[pct-l] This is CRITICAL!! Please excuse the pol post...but easy to do!

[carlito at gmail.com (Carl Siechert)]

Good question Dude! I wondered the same thing. But yes, this thing is
still kicking, albeit with changes from last year. The Senate is
supposed to act on it no later than Monday, November 22, 2004. Here
are excerpts from articles that appeared about two months ago, when
the bill passed committee.

>From an editorial in the Ventura County Star, September 26, 2004:
"The law that allows the fees to be collected will expire Dec. 31,
2005, unless Congress reauthorizes it, which it appears to be itching
to do. Last week, the House Resources Committee voted to extend the
fees for 10 years."

>From an article on Bend.com, September 22, 2004:
"...support of H.R. 3283, sponsored by Rep. Ralph Regula, R-Ohio. H.R.
3283, The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, creates a two-tier
system for recreation fees on sites with amenities, but establishes
that no fees are to be charged for basic use (including, but not
limited to, parking, picnicking, general access, camping, hunting or
fishing) on undeveloped areas that have little or no investment in
amenities and maintenance."

And finally, check out the Library of Congress page on the bill's
status. I don't pretend to understand what this stuff means, but it
was being discussed in Congress last night, when it was granted "an
extension for further consideration ending not later than Nov. 22,
2004."
<http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR03283:@@@X>


On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 22:01:42 +0000 (UTC), dude <dude@fastmail.ca> wrote:
> I am sorry to be such a stickler about this, but is there someplace
> that is more current.  That page is dated 10/2003.  I am more than
> willing to do my part, but part of the problem that environmental
> groups have is not being organized.  Sending emails or letters to
> congressmen about the wrong bill number and soforth will work against
> our effort.  Are we sure that the bill number referenced on that page
> is the correct one?  ...and does the bill still have the same language
> in it that was of concern 1 year ago?