Public Land Use: Hunting & Fishing or Drilling? A Look at Rep. Reed’s Voting Record

“Wildlife and wild places no longer exists by accident or without the intervention of those that truly and deeply care.”

Shane Mahoney, Conservationist.

Hunting, fishing, hiking and camping are experiences that many of us enjoy. They are often long held family traditions. They are often ways we escape the hustle-and bustle of our busy lives and relax with friends. Hunting and fishing are ways  to get healthy, great unprocessed food for our families. We understand the balancing relationship between humans and the outdoors. Hunting and fishing are win-win experiences for us, and for the ecosystem.

There is a constant battle for undeveloped land. Industry is trying to expand onto lands that have traditionally been dedicated for outdoor recreation. Conservation groups are fighting to keep as much open space available for us to use. The League of Conservation Voters keeps an eye on the conservation issues that Congress considers.  It has given Congressman Reed a 4% rating for 2013, and a 7% lifetime rating. Even though Rep. Reed professes to be a steward of the land, his actions make us question if that is the case.

As of July 21, 2014, Rep. Reed’s campaign had received $133,900 from the Oil and Gas industries.  That is higher than any other  House member from New York State.  Secondbribe on the list, Rep. Chris Gibson (NY 19), received $22,400, or 1/6 of Rep. Reed received.  The Oil/Gas Industries had donated $238,350 to 18 represents from New York State—Reed received 56%. He is seen as the Oil/Gas’s “Go-To Guy” in New York State to advance their industry. After all, he is a co-chairman of the Congressional Natural Gas Caucus.


bigflats_well_300x200_110518One way that Rep. Reed has supported the Oil/Gas Industries is to allow them to drilling on Federally owned Public Lands. Here are some of the legislation that Rep. Reed supported that does just that:

  • In 2012, Rep. Reed not only voted for, but co-sponsored, the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act. The DEJA was made up of seven related bills. The bills, in their different ways, would transfer federal lands now used for hunting, fishing and camping to lands  that private gas/oil corporations would lease for drilling, or coal industry would use for mining.   This Act was passed in the House of Representatives, but rejected in the Senate.
  • In 2012 Rep. Reed supported the “Conservation and Economic Growth Act” One bill, H.R. 1505

    “would force the American people to surrender their right to hunt, fish, and camp on public lands so that federal agents could have unprecedented new policing authority. H.R. 2578 would also give a private corporation access to clearcut prime public lands in the Tongass National Forest; allow the lethal removal of sea lions from the Columbia River without public involvement and with limited scientific review; cut sensible limits on vehicle access on the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area that are designed to protect threatened wildlife; and cut environmental protections for livestock grazing.”

  • In 2013, Rep. Reed supported the Federal Lands Jobs and  Energy Security Act, which has many of the same concepts as the failed 2012  Domestic Energy and Jobs Act. The Sportsmen for Responsible Energy Development  sent an open letter to the House Natural Resources Committee  which goes in detail about their concerns about HR 1965. Part of their letter said:

    “Our coalition supports energy development on federal lands that balances production with the conservation of fish and wildlife habitat so that our hunting and angling opportunities are sustained. H.R. 1965 would make it harder to achieve that balance by canceling the Interior Department’s 2010 leasing reforms, requiring a set percentage of nominated acres to be offered for lease regardless of potential impacts to fish and wildlife, and returning to a 2008 plan for oil shale development that fails to safeguard fish, wildlife and water resources.” This bill also was passed by the House but  only to die in the Senate.

  • In 2013, Rep. Reed voted for the “Protecting States’ Rights to Promote American Energy Security Act” which would give the states the responsibility to regulate fracking on the Federal Public Lands in their state. Please realize  that:

    “The law requires that our public lands be managed for multiple uses. The American public supports conserving the fish and wildlife on those lands and protecting air and water quality,” said Brad Powell, senior policy director of the Sportsmen’s Conservation Project at Trout Unlimited. “Proposed updates to federal fracking rules are a good step forward in sensible regulation of a practice that has changed and expanded dramatically in the past few years. The House bill blocking federal regulation would be a huge step backward.

    The National Wildlife Foundation has a well-researched article about this Act.

  • In 2014 the House Republicans proposed the  “Lowering Gasoline Prices To Fuel an American That  Works Act.” (HR 4899, Roll Call Vote #368), which again calls for the prioritizing on our public lands and waters for other activities as hiking, fishing and hunting. This bill would harm the $646 billion outdoor recreation businesses. It would provide more land off the Atlantic Ocean and California for oil drilling; risking oil spills on public lands for  profit making private companies. Rep. Reed supported this bill. The House approved of this bill, and it has been sent to the Senate.

Besides promoting drilling on public hunting lands, Rep. Reed voted to seriously reduce funding for projects designed to protect outdoor recreation. Here are some of those bills that our congressman has supported:

  • In 2011 Rep. Reed  voted for the “Sweeping Environment Funding and Policy” (HR 1, House Roll Call, vote 147) which ordered massive funding cuts in the budgets that support  and protect wildlife, and water ecosystems.
  • In 2012 Rep. Reed’s supported HR 4089 which would also weaken conservation protection  by rolling back long-standing environmental laws such as the National Environmental Policy, the Wilderness Act, and the Environmental Protection Agency.
  • In February, 2014, Reed voted to support Public Access and Land Improvement Act (HR 2954), a package of pubic land bills that promoted harmful logging that were against the conservation plans and policies of the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the US Forest Service. This bill is being considered by the Senate’s Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

Rep. Reed talks about the joys of hunting. Talk is cheap.  His voting record  tells the real story. Reed had a chance to vote on 13 bills that would have made  oil or gas drilling easier. He was absent for one vote, and voted to approve the other 12 bills. He had the opportunity to vote on Wildlife Issues 17 time. He voted for the pro-conservation opinion three times, and against it the other 14 times.

Those facts, coupled with the amount of donations from the Oil/Gas Industries, should make the voters wonder if Rep. Reed will protect outdoor recreation. I have my doubts.


* The issues the League of Conservation Voters monitor are: The Clean Air Act, Clean Energy, Clean Water, Global Warming, Holding Big Oil Accountable, Open Spaces, Toxic Chemicals, Transportation and Wildlife.

About pystew

Retired Teacher, political science geek, village trustee. I lean a little left, but like a good political discussion. My blog, the New NY 23rd (http://newny23rd) is about discussing the issues facing the people of our new congressional district. Let's hear all sides of the issues, not just what the candidates want us to hear.
This entry was posted in 2014, Congress, Constituents, Economics, Environmental, fracking, Political, Reed's Views. Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to Public Land Use: Hunting & Fishing or Drilling? A Look at Rep. Reed’s Voting Record

  1. whungerford says:

    Last February Tom Reed voted in favor of H.R. 3590, “The Sportsmen’s Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act.” This legislation is a combination of 8 bills, some of which would have a negative impact on conservation efforts. H.R. 3590 gives hunting and fishing priority over all other federal land uses. It allows the use of motorized vehicles in wilderness areas when filming is involved. It would loosen existing conservation laws if someone is hunting on federal lands. Fortunately, this is a political bill, passed with a party line vote, doomed to die in the Senate. Tom Reed poses as an outdoorsman. For one who claims to value our natural heritage, Tom is mighty careless about protecting the environment.


  2. solodm says:

    Thank you very much for your research on Reed’s votes on this crucial issue.
    It should be obvious now, that when Rep. Reed talks about how he believes in an ” all of the above ” ( wind, solar, oil and gas) approach to a US energy future, that’s all it is – talk.
    Hopefully, no matter what political philosophy one has, most all can agree that our wild areas and preserves must be protected for now, and future generations to come.


  3. BOB McGILL says:

    well is seems that somepeople don’t know a thing about wildlife and how man’s activities actually benefit wildlife. Clear cutting forests actually allow the plants that animals and birds prefer and depend on to grow. Off-shore drilling rigs attract fish like a reef. Gas drilling and the pipe line sites are where the wildlife like to hang out and provide a trail for out door activities. You are totally ignorant as how to manage land for conservation purposes. For thousands of years the Native Americans burned grass lands and cut down forests to attract wildlife.


  4. BOB McGILL says:…/did-obama-just-signal-that-he-ll-open-the- atlantic-coast-to-drilling-20140718‎Cached
    Jul 18, 2014 … Did Obama Just Signal That He’ll Open the Atlantic Coast to Drilling? … Interior is
    in the early stages of crafting its 2017-22 offshore lease sale ……obamas…on…environment/2427/‎CachedSimilar
    Jul 25, 2011 … But that’s what makes it so sad that he’s failed in the places where he … President
    Obama’s record on the environment and energy policy has …

    Bill McKibben on the failure of Obama’s energy policy : TreeHugger…policy/bill-mckibben-failure-obamas-energy-policy. html‎CachedSimilar
    Oct 30, 2013 … Yes, the Environmental Protection Agency has put in place some new power
    plant regulations, and cars are getting better mileage. But the …‎CachedSimilar
    The prominent national environmental group bases the. … setbacks largely as a
    result of Obama’s strategic missteps and his failure to fully engage on the issue.


  5. BOB McGILL says:‎CachedSimilar
    Clearcutting benefits wildlife by providing plentiful browse and cover. … Properly
    managed, other life stages of a pine plantation can be very beneficial to wildlife.


  6. BOB McGILL says:…/wildlife…/grassland…/grassland…/large-grasslands‎Cached
    Large grasslands are home to a diversity of wildlife: mammals, butterflies, and ….
    Burning is particularly beneficial on large grasslands, where burns can be …


  7. BOB McGILL says:

    Clearcuts can be very beneficial to wildlife. New openings grow very quickly into small trees and berry-and seed-producing shrubs, which provide both food and shelter for wildlife. Clearcutting increases the biological diversity of the forest, which enhances habitat for a variety of wildlife. Some species of wildlife actually thrive better in brushy thickets of seedlings and small saplings. Clearcutting is not deforestation. Clearcuts usually regenerate initially into dense thickets with thousands of tree seedlings per acre. Then they gradually thin out as the stronger trees show dominance and crowd out the weaker trees. Most of the forested hillsides that surround us in western Pennsylvania originated as clearcuts in the early part of the last century——————————‎CachedSimilar
    … lot of negative press lately regarding the practice of clearcutting. It can be a very emotional issue because of perceptions that it causes environmental damage.


  8. BOB McGILL says:


  9. pystew says:

    Bob, Where does it say that having the 24/7 noise of the Natural Gas drilling rig brings wildlife closer to the noise source? Where does it say that giving 25% of the public lands for drilling and/or coal mining is good for hunting and fishing? The off-shore drilling might attract the fish, but the spills, and there are always spills, will ruin all species. I don’t think anyone is trying to stop the Native Americans from burning grasses.

    What you are really saying is that the League of Conservation Voters and Sportsmen for Responsible Energy Development are “ignorant as how to manage land for conservation purposes”. I put much more credence in those two organization that a representative who gets $140,000 to give the profit making Oil/Gas Corporations tax breaks and free land to ruin.


  10. BOB McGILL says:‎CachedSimilar
    California’s offshore oil and gas drilling rigs are located in both state and …
    Moreover, oil rigs plainly attract and nurture a host of marine life, including some
    fish …


  11. pystew says:

    The above link doesn’t work, but this one does:
    Cherry picking partial sentences won’t help you convince many people. California’s New Rigs-To-Reefs Law received a C- grade, passing, but has a lot of room for improvement. It is an interesting concept–leaving the oil rigs in the ocean after the Oil Companies stop making a profit. Of course the oil companies “argue that offshore oil platforms foster more robust and abundant marine life populations than even natural reefs.” The conversationists are saying that there is no proof that the populations would not just be drawn from other areas.

    I know that is a California Law, but if someone added that to a House Bill, Reed would jump all over the chance to approve it, since it has dollar signs for the Industries that pay for his campaign. He would get brownie points for supporting them, and probably a better chance to be a Lobbyist when he is defeated.

    Bob, this topic must have hit a nerve since you’ve added so many comments. You are doing a good job trying to defend Reed on this issue.


  12. BOB McGILL says:

    then tell me why they are sinking old ships.


  13. BOB McGILL says:

    stick to history, YOU, the LCV, and SRED are wrong ! The noise only lasts for a few weeks and I’ll bet the wildlife even stop by to see what it’s all about.
    Ever notice a farm tractor never scares off anything ? If noise were an issue a deer would never cross a road. Did you ever think about the THRUWAY running right thru Montezuma ?
    you’re in over your head 🙂


  14. BOB McGILL says:

    stupidity always strikes a nerve, sometimes more damage is done trying to clean up something that people only think is bad for the environment. Defending Reed has nothing to do with it, some supposed environmentalists are just plain STUPID.


  15. BOB McGILL says:

    your link is to UCLA, but so is mine 🙂


  16. pystew says:

    “H.R. 2578 would also give a private corporation access to clearcut prime public lands in the Tongass National Forest;”–No one is questioning the science of clear cutting in a forest. The objection is that the decision would be made by a private corporation, whose goal is to make a profit—not to re-engerize the forest. The clear cutting is only part of the bill–it would remove sea lions from the Columbia River, have unlimited vehicle access on the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area, and cut protections for livestock grazing–and you can not convince the average American that those would be good for the sea lions, Seashore creatures, and livestock. All of that for more profits for a Corporation. Reed supported that–he voted for that–and he is telling us how much he loves and respects the outdoors. He loves and respects the money he is receiving from the CEO’s.


  17. pystew says:

    But mine works.


  18. pystew says:

    A few weeks? No fracking company is going to set up their drilling rigs for a few weeks. Talk to people in Northern PA about the noise, and it is 24/7. When they begin to frack it is scheduled for years.

    The fact that the House, controlled by the Republicans, has offered at least four times since Rep. Reed has been a member, to give public lands to corporations which would increase their profits. That takes the ‘public’ out of ‘public lands’. Then Reed the voters that he supports hunting, fishing, hiking and camping. He wants our votes, but enjoys the corporate donations. It is important that the people of the NY23rd know more than what he tells us. I know the died hard always vote republican won’t accept anything but what Reed tells them. The rest of us will look at the facts and make our minds.


  19. BOB McGILL says:

    mine does too, if you know how 🙂


  20. BOB McGILL says:

    Until this year, California had never enacted legislation to authorize a rigs-to-reefs program. A.B. 2503, signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, changed that, offering a potential path to partial removal of offshore rigs.


  21. BOB McGILL says:

    •The SLC must determine “cost savings resulting from the partial removal of an offshore oil structure compared to full removal of the structure,” and the owner or operator must pay all this money to the State before approval of partial removal.

    so how does an oil company benefit FINANCIALLY IF ANY MONEY SAVED MUST BE GIVEN TO THE STATE ?


  22. BOB McGILL says:

    In addition, under the new law:

    •All partial removal projects must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which requires agencies to evaluate all potentially significant environmental impacts of a proposed project, consider alternatives to the project, and mitigate all significant impacts to the extent feasible.
    •The SLC must determine “cost savings resulting from the partial removal of an offshore oil structure compared to full removal of the structure,” and the owner or operator must pay all this money to the State before approval of partial removal.
    •The DFG must a prepare management plan for post-partial removal.
    •The DFG must hold a public hearing and take public comment.
    •The owner or operator must to provide funds for all the State’s activities relating to the decommissioning procedure, as well as “sufficient funds for overall management of the structure by the department.”
    •The owner or operator must agree to indemnify the State against all liability claims, including “active negligence,” including costs of defending against those claims, and the indemnification may take the form of “an insurance policy, cash settlement, or other mechanism as determined by [DFG].”
    •The owner or operator retains continuing liability under any law associated with seepage or release of oil.
    •The State must take ownership of any platform in federal waters before it may be partially removed.
    ANALYSIS OF A.B. 2503


  23. Deb Meeker says:

    What is the title of the Creationist book this pathetic excuse for an argument came from?
    Bob, even my 10 year old grandson knows better than that.


  24. BOB McGILL says:…/sea-lions-or-salmon-which-protectee-to-protect.html‎Cached
    Aug 30, 2012 … Protected sea lions continue to gobble up a protected species of … lions began
    seriously depleting chinook and steelhead salmon stocks in the …


  25. BOB McGILL says:…/steller-sea-lion-delisted.html‎CachedSimilar
    Oct 24, 2013 … Looks like it’s sea lion news day here at ReWild: The National … sea lions in an
    attempt to keep them from depleting protected stocks of salmon.


  26. BOB McGILL says:…‎Cached
    Buffalo Field Campaign working to stop the slaughter of Yellowstone National …
    Domestic cattle that graze on our public lands are causing serious harm to …


  27. BOB McGILL says:‎CachedSimilar
    Nov 28, 2011 … Often, cattle are given a new area to graze… … Scientists who study soil and
    organic matter disagree, and suggest it’s likely doing more harm than good. ….. I
    think that it is premised on the idea of buffalo herds moving though …
    ” A number of bills are currently moving through Congress that hold very real threats to America’s public lands and the wildlife that live there. Domestic cattle that graze on our public lands are causing serious harm to sensitive ecosystems, and threaten wildlife and their habitat – directly and indirectly – as well as water quality. Public lands cattle grazing is one of the most destructive and heavily subsidized industries in the U.S., with taxpayers footing the bill for cattle producers to cover the land with barbed wire fences so they can infest fragile ecosystems with invasive cows that run amok, eating and trampling everything in sight. Countless wildlife species – including those protected under the Endangered Species Act – are shot, poisoned, trapped, hazed, or otherwise killed and abused to sterilize our public lands to appease cattle producers, all at U.S. taxpayer expense. The greatest cost is the harm to the land “


  28. BOB McGILL says:

    ” Bob, even my 10 year old grandson knows better than that.” MUST BE BAD GENES


  29. Anne says:

    Your stupidity certainly gets on my nerves. I’m curious from where you received your environmental science degree?


  30. Deb Meeker says:

    I’m getting the impression that you were very badly treated as a child, but you’re a supposed grown up now, Bob – so, can you leave the grade school nonsense for when you are talking to yourself, and tell us – how all your wildlife friends will like it if and when Tom Reed’s fracking policy destroys their habitat? Thanks.


  31. Pingback: NYS Primary: Candidate Information | New NY 23rd

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.