now proposing "reform" legislation that would, in effect, gut the LWCF, the group said.

Which is an absolute lie?  It would have no such effect.  The vast majority of the funds would continue to go toward the original targets of LWCF. 

Sorry. ec, any reeform authored by Bishop would gut the act.  He's famous for that.

Good.

It's nice to see that there are still some in America who are able to see things that have values that simply cannot be measured in dollars and cents.  And some who can see beyond the propaganda and lies of those who worship money.

Rick - perhaps you should read the reform.  Please tell me what provision "guts" the LWCF.  It really hurts your credibility when you object solely on the basis of the author.  

From today's Deseret News -- Utah's conservative newspaper.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865641355/Rep-Rob-Bishop-says-attack-...

And not a piece of evidence Bishops proposals will "gut" anything, except perhaps the attempts of those that are trying to game the system.  

Who's trying to game the system, EC? Does the congressman have proof? At least his own explanation of his bill shows what he's trying to do and provides the paper trail.

He would divert at least 20 percent to the oil industry for exploration, innovation, and yes, education (jobs for the oil industry, not the conservation industry). So will it be 20, or 25, or 50 percent? Hard to say at this point.

In essence, he's stacking the board against the original intent of the legislation by ensuring more would go towards the energy industry (at least 20 percent) and PILT payments ("not less than" 15 percent), while holding down conservation payments:

* "not more than 3.5 percent" for deferred maintenance/operation and cleanup needs on federal lands;

* "not more than 3.5 percent" for federal land and water acquisitions;

* "not more than 3.5 percent" for the Forest Legacy Program;

* "not more than 3.5 percent" for the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund, which provides grants to states "and territories to participate in a wide array of voluntary conservation projects for candidate, proposed, and listed species."

"Not more than" doesn't guarantee those programs would get anything, while "not less than" leaves the door open for a whole lot more than what he's suggesting.

Look closely at the above chart. Rep. Bishop creates at least two new funding streams that weren't coming out of LWCF in the past: The funds for the oil industry and the PILT payments. Combined, they would take at least 35 percent of the $900 million, or roughly a third. And if those in charge of managing his preferred LWCF decided those two aspects should get more dollars, which programs would suffer?

The conservation programs.

And Bishop's bill doesn't provide mandatory funding of LWCF. This from the National Recreation and Park Association:

The bill would reauthorize LWCF for seven years and does NOT include any mandatory funding. So, each program would continue to be subject to the whims of the annual appropriations process in Congress.

To be clear, NRPA is very pleased with the treatment of state assistance and urban community parks in Chairman Bishop's draft bill and that he recognizes that additional resources should be going to support conservation and recreation in and near the communities where 80 percent of Americans now reside.
However, we are deeply concerned to see additional programs included, which are not consistent with the stated purposes of the original act -- conservation and recreation. Our concern isn't with the objectives – we understand the importance of PILT, in particular – but they shouldn't be taking up a full third of the limited funding which is annually available to the LWCF to address them.