Governor Noem to Testify on Capitol Hill
PIERRE, S.D. – Governor Noem will testify before the United States House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources on Thursday, June 15, in favor of HR 3397. This bill would require the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to abandon the proposed rule on “Conservation and Landscape Health.”
“Washington bureaucrats don’t know how to manage land better than the South Dakotans who have been stewarding it for centuries. But Joe Biden’s Administration is pursuing a regulatory land grab,” said Governor Kristi Noem. “Their proposed rule will result in poorly managed federal lands, which will devastate conservation and management efforts, harm our wildlife, slow economic growth, and endanger public safety.”
The Bureau of Land Management’s proposed rule elevates conservation practices as a “use” within the Federal Land Policy and Management Act multiple-use framework without Congressional authority. BLM intends to pursue this through so-called conservation leases for both protection and restoration activities. This proposed rule would fundamentally change the way multiple use and sustained yield mandates are carried out.
Governor Mark Gordon of Wyoming will also be testifying. Governor Noem has previously worked with Governor Gordon on several issues pertaining to land management, such as the Biden Administration’s overregulation of the Black Hills timber industry.
The Biden Administration could use this proposed rule change to determine currently permitted activities on BLM lands are incompatible with a conservation lease or areas identified as “intact landscapes.” This could include loss of grazing, energy production, and recreation – all of which are essential to the South Dakota way of life.
HR 3397 was introduced by Congressmen John Curtis (R-UT), Dan Newhouse (R-WA), and Russ Fulcher (R-ID).
###
So we should trust Kristi and her farmyard logic of killing all the skunks to make the pheasants come back, rather than the scientists who are associated with the federal government? Judging by the quantity of wild pheasants, I think I’ll stick with the scientists.
If the goal of “land management” was to make donors more money, then I would 100% support Kristi, but the federal land, which is all of ours, isn’t for just a few donors. I really hope she can show evidence of “devastate conservation and management efforts, harm our wildlife, slow economic growth, and endanger public safety”, if not this is just political jargon and will hopefully be dismissed.
Unfortunately a significant portion of the party has fallen under the belief that science is somehow liberal, and that we need to stick it to the live, even if it means the environment suffers.
The left claims to have a corner on the science market, yet they cannot tell us (scientifically) when life begins or how many (scientific) genders there are.
Or define what a woman is.
I am not a scientist, but can explain their logic. Life begins when the scientific principles (seven) have been met. These consistent principles are applied to all scenarios within the scientific process. These principles were also cited in PP v. Casey, and Roe, both went to viability, somewhere around 20 weeks of life, which is when “life” starts if you follow the scientific process. As for gender, it has turned more into a cultural term, scientifically, the female term is used for half of the breeding equation (pretty simple). If you want to convolute it, you start adding in the cultural perception. In that case the logic is you shouldn’t need a “this-or-that” scenario, the new generational standard is why do you have to pick? Look back at the homosexuality terminology of the generation past, it was “if you do a, you are b”, the new generation is saying it doesn’t matter what you do, you don’t have to conform to the old societal norms, these are the new ones, you can pick a or b, and nobody else can pick for you. The old people hate change, they want to be in control, and that is why you are mad…..
She’ll never pass up a chance to find a problem for her solutions. Especially odd since South Dakota has a fraction of the BLM acres other western states do.
I don’t want to get too deep into this argument, but I was brought up to believe that promoting conservation practices, by applying government resources and scientific research, brought about sound practices of grazing and soil conservation which has preserved our farm and pasture land for future generations and prevented dust bowl type disasters from recurring. I’m satisfied that the Government, through ASCS and research conducted at land grant Universities, has been successful.
In three years we will have an opportunity to elect an adult for governor. Until then we will just have to humor her.
OK Pain in the Aitch… Your burgers are burning, better go back to your grill station.
given that poor forestry management in Canada has created air pollution problems in the US this past week, giving more power to a regulatory agency in Washington seems like asking for trouble. In the past they have attempted to regulate dust, and the idea of dust being regulated by people who don’t live on gravel roads is funny, & then the WOTUS business about including ditches and puddles as navigable waters is equally ridiculous. You can tell the people who come up with this stuff have never stepped off pavement.
I wouldn’t trust anybody with clean fingernails to manage land use.
Good thing then the Dept of Interior had hundreds of scientists that do fieldwork, gather data, and then are the ones making recommendations. Plenty of dirty fingernails to appease you.
So when you tile-drain the wetland in the field to a ditch, then the ditch flows to the river, and floods a neighbor, it isn’t connected to the waterway of the US? South Dakotan’s have yet to accept that draining wetlands is causing issues for the state. The claim that the lakes in the northeast have expanded due to “extra rainfall” even though we were in a drought last year, but it is NOT “climate change” is such a fallacy. The water has to go somewhere, just because you can drain it to the ditch and it is out of your sight, doesn’t mean it is out of mind for many other people and their property. How many farmsteads need to go underwater before we accept this?
I wonder if she will swing by the NRA office while she’s in town.