxpayers daily. A con man conning us again.
    Like (20)
    Follow
    Share
    Eli's Opinion Against
    ···
    07/11/2018
    Here are other ways to prevent wildfires besides tearing down the entire forest. You can use controlled burns, it will takes many years for the land to recover. Do not vote for this bill.
    Like (16)
    Follow
    Share
    Sandra's Opinion Against
    ···
    07/11/2018
    Wilderness areas are imperative for the good of the world. People choose to live near wilderness areas and then want to essentially destroy them? It reminds me of people who moved near an established Pig Farm (Had been there for decades) because they liked the area and then tried to have the Pig Farm ousted 'cause they didn't like the smell.
    Like (16)
    Follow
    Share
    Michael 's Opinion Against
    ···
    07/11/2018
    So we're just going to shrink protected lands every time someone builds a house outside of it? No. That's their fault. We shouldn't be developing in the immediate surroundings of protected public lands in the first place
    Like (11)
    Follow
    Share
    Danni's Opinion Against
    ···
    07/11/2018
    Opinion: Unless we plan to replenish these 800+ acres of nature somewhere else we should be leaving them be. If the neighboring community is nervous about forest fires reaching them then they can move themselves.
    Like (10)
    Follow
    Share
    ChrisMich's Opinion Against
    ···
    07/11/2018
    Perminantly protect the rest of the forest and add minimum buffer zone of residential, commercial and industrial development around federal protected lands
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    Kirsten's Public Comment
    ···
    07/12/2018
    These areas should not be razed. We must take better care of our natural world. These lands must be preserved to the best of our ability.
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    samiam6's Opinion Against
    ···
    07/11/2018
    Blatant land grab.
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    Samantha 's Opinion Against
    ···
    07/11/2018
    This truly appears to be a thinly veiled method of logging protected land. I urge you to think very carefully about your grandchildren's ability to enjoy the earth - and the survival of the planet. I understand the desire to protect housing from fire - but we have to find sustainable long term ways to coexist with the rest of the natural world. This is a short term solution at best.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    OlderNWiser's Opinion Against
    ···
    07/20/2018
    I smell a rat. Sounds lovely or an Orwellian bill to me to allow privatization of public lands and beautiful wilderness for profit of the few.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    Anna's Opinion Against
    ···
    07/11/2018
    This is a giveaway to the lumber industry. This land is protected for a reason. Stop allowing big business to destroy the environment just to be able to make a bigger profit. It’s possible to have healthy businesses and a healthy economy without killing our planet. Support the economy and our planet, so we have a world worth living in to pass on to our kids.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    SneakyPete's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    07/11/2018
    H.R. 2075 (Crooked River Ranch Fire Protection Act.) I’m in support of the bill H.R. 2075 - the Crooked River Ranch Fire Protection Act — which would require the Dept. of the Interior to adjust the eastern boundary of the Deschutes Canyon-Steelhead Falls Wilderness Study Area in Oregon to exclude 832 acres specified on an April 2017 map to facilitate fire prevention on those lands. Those activities would aim to protect the adjacent 5,500 resident community of Crooked River Ranch. These lands are classified in the highest risk category for wildfire due to overstocked juniper, but mechanical thinning (ie logging) of the juniper stands is currently prohibited because of its designation as a wilderness study area. This is a commonsense bill that’d allow crews to thin overstocked juniper that poses an extreme wildfire risk to the 5,500 resident community of Crooked River Ranch, Oregon by removing 832 acres from a wilderness area. 7*11*18 ..... SEE: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr2075/text
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    Terri's Opinion Against
    ···
    07/11/2018
    I don’t believe this has anything to do with fires, who can believe anything anymore! If this gets passed, watch and see how long it takes to get developed by someone who knows someone in the cabinet. Leave are land alone!
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    Bettina's Opinion Against
    ···
    07/11/2018
    What BS. Trump just wants to opedn up more land for oil and gas.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    ProudAmerican's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    07/12/2018
    This area totals over 18,000 acres of land and this proposal wouldn’t put a dent into the protected area. However, I don’t ever like voting in favor of reducing protected lands and reserves.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    Lynnie's Opinion Against
    ···
    07/11/2018
    Removing acreage for this stated purpose puts us on a slippery slope. Remove this, next remove some more, then more, more, more...til it is gone. No, if the residential area need protection from wildfire, maintain the conserved land and clear dead underbrush, especially on the periphery.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE