South Carolina Notice Of Lease For Recording: Fill & Download for Free

Thanks for the A2A.Be warned: I read this as you asking an expert in accident investigation for an analysis, so I'm going to get into eye-glazing detail accompanied by a certain amount of conjecture. If you're idly curious, the first few paragraphs below should do you fine. On the other hand, if you really want to understand what's known to have happened and what might have led to what was officially determined, I'm here to help. Get comfortable.Wikipedia and other popular sites often seem like good places to start to answer questions like this, but in my specialty I prefer to go to the source. In this case, it's the National Transportation Safety Board's investigation report AAR 78-06, which you can download in its entirety at NTSB Aircraft Accident Reports (AAR).The crash itself took place on October 20, 1977. The type of aircraft involved in the accident was a chartered, 30 year-old Convair 240, owned and operated by L & J Company. Of the 26 crew and passengers aboard, both pilots and four passengers were killed, and the 20 survivors all were injured to varying degrees. The aircraft itself was chock-full of people -- it was configured for 24 passengers, and that's what it was carrying. (The original airliner's cabin was designed to carry up to 40 passengers, but this charter aircraft was equipped with tables and couches that cut into that number pretty significantly.)As far as what caused the crash itself, the investigators concluded the following:"The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was fuel exhaustion and total loss of power from both engines due to crew inattention to fuel supply. Contributing to the fuel exhaustion were inadequate flight planning and an engine malfunction of undetermined nature in the right engine which resulted in higher-than-normal fuel consumption."In the body of the report, the NTSB clarified that the engine malfunction itself most likely wasn't that big a deal: "Although examination of the engine and its components did not identify the exact discrepancy. the Safety Board believes that the discrepancy was of a general nature, such as an ignition or induction problem, and was not a major mechanical failure." So, bottom line: the plane ran out of gas and crashed.Okay -- those are the unvarnished, bare-bones words from those responsible for making the determination. The fact that there wasn't much, if any fuel aboard is evident from the lack of a post-crash fire. Before the crash, the crew called air traffic controllers to request a divert to a nearby airport, stating they were "low on fuel." The fact that a pretty big aircraft balled up while attempting a forced landing at twilight isn't all that surprising.Perhaps a little more thinking and digging might be in order, first to zero in a little more on the "why," and then perhaps to a certain extent to consider the "WTF" of how the crew got themselves in this situation in the first place.A number of years ago, once I started getting interested in aviation safety in an organized way rather than just as a matter of self-preservation, it started becoming pretty obvious to me that a lot of popular entertainers, illustrious sports figures, powerful politicians and other celebrities have died in plane crashes over time.Consider: High-profile performers like Patsy Cline, Richie Valens, Buddy Holly and Jiles Richardson (the "Big Bopper"), Jim Croce, Ricky Nelson, Aaliyah, Ronnie Van Zant and Steve Gaines, Audie Murphy, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Jenni Rivera, Soundarya, and most of Reba McEntire's band all died in non-scheduled aircraft crashes. Whole sports teams and NASCAR crews have been decimated in such events, as well as individual standouts like Roberto Clemente. Hale Boggs, Nick Begich, Mickey Leland and Ted Stevens -- all current or retired members of Congress -- died under similar circumstances, as did sitting Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown (in a dedicated VIP airlift aircraft).(If you'd like to see a much longer and more depressing set of lists of this type, check out Wikipedia's List of fatalities from aviation accidents and "Plane Crash Info" (Image)).Aircraft accidents were hardly unusual events during the first half of what has come to be referred to as "The Century of Flight" -- the 100 years starting with the Wright Brothers' first flight in December of 1903. However, it's somewhat astonishing to note how often luminaries like those on the list above died in non-scheduled operations that they themselves were not flying.Keep this observation in mind as you read on. I personally think there's a common thread among them that might apply to the accident asked about in this question as well. I'll come back to it presently.Okay. Having offered up the above framing thoughts regarding aviation-related death among the influential, let's get into the specifics of the Lynyrd Skynyrd accident itself.The aircraft involved was refueled two days before the accident, upon its arrival at Greenville SC, with 400 gallons of the appropriate type of fuel. There's no record as to how much was aboard when they filled up that I can find; the NTSB investigators did their best to make such a calculation, to no avail. However, according to their report, "Normal average fuel consumption for the Convair 240 aircraft powered with the Pratt and Whitney R2800CB-16 engine is about 183 gallons per hour." That's a useful data point in and of itself.When the crew filed their flight plan on the day of the accident, they planned for 2 hours and 45 minutes of flight (2+45) to travel the roughly 550-600 nautical miles between Greenville and Baton Rouge, with five hours of fuel aboard (5+00). (Their route of flight works out to roughly 580 nautical miles from takeoff to landing.)Five hours of fuel at the standard burn rate listed above works out to perhaps 1,000 gallons of gas aboard (the NTSB report suggested 900), and a flight of less than three hours should have used perhaps 600 gallons, tops; it seems likely they would have expected to need less than 550 gallons. On the basis of what they put on their flight plan, fuel shouldn't have been an issue, but the 400 gallons they added definitely didn't top them off; otherwise, they would have listed at least 7+30 to 8+00 endurance (1,550 gallon fuel capacity per the NTSB report).So, they weren't by any means full of fuel, but they presumably were carrying significantly more than just the 400 gallons they bought on October 18th. That amount by itself would have taken them about 2+10 if the tanks had been totally dry when they fueled up, assuming the engines were operating optimally. (Hold that thought.)According to the NTSB report, the plane took off at 4:02 PM Central Daylight Time. (I found this a little confusing at first since South Carolina is on Eastern time, but a footnote states that all times in the report were rendered in Central time.) Two hours and forty minutes into a planned 2+45 flight -- at 6:42 PM -- they weren't anywhere near Baton Rouge yet, but they had run dry. Huh?The NTSB report specifically states that a normally operating aircraft of this type, having flown the time it had prior to impact, should have had about 207 gallons of fuel aboard if it had started out with what they stated on their flight plan. The investigators found the wreckage had about a quart of fuel in it. The Board ruled out any possibility of a fuel leak or the aircraft having been fueled with less than what supposedly had been provided at prior fuel stops. As far as the improperly functioning engine was concerned, the investigators concluded that running it on "auto-rich" the entire flight should've burned a maximum of perhaps 70 gallons over and above normal consumption.It appears the aircraft had only flown perhaps 85 to 90% of their intended route of flight when the pilots realized they were basically out of gas, and they took 2+40 just to cover that distance; they probably would have needed at least another 20 minutes or so to get from where they were to Baton Rouge (BTR) when they made the decision to reverse course and try to make McComb (MCB).According to the accident report, there weren't any headwinds getting in their way at all -- just a pretty benign amount of crosswind from the northwest that would have required a relatively minor amount of correction. The Convair 240's advertised cruise speed is about 250 knots, and their ground speed shouldn't have been much different from that based on winds aloft.So, their flight plan's time was so far off that it almost seems like they had no real idea how long it would actually take them, or something was seriously slowing them down along their entire route of flight. On the surface at least, it also seems like they never even looked at their fuel gauges throughout the flight.Even given the above ambiguities and unexplained conditions, on page 14 of the report, the NTSB gets pretty blunt:"The crew was either negligent or ignorant of the increased fuel consumption because they failed to monitor adequately the engine instruments for fuel flow and fuel quantity. Had they properly monitored their fuel supply and noted excessive fuel consumption early in the flight , they could have planned an alternate refueling stop rather than attempting to continue flight with minimum fuel."Bam.The NTSB has a fairly narrow approach to conducting its investigations and determining causes when it chooses to hew to the most rigorous interpretation of its charter. It only was about two years into its newly legislated "independent safety board" status when this accident occurred. Although its perspective has gotten a little more nuanced over time, its institutional mindset typically has been to identify a failure on the part of some identifiable party, and then to stop there. I don't fault them for this (because at least in this case the crew's failure to catch the dwindling fuel state really is pretty stunning), but the Board tends to stop asking "Why?" at a certain point. I'm inclined to want to think a few steps farther.Was the crew somehow impaired? Nope. The report states, "Toxicological examination of the flightcrew disclosed no evidence of drugs, alcohol, or elevated levels of carbon monoxide in the blood." Still, for whatever reason, they flew an aircraft with X amount of fuel aboard for one heck of a lot longer than you would expect a qualified pair of pilots to tolerate, assuming they were aware of their situation. Since pilots tend to be rather cognizant of the fact that they'll be first to arrive at the crash scene if they let things get out of hand, I have a crawly feeling that something else was in play here.Was the aircraft overloaded? A Convair 240 could legally take off weighing just shy of 42,000 pounds, with a typical empty (no fuel) weight of about 27,600 pounds. Its advertised payload was either a full passenger load or 9,350 pounds of cargo. (Convair 240/340/440/540/580/600/640/5800 | Airliners.net).Now let's start cutting into the margins. A full load of fuel would have weighed at least 9,000 pounds all by itself; the reported 5 hours' worth that their flight plan claimed would have run perhaps 6,000 pounds. Standard passenger weights in effect at the time, plus assumed luggage per passenger, would have added 4,440 pounds to it.Just the lesser amount of fuel, passengers and baggage would have brought the aircraft up to less than 5,000 pounds below its maximum gross weight, and a full fuel load would have left them with less than a ton of cargo-carrying wiggle-room beyond that. It seems reasonable to assume that at least some touring equipment (instruments, speakers, lighting, etc.) was aboard, but it isn't mentioned in the report. Hmm.The biggest hazards associated with overloading an aircraft are in not recognizing that you've done so, or doing so because you can (or perceive you need to). Here's what Skybrary (AP4ATCO - Weight and Balance) has to say on this subject:"Most modern aircraft are so designed that if all seats are occupied, all baggage allowed by the baggage compartment structure is carried, and all of the fuel tanks are full, the aircraft will be grossly overloaded. This type of design gives the pilot a great deal of latitude in loading the aircraft for a particular flight. If maximum range is required, occupants or baggage must be left behind, or if the maximum load must be carried, the range, dictated by the amount of fuel on board, must be reduced."Based on the numbers set forth above, along with the possibility that the crew might have had a need to try to accommodate a lot of bodies and gear, I'm hesitant to say "no" to the possibility of overloading, especially since a heavier aircraft is a thirstier aircraft. By the same token, the NTSB report explicitly discounts this possibility (as well as that of crew incapacitation) in the first two paragraphs of its analysis:"The flightcrew was properly certificated and trained in accordance with applicable regulations. There was no evidence of preexisting medical problems that might have affected the flightcrew's performance."The aircraft was certificated and equipped according to applicable regulations. The gross weight and [center of gravity] were within prescribed limits. The aircraft's structure and components were not factors in this accident. There was no evidence of any malfunction of the aircraft or its control system. The propulsion system was operating and was producing power until fuel was exhausted."The historical record shows only a bare handful of explicit fuel exhaustion accidents involving this family of aircraft in civilian operation over time. Most unequivocally, a Swissair flight from Geneva to London crashed into the English Channel in 1954, an accident placed squarely on the pilots for running themselves out of gas; this is summarized at ASN Aircraft accident Convair CV-240-4 HB-IRW Folkestone.(Beyond that one, I'm personally suspicious about a 1960 accident involving a flight from Frankfurt, Germany to Rimini Italy as well (ASN Aircraft accident Convair CV-240-4 D-BELU Rimini Airport (RMI)) -- its listed cause is, "The failure of the aircraft's left engine followed by the malfunction of the right engine," which makes me twitch a bit.)(NOTE: In a weird coincidence, the distance between departure and arrival airports in both of the above accidents was just under 500 nautical miles, and the Lynyrd Skynyrd aircraft wasn't going all that much farther than that; no obvious correlation to me, but maybe CV-240 drivers might know of some -ism of the aircraft that might make that significant somehow.)Still, there's no apparent history of this family of aircraft ever having a pattern of accidents due to fuel exhaustion or excessive consumption, period. This includes the U.S. military variants -- designated T-29 and C-131 -- which had reasonably safe operating histories and no fuel exhaustion accidents that I could find. So, let's accept the proposition that the NTSB report leaves us with -- a flyable aircraft, responsibly loaded and not stuffed to the gills with excess trappings and hangers-on of a touring band, was flown until it ran out of gas.Maybe it was simple pilot inattention and/or negligence that killed these people. Then again, maybe there was another factor in play that's been around for a long time that caused corners to be cut, or perhaps put undue pressure on the crew to push things too far from a weight management and range perspective.Let's circle back to the observations I made earlier regarding the loss of the powerful and influential in aircraft accidents. In my youth I did a fair amount of VIP flying. These are not easy passengers to please. They will push you; they will challenge you. Whether in a military flight or an aircraft leased for the purpose, they want to get where they want to be, when they want to be there. Little irrelevancies like weather, aircraft condition, or their desire to drag along unplanned-for people or "stuff" don't matter to them.The Lynyrd Skynyrd accident report accident report includes a curious line of discussion regarding the status and terms of the leasing agreement between the band's management and the charter operator. It also goes to some pains to highlight the timeline associated with the official mail submission of the signed leasing agreement to the FAA. The legal nuances here are a bit outside my usual swim lane, but I couldn't help but be struck by the following passage:"It therefore appears to the Safety Board that whether this lease was or was not adequate is not the primary safety problem, but how does the system in such a case protect a lessee who is uninformed either by design, by inadvertence, or by his own carelessness... In November 1977, FAA amended CFR 91.54 to require that lessees notify the nearest FAA office 48 hours prior to the first flight under a lease and provide information concerning (1) the departure airport, (2) time of departure, and (3) the registration number of the aircraft. In adopting the amendment, the FAA stated that the purpose of the new requirement was to give the FAA notice prior to the flight and thereby an opportunity to conduct preflight surveillance of lease and contract operations. This requirement should serve to protect innocent lessees if... the FAA office takes action to assure that there is a clear understanding by the lessee as to who is the operator and what responsibilities and obligations are thereby assumed."An FAA "advisory circular" (AC 91-37A) was updated a few months after the Lynyrd Skynyrd accident. It includes the following passage:"There have been instances wherein users of charter aircraft became the victims of certain operators. Illegal and unsafe operations have occurred which have developed into tragedies. A study of air charter operations was conducted and a report written which, among other things, recommended increasing the safety of operations involving U.S.-registered large civil aircraft that are being operated under a lease or contract of conditional sale arrangement."a. The report indicates that in many instances lessees and conditional buyers of aircraft did not realize that they were legally responsible for operational control of the aircraft as defined in Part 1 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs). In other cases, the report indicates that even if the lessee or conditional buyer did realize it, very few recognized their responsibilities for compliance with the FARs."b. The report also indicates that a number of owners of large airplanes have evaded compliance with the applicable certification and operating rules of FAR Part 121 governing air carriers and commercial operators, through the use of devious leases and conditional sales contracts. This evasion of compliance made it appear that the lessees and conditional buyers were responsible for operational control, when in fact they did not have that responsibility. This knowing or unknowing assumption of responsibility creates a serious problem in air safety and may involve legal liabilities."If you look at the above one way, you might get the impression that the aircraft's owner -- the L&J Company -- wanted to push off responsibility for anything bad that happened while the band had their aircraft under the lease onto the band itself. From another angle, it suggests that they were being pushed to provide services that their aircraft couldn't handle, and wanted it clearly on the record that if their pilots were pushed into trying to carry too much, it was the lessee's fault and not theirs.I honestly don't care either way. I'm kind of appalled that this kind of ambiguity even existed in aviation regulations of that era. These days, if you're flying this kind of operation for compensation or hire, it can't be conducted under "general flight rules" at all -- it's governed by 14 CFR Part 135 as a minimum. The question of who's responsible for the safety and regulatory compliance of the leased operation is simple: the certificate holder has operational control, period.Here's where I have to return to the hit parade of public figures who died in aircraft accidents mentioned early in my response. These were for the most part people used to getting their way, or perhaps were surrounded by people who would be jerks on their behalf. A depressing number of the accidents in which they perished involved dodgy weather or other factors -- like overloading -- that were duly laid at the feet of the pilots in the investigation reports. I also note the periodic involvement of fairly young/inexperienced pilots in such narratives... the kinds who can be pushed into doing things that defy good judgment or common sense.I've been subjected to pressure to get somebody somewhere right now more than once in the course of my flying career. Fortunately, I've always been hard-headed enough to want to save my own skin, and I've also had excellent backing from my chain of command when a given power broker has gotten testy about a delay, cancellation or re-routing. By the same token, I've never been put in the position of getting pressure from a paying customer to stick my neck out, and I've never been in a situation where rules that should be clear instead are nebulous.Nobody has ever come forward saying the Lynyrd Skynyrd crew was pressed in any way, at least as far as my research has uncovered. There was no cockpit voice recorder on the accident aircraft, so there's no way of knowing if they were getting distracted, pushed or needled once they were airborne. Still, something doesn't add up:The aircraft didn't fly anywhere near as far as it should have been able to go if it had the fuel load listed on its flight plan.The aircraft only flew about a half-hour farther than it could have flown if the only fuel aboard was what they took on after arriving at Greenville.The aircraft didn't make anywhere near the ground speed it should have made along its route of flight.The crew doesn't seem to have been minding the store and flew past countless airports they could have plunked down into to top off en route to Baton Rouge.So, what caused the plane to crash? Running out of gas.Why did it run out of gas? That's the $64,000 question, and likely is the one that'll never be answered.I just hope we don't continue to read about stuff like this in the deaths of present-day celebrities, but the wheel keeps turning. The cause of the Mexican crash that killed banda singer Jenni Rivera in December of 2012 could not be officially determined following investigation by the Dirección de Aeronáutica Civil de México. However, it featured a 78 year-old owner/operator flying a 43 year-old aircraft in reportedly dubious condition, with a 21 year-old co-pilot allegedly not licensed to fly outside the U.S.Rivera and her entourage finished a performance in Monterrey, Nuevo Leon well after midnight, held a press conference at the concert venue, and took off at 3:00 AM local headed toward Toluca, outside Mexico City. This was reportedly a last-minute decision made by Rivera, who wanted to leave town instead of spending the night in Monterrey. (10 <i>revelaciones</i> del fatal accidente de Jenni Rivera)So, from the heart:Please, famous people -- don't push your pilots. Yeah, the aircraft and its convenience are yours to command, but accommodating you might turn out badly.

MY Credential:::::::: BONA FIDE stable genius . . . NOT FAKE~~~……………………~~~………………….~~~………………….~~~…………………Q :: What has Donald Trump’s administration done so far relating to the environment?After 11 months in office, this is what Trump was doing in regards to the environment of the USA.01.04.18 Trump Moves to Open Nearly All Offshore Waters to DrillingWASHINGTON — The Trump administration said Thursday it would allow new offshore oil and gas drilling in nearly all United States coastal waters, giving energy companies access to leases off California for the first time in decades and opening more than a billion acres in the Arctic and along the Eastern Seaboard.The proposal lifts a ban on such drilling imposed by President Barack Obama near the end of his term and would deal a serious blow to his environmental legacy. It would also signal that the Trump administration is not done unraveling environmental restrictions in an effort to promote energy production.While the plan puts the administration squarely on the side of the energy industry and against environmental groups, it also puts the White House at odds with a number of coastal states that oppose offshore drilling.[ . . . ]…………So notice how in 2017 and 2018, trump was planning to open nearly all US coastal waters to new offshore oil and gas drilling…. to the delight of the fossil fuel industries….. and to the dismay of several Governors of coastal states such as Florida, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, California, Oregon and Washington ….. most of who are concerned about the impact on tourism & fishing industries, as well as military installations. Also, not just the Governors of these states but also the Business Alliance for Protecting the Atlantic Coast which represents thousands of small businesses, from restaurants to hotels to commercial fishing operations, oppose drilling off their states’ waters.Trump and Interior Secretary Zinke were preparing legislation to rescind or reverse the environmental policies and regulations that were established during Obama’s administration 2009–2016. They were even immediately ready to roll back offshore drilling safety regulations that were put in place after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil rig disaster in the Gulf of Mexico that killed 11 people and caused the worst oil spill in American history.Interior officials said they intended to hold 47 lease sales between 2019 and 2024, including 19 off the coast of Alaska and 12 in the Gulf of Mexico. Seven areas offered for new drilling would be in Pacific waters off California, where drilling has been off limits since a 1969 oil spill near Santa Barbara.Since this initiative began by Trump and Zinke, there have been numerous court cases and appeals working their way through the courts. Also, as a result of the steep fall in oil prices due to the global oil glut occurring in 2014 … which has only recently began to ease …. there was a “disincentive” to expand drilling and/or exploration of new drilling sites.SO NOW…. 43 months after the start of the Trump administration of 01.20.17–01.20.21 , we see this news …. this headline…. less than two months before the Presidential election date of 11.03.20. We see Trump flipping on the drilling issue …. all to claim and brag that he is “the No. 1 Environmental President”….. !!!Of course, like many statements that Trump has made over the previous 43 months, we all know that he is just kidding….. he is just making a joke ….. he is just indulging in hyperbole.09.08.20 Trump, Calling Himself ‘the No. 1 Environmental President,’ Green Washes His RecordWASHINGTON — President Trump, who has vowed to exit the Paris Agreement on climate change, loosened restrictions on toxic air pollution, rolled back clean water protections and removed climate change from a list of national security threats, stood in front of supporters in Jupiter, Fla., on Tuesday and declared himself “a great environmentalist.”Mr. Trump was speaking at an official presidential event, where he endorsed a 10-year moratorium on oil and gas drilling off the state’s coastline as well as the Georgia and South Carolina coasts — a feat of political jujitsu, since his administration is the one that proposed lifting the moratorium.(In 2018, the Trump administration dropped only Florida from a list of places where it wanted to lift a moratorium on virtually all offshore oil drilling after strong opposition from Rick Scott, the state’s Republican governor at the time.)NOTE:: The news article above is dated 09.08.20….. and today’s date is 09.11.20!~~~AND NOW…. 42 MONTHS (and 3 months before NOV3,2020 Presidential election day) ….. AFTER THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION BEGAN ON 01.20.17 ……. WE SEE THIS NEWS ARTICLE ::07.24.20 .. The Great American Outdoors Act passes with bipartisan supportSpeaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) takes part in the signing of the Bill Enrollment For The Great American Outdoors Act on Capitol Hill on July 23, 2020 in Washington, DC. The bill would provide $9.5 billion over five years from energy development revenues on federal land and water to assist in park maintenance. ~ Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images[ . . . ]Approval of the bill represents a rare victory for environmentalists during the president’s time in office, who is known for attempting to roll back more than 100 environmental rules and protections such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).It also means a win for the two Republican senators who pushed for its passage and are both facing competitive reelection races this year in swing states where the president's popularity is sinking: Cory Gardner of Colorado and Steve Daines of Montana.[ . . . ]>>>Below is Wikipedia information about this bill…. what was the vote count in both houses of Congress….. when did Trump sign this bill.Great American Outdoors Act - WikipediaThe Great American Outdoors Act (H.R.1957)[2] is a bill passed by the United States Congress, signed into law by President Donald Trump on August 4, 2020 and activated into Public Law (Public Law No. 116-152) on August 9, 2020.[3] It has two major components: fully and permanently funding the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) at $900 million per year, and providing $9.5 billion over five years ($1.9 billion annually), from the signing of the bill by the president, to address a maintenance backlog at American national parks.[4][5][6] The Associated Press wrote that it would be "the most significant conservation legislation enacted in nearly half a century."[7]The bill was first introduced in the House of Representatives by John Lewis (D-GA) as the Taxpayer First Act of 2019 on March 28, 2019.[8]After inserting amendments, Senator Cory Gardner (R–CO) reintroduced the bill on March 9, 2020, during the 116th United States Congress as the Great American Outdoors Act.[9] On June 9, it passed a procedural vote 80–17 and moved to full consideration before the Senate.[10] The bill passed the Senate on June 17 by a vote of 73–25.[11] On July 22, the bill was passed by the House on a bipartisan vote of 310–107.[12]Support and oppositionConsidered bipartisan in nature for the 116th Congress,[4] the bill attracted 59 co-sponsors, both Democrats and Republicans.[9] President Trump expressed a willingness to sign the act after being shown an impressive picture of land within Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park protected by LWCF funds, despite previously opposing the LWCF.[4][13] The LWCF, first established in 1965, had been made permanent by the 2019 John D. Dingell Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act but had not been permanently funded at that time.[14][a]The measure was supported by conservation organizations such as The Nature Conservancy, the National Wildlife Federation, and the League of Conservation Voters[4][16], while some animal husbandry and mining groups opposed it.[17] While supporting the bill, some Democrats suggested that Mitch McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader, only allowed debate on the bill in order to support the 2020 re-election efforts of Gardner and Steve Daines (R–MT).[4][5]~~~Notice that this bill was originally introduced on March 28, 2019 as H.R. 1957 by the late Representative John Lewis (D-GA).H.R.1957 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Great American Outdoors ActSponsor: Rep. Lewis, John [D-GA-5] (Introduced 03/28/2019)Public Law No: 116-152 (08/04/2020)Great American Outdoors ActThis bill establishes the National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund to support deferred maintenance projects on federal lands.For FY2021-FY2025, there shall be deposited into the fund an amount equal to 50% of energy development revenues credited, covered, or deposited as miscellaneous receipts from oil, gas, coal, or alternative or renewable energy development on federal lands and waters. Deposited amounts must not exceed $1.9 billion for any fiscal year.The fund must be used for priority deferred maintenance projects in specified systems that are administered bythe National Park Service,the Forest Service,the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,the Bureau of Land Management, andthe Bureau of Indian Education.The Government Accountability Office must report on the effect of the fund in reducing the backlog of priority deferred maintenance projects for the specified agencies.Additionally, the bill makes funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) permanent. The President shall annually report to Congress specified details regarding the allocation of funds to the LWCF. Congress may provide for alternate allocations using specified procedures.>>>Cosponsors - S.3422 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Great American Outdoors ActS.3422 - Great American Outdoors Act116th Congress (2019-2020) ..Sponsor: Sen. Gardner, Cory [R-CO]06.13.20 .. In time of crises, lands bill gives Senate a chance to uniteWASHINGTON (AP) — At a time of national crises, the Senate has been able to come together on a topic both parties celebrate: the great outdoors.While the country copes with the coronavirus, an economic downturn and a reckoning over racism, lawmakers have reached bipartisan agreement on an election-year deal to double spending on a popular conservation program and devote nearly $2 billion a year to improve and maintain national parks.If approved by Congress and signed by President Donald Trump, the Great American Outdoors Act would be the most significant conservation legislation enacted in nearly half a century. The bill, set for a Senate vote this coming week, would spend about $2.8 billion per year on conservation, outdoor recreation and park maintenance.“Americans have been spending a lot of time indoors” as a result of the pandemic, said Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., one of the bill’s chief sponsors. “They are ready to get into the great outdoors.”Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., and Sen. Steven Daines, R-Mont., have pushed for the bill, first convincing Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., that he should take it up, then persuading Trump at a White House visit.McConnell told the two senators, who are both seeking reelection this year, that he would not consider the bill unless Trump was on board. Gardner and Daines are among the Senate’s most vulnerable incumbents, and each represents a state where the outdoor economy and tourism at sites such as Rocky Mountain and Yellowstone national parks play an outsize role.At a meeting in the Roosevelt Room of the White House in late February, Gardner and Daines made their case.“This is a legacy thing,″ Gardner told Trump, pointing to a portrait of Theodore Roosevelt that dominates the room.”We wanted to make landmark legislation about our great landmarks,″ Gardner said in an interview.The senators showed Trump pictures and maps of their states and stressed the importance of conservation in the West. Trump, who has repeatedly tried to cut spending for the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund, soon tweeted his support for the proposal. “It will be HISTORIC for our beautiful public lands,″ Trump said.At a hastily called news conference to announce the deal, Daines and Gardner were joined by 10 other senators from both parties as eager lawmakers jumped to back a rare bill destined for approval in the slow-moving Senate. That was in early March, days before the pandemic derailed Congress from most legislation not related to the virus.It’s three months later, and the bill is set for approval as early as Tuesday.“America deserves a break right now, and the outdoors is restorative,″ said Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., a longtime advocate of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. In an interview, Cantwell credited a “new coalition” of lawmakers who support conservation and public lands.“We’ve made people aware of the juggernaut that the outdoors economy has been,″ Cantwell said. She cited statistics showing that outdoor recreation and tourism supports $887 billion a year in consumer spending and 7.6 million jobs, much of it in the West.Cantwell credited Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., for forcing attention on the conservation fund by blocking a 2018 spending bill that did not renew the program. It uses federal royalties from offshore oil and gas drilling to pay for conservation and public recreation projects. The program is authorized to collect $900 million a year but generally receives less than half that amount from Congress as lawmakers bicker over how the money should be spent.Burr’s actions helped “educate” lawmakers on the importance of the fund, Cantwell said. Republican Sens. Rob Portman of Ohio and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee also pushed to renew it, along with nearly all Democrats.While widely supported, the outdoors bill faces sharp opposition, mainly from Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., and other Gulf Coast senators pushing to ensure it includes revenue-sharing for their states from offshore drilling. A separate group of conservatives opposes new federal land acquisitions.Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, complained during debate that the bill was “written behind closed doors and is now being hermetically sealed, walled off from amendments” by Senate leaders. “Forget the theatrics in Seattle — this bill is the real ‘Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone,’ ” Lee said.As written, the bill “enables the federal government to purchase new lands in perpetuity — without accountability, oversight or any measures to make sure it can actually care for the land that it owns,″ Lee said. He noted that the federal government is already the largest land owner in Utah and many other states in the West.The policy will “make life easier for politicians and bureaucrats, and harder for the Americans they ostensibly serve,″ Lee said.Daines disputed that, saying Montanans and other Westerners treasure their public lands.“We say in Montana that we get to work, but we also like to play,″ Daines said. ”We work hard during the week ... so we can get out on the weekends, where there is hiking, fishing, hunting and backpacking. This is our life.”For many in Montana and throughout the West, “our fondest memories are spending time outside on our public lands,″ Daines said. ”It is why we continue to preserve, protect and expand that access to this incredible treasure we have in America.″Cantwell dismissed criticism by some Democrats and outside groups that the bill provides a major boost to Gardner and Daines in their close election campaigns, even as control of the Senate hangs in the balance in the November election. Calling Trump’s record on the environment “the worst one in history,″ Cantwell said Gardner, Daines and other Republicans will be forced to defend the president as they go before voters.“We’ve been working on this for a long time,″ she said. ”Just because it’s 2020 shouldn’t stop us from securing this victory.″>>>🎆🎇🎆🎇🎆🎆🎆🎆🎆🎇🎇🎇🎇🎇🎇🎆🎆🎆🎆🎆🎆🎇🎇🎇🎇🎇🔆 ISN’T IT A HOOT???….. HOW ALL THESE REPUBLICANS WHO ARE UP FOR REELECTION THIS YEAR NOV3,2020….. ARE NOW DECLARING THEMSELVES NATURE LOVERS AND WANTING TO “CONSERVE” THESE LANDS???? Will wonders never cease? ….🔆 ISN’T IT A HOOT???…. THAT MITCH (the moocher… the “do-nothing” Senate Majority Leader) ….. allowed debate on this bill and one of the rare floor votes done in the Senate over the past three-and-a-half years ???🔆 AND…. WAIT….. WAIT FOR IT….. ISN’T IT A HOOT???….. THAT THE SENATE PASSED THIS BILL WITH 75% IN FAVOR…… AND THAT THE HOUSE PASSED THIS BILL WITH 74% IN FAVOR…… SO THIS MEANS…… [drum roll] …… THIS MEANS…………THAT EVEN IF TRUMP HAD VETOED THE BILL ….. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ENACTED AS LAW DESPITE THAT !!!IN OTHER WORDS……… OF COURSE TRUMP SIGNED THIS BILL …..……………WHAT CHOICE DID HE HAVE??? …… hahahaha—bwahahaha!!~~~🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😉😉😉😉🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣and here….. IS THE BIG LIE ….. on the WH announcements webpage ::President Trump Signs the Great American Outdoors Act, Preserving and Protecting our National Parks | The White HouseFrom the beginning of this Administration, President Trump has prioritized conservation and stewardship of our public lands and national parks. Today, President Trump signed into law the Great American Outdoors Act. This historic legislation, along with the John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act—which President Trump signed into law in March 2019—will benefit current and future generations of Americans. [** again… a bill … that passed with bipartisan support …92% approval in the Senate ….85% approval in the House…. in Feb 2019…. Trump signed the bill on March 12, 2019 ….. a veto would NOT have killed the bill ….. John D. Dingell Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act - Wikipedia ]Each year, millions of people from all over the world visit and enjoy our national parks. Yet today, more than 5,500 miles of paved roads, 17,000 miles of trails, and 24,000 buildings in our national parks are in need of maintenance improvements.Fulfilling President Trump’s promise to restore, conserve, and protect America’s lands, the Great American Outdoors Act provides the necessary funds, dedicating up to $1.9 billion per year for five years to fund deferred maintenance projects identified by the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Bureau of Indian Education. These infrastructure updates will preserve our most important national treasures and give more American families opportunities to explore the great outdoors.When I was growing up, my family took road trips each summer, crossing through nearly every state and stopping at many national parks along the way, from Yosemite, Glacier, and Yellowstone in the west, to the Badlands and Theodore Roosevelt National Park in the Dakotas, to the Great Smoky Mountains and Shenandoah National Park in the east. When we explore the outdoors and see our magnificent mountain ranges, coastlines, deserts, forests and great open spaces, we develop a deeper appreciation for the beauty and importance of our natural environment.In addition to improving infrastructure at our national parks, the Great American Outdoors Act also provides permanent funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). The LWCF supports recreational access, protection, and preservation of our Nation’s most valuable natural and cultural resources. Supporting over 98 percent of counties across the country, the LWCF grants enable State and local governments to develop and improve parks in their communities, as well as permanently conserve outdoor recreation areas for public use and enjoyment.This legislation signed today is not just about outdoor recreation. In signing the Great American Outdoors Act, President Trump is protecting and enhancing the economies of numerous gateway communities that surround our national parks and wildlife reserves. By bringing more visitors to our parks, the Great American Outdoors Act will stimulate local businesses across the country. Again, President Trump is proving that a strong economy and a healthy environment go hand-in-hand.Now more than ever, Americans are seeking to get outside and experience our national parks and national wildlife refuge systems. The Great American Outdoors Act will ensure that these national treasures can be explored for generations to come. As Chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, I will continue to support the President as he works to restore, preserve, and protect American’s lands, air, and water.~~~~~~

Seigniorialism (often improperly called “feudalism” by non-historians) only disappeared in Québec (in North America) in 1970Perhaps you know the medieval concepts of fiefdom, hommage, corvée, cens, ban.Since the Middle Ages in France it was normal to pay your taxes to you lord every 11th of November, day of the Winter Saint Martin celebration by going to the house of the lord (the manor) and paying in either money or crops (or capons). The lord had his granaries to store the seigneurial rents…The church also enforced its tax, the tithe (dîme), and also had granaries for that.(This is a « grange à dîme » (“tithe barn”) in the village of Sainte-Flavie in Québec.)Well, in Québec, paying the seigniorial rent to the house of your lord was done until the 11th of November 1940, five months after the capitulation of France to Nazi Germany during World War 2.How is that possible ?It’s not as unique to the French as it soundsThe English had both contempt and admiration for that land tenure, that by the way was not at all forgotten in English colonies in North America. They would have admiration in the sense they would find the orderly society created by New France much more convenient to govern than the southern unruly colonies that were accustomed to disobey. Many anglophones became lords in Québec by either buying or inheriting lordships, such as the Campbell dynasty that were lords of Le Bic and still go there every summer nowadays.English colonies called seigniorialism in the Common Law by a different name : ut de corona by knight service.Many English colonies began as fiefdoms : Maryland, South Carolina and Newfoundland were conceded as fiefdoms and not in “free and common soccage”.Even a late colony like the Saint John Island (later Prince Edward Island) had the same thing under the name “leasehold tenure”. In fact when you know the vocabulary equivalences, it’s basically the same thing:French / English :foi et hommage / quitrentseigneur / landlordseigneurie / estate (sometimes lot)réunion au domaine / escheatcensitaire / tenantacte de concession / leaseroture / farm lotrente / rentSources for English seigniorialism in America :Allan Greer, Le système seigneurial? Quel système seigneurial? from his book Property and Dispossession: Natives, Empires and Land in Early Modern North America.Ken MacMillan, Sovereignty and Possession in the English New WorldMatthew Hatvany, « Form, Function, and Intent - A Geo-Historical Approach to the Seigniorial and Proprietary Systems of Colonial Canada » in Alain Laberge & Benoît Grenier, Le régime seigneurial au Québec 150 ans aprèsAs for the Hispanic colonies, the hacienda was also an institution that directly came from seignieurial Spain, that descended from the old Roman latifundium. I don’t know well however how it compared to French seigniorialism.Contrary to what people may assume, France did not implement seigniorialism in all its 17th-18th century colonies. None of the colonies that depended on slavery had it and the lands were not fiefs but alleu lands (so no lords, no hommage, no rents). It was true all over the Carribeans and even in Louisiana, despite it was also in the viceroyalty of New France like Acadia and Canada.Once France even tried to implement seigniorialism to the island of Guadeloupe but it did not pass.The Dutch of New Netherland also had a similar land tenure, the patroon tenure. It was not abolished by the English when they conquered New Netherland, so the New York province also inherited it, much like the English inherited the French seigniorial system.Therefore both French and English colonies were a mix of seigniorial and “free and common soccage” tenures (alleu in French, or allod in English). Perhaps the medieval heritage of the American colonies is simply greater than what most people are aware of.2. 19th century partial abolitionsQuite early the English wanted to cause an extinction of the Quebecer seigniorial regime.Between 1788 and 1822, there were three plans by the English to cause the commutation of censives, so lands that tenants got from their lords and whom which they paid the rend, into “free and common soccage” tenure. The law that passed was the Canada Commerce Act passed by the UK Parliament on 5 August 1822. However none of these attempts change anything. (They are described by André Larose in detail in his thesis).The Canada Tenure Act (6 George IV, ch. 59) on 22 June 1825 allowed the tenants to commute their lands only if their lords himself did it with the lordship by buying the abolition of his feudal link with the Crown. Only 2 or 3 lords bought the end of their feudal relationship with the Crown.There are some early examples of commutations by English lords. In 1833, the lord Edward Ellice of Beauharnois obtained the commutation of the part of his lordship that was not conceded (in old Roman and medieval wording, the saltus). The lord John Hale did a similar thing for his lordship of Sainte-Anne-de-la-Pérade. One of the things the English found annoying with the seigniorial system is that you can’t speculate on the land with it. Once the rent was fixed, it was eternally the same, and so the lord could not legally change what he was paid in rents once it was established. Some English lords, that did not know the Custom of Paris well or that perhaps feigned to ignore, sometimes did abuses by not observing that custom. When francophones witnessed what happened in the newly created Eastern Townships with the land speculation of the British American Land Company, they were afraid and so wanted to carefully control the abolition process to prevent that from happening.In the case of the island of Montréal, the seigniorial regime was quite an annoyance for English bourgeois because the lords of Montréal, the Order of Saint-Sulpice (Sulpicians), had the monopoly on the mills and could perceive a tax, the lods et ventes, on every mutation of property. This is why the English merchants lobbyed the famous lord Durham that came to do an inquiry on the failed revolution of 1837. After that failed revolution, for a few years, the Special Council of Lower Canada ruled trough dictature and it was them that ordered a decree to abolish the seignorial regime on the three lordships owned by the Sulpicians in 1840 (Montréal, Saint-Sulpice, Deux-Montagnes). This is why Montréal had a abolition process different from all the rest of Québec and as a result may still have ongoing seigniorial rights that would not exist elsewhere due to the different abolition process.In 1841, an inquiry by the new parliament of the Province of Canada revealed that it was really the anglophones that wanted that abolition. The francophones did like the idea of getting rid of the taxes to their lords but they did not want the real estate laws in general to change (as they wanted cheap access to the land for their children). The francophone population declared they were willing to be freed from the seigniorial taxes as long as it did not cost them much because they were too poor to buy the abolition of the rights of the lords over them. The inquiry also determined the lords would have to be compensated for their loss. It was also determined that a commutation of the lands paid by the Province of Canada would bankrupt it. This report was shown to the Parliament of the Province of Canada in 1843.In 1848, the francophones start the Association pour la réforme des droits seigneuriaux (notice : réforme, not abolition). The main spokepersons of this organization were the MP Jean-Baptiste Mongenais, Pierre Davignon and Thomas Boutillier. They wanted to make illegal rents that were higher than 2 sous per arpent. There is a popular mobilization in the regions of Montréal and Trois-Rivières, but not Québec City. The organization is later renamed Convention anti-seigneuriale de Montréal.A 1851 bill wanted to extinguish the seigniorial regime in 5 years but since the co-prime minister Louis-Hippolyte La Fontaine opposed it, he dissolved the Parliament before the bill could pass. Interestingly, it was this that ended La Fontaine’s career.A 1852 bill declared that rents that will be higher than 4 sous per arpent will be illegal. It declared that if 2/3 of the censitaires (tenants) in a lordship petitioned to commute the lands, it would be done. The Upper House (Legislative Council) rejects the bill after 30 minutes of debates.The 1854 election of the Province of Canada will in Lower Canada only be about the seigniorial question. The Ministérialiste party (former Patriotes) advocating for a reform of the tenure to limit the abuses of the lords won in Lower Canada and defeated the Rouge opposition (liberals or reformist francophones) that wanted an outright immediate abolition. The Ministérialistes also opposed a forced commutation of the lands and wanted this to be on a voluntary basis.In 1854, finally, a bill about the abolition managed to pass, the « Acte » pour l'abolition des droits et devoirs féodaux dans le Bas-Canada (8 Victoria ch. 3, amendment in 1855).Originally, the initial bill wanted :To restrict the size of the demesne of the lord.All the unoccupied lands in the lordships would be transferred to the demesne of the Crown.The lords would lose their rights on the rivers.The banalités such as the mouture tax on the banal mills would be abolished.The rents would be limited to 2 sous per arpent of area.Anything to be paid with crops or trough corvées would be convertible in money.It was forbidden for the lords to ask for more than 5 years of arrérages (being late on payment) on the payment of the rents.The lods et ventes taxes to the lords during each mutation of property would be abolished.The law would declare that any land that was under the French seigniorial regime and that was commuted would belong to the French legal category of franc alleu roturier and not the English category free and common soccage.The law would also create a special court, sometimes called “Seigniorial Court” for short, that would hear the pleas of the lords, receive the report of the losses they would have due to the abolition.The Upper House (Legislative Council) changed everything to that bill. They decided to make the commutation mandatory and not a choice. It rejects the limitation on the size of the demesne of the lords and to substract the non-granted lands from the demesne and transfer it to the Crown. It’s all the more surprising considering that only two lords were in the Council. The Lower House was not pleased by these amendments but accepted it so the law would pass.A 1855 law amended the 1854 one to stop making the commutation mandatory.(The special court created after the 1854 act)Sources :André Larose, « Objectif : commutation de tenure - Edward Ellice et le régime seigneurial (1820-1840) »Georges Baillargeon, « La tenure seigneuriale a-t-elle été abolie par suite des plaintes des censitaires ? »For the non-respect of the Custom of Paris… I can’t remember for now but it was a book in English about 19th century Lower Canada that discussed mostly the Patriotes. I read parts of it in the Collection nationale of the BAnQ.3. Replacing seigniorial rents by a rentcharge (rente constituée)After the 1854 law, commissioners traveled all over Lower Canada to evaluate the old seigniorial rents that were paid and add to it the value of the other taxes that were being abolished. It created a new rent, the rentcharge (rente constituée) that included the taxes that were abolished.At the same time, each lordship got a cadastre abrégé (abridged survey) using normalized numbers for each censive held by tenants. From now on a new survey for each parish would be used, with different numbers for the post-seigniorial lands, but those would also include the old seigniorial numbers as well.The people had to pay roughly 17 years of rents to be freed from their link to their lord. This was done passing a commutation deed in front of a notary. It was necessary to also pay the arrérages if their were any (so the debts if the rents were not paid for some years). The notary also had to be paid.I am currently working on that and this is how these deeds look:(BAnQ Vieux Montréal, microfilm X-2.6, 10 novembre 1870)Most people in fact did NOT abolish their rents and so kept paying it every 11th of November, day of the Saint Martin, to the house of the former lord. They were “débiteurs des rentes” and the former lords were “créanciers des rentes” but basically, it kept being the same as it always was.4. An Ancien Régime in the 20th centuryIn 1909, the liberal MP of Québec Gabriel Marchand spoke of abolishing the seigniorial rents once and for all, but nothing happened.In 1926, the liberal MP Télesphore-Damien Bouchard, famous for his anticlericalism, did a famous speech in which he deplored that the rents still existed. He said that most people did not do the commutation of the lands due to the notary fees and also the quittance fees that were often worth more than the rents to abolish. He wanted to have an abolition process inspired by the one that happened in the Duchy of Savoy in 1770. This is why he pushed for the creation of a National Syndicate for the Redemption of Rentcharges (Syndicat national de rachat des rentes seigneuriales).The process of abolition was started in 1928 by the liberal government of Louis-Alexandre Taschereay : Loi concernant les droits seigneuriaux dans cette province (18 George V, ch. 77). It made the descendants of the lords send to the state a summary of the rents that were still paid. About 60 000 families still paid some.In 1935, the Loi abolissant les rentes seigneuriales (25-26 George V, ch. 77) created the National Syndicate for the Redemption of Rentcharges. The state borrowed money from 4 banks to buy all the lands from the descendants of the lords (the thing the former Province of Canada did not want to do for fear of being bankrupted).In 1936, the government of Duplessis, famous for its populism and conservatism, was elected and for some time they considered to undo that liberal 1935 like many other liberal laws, but in the end Duplessis also participated to the process with his own 1938 act, the Loi pourvoyant à des mesures efficaces concernant l’abolition des rentes seigneuriale (2 George VI, ch. 86).In May 1940, the last details were set in the Loi modifiant la Loi abolissant les rentes seigneuriales (4 George VI, ch. 25).On 11 November 1940, it would be the last day that people would pay their seigniorial rents at the house of their lord (or the créancier des rentes).For fun, this is how the house of the lord would look like at the time of New France :(Manoir seigneurial de l’île-aux-Grues)In the 19th century, newer manors would rather look like this :(Manoir seigneurial des Taschereau à Sainte-Marie-de-Beauce)In the lordship I am studying, the Masson dynasty (the lords of Terrebonne) lived in this residence at the end of the 19th century:(Manoir Masson, now part of the Collège Saint-Sacrement, Terrebonne)In 1926 they sold their rights on the rents to the notary Ernest Séraphin Mathieu, who lived in this house, so it was possibly there that in 1940 the last censitaires would pay their rents:(Maison Ernest-Séraphin-Mathieu, Terrebonne)The media discussed it back then the end of the direct payments to the lords in 1940:This is for exemple the data about the rents from 1854 to 1940 from the database I started for my master degree. You can notice that before the 1935 law was passed, most people in that rang did not commute the lands. You can also notice one person still paid a rent in 1940. I notice that all the people of the lordship I am studying in 1940 had arrérages, and so sometimes they did not pay their rents ever since 1924 ! I guess it’s one of the reasons that could explain why it was still not over in 1940.From now on, the people would pay back the government of Québec for the acquisition of the lands trough a special municipal tax.Everything that was due to the descendants of the lords for the acquisition of the lands was paid in 1943 by the government.As for the people, the descendants of the censitaires, it took until 1970 for their debt to the state to be paid. Therefore it was only in 1970 that the seigniorial rents completely disappeared in Québec.Sources for XXth century abolition : anything written by the professor Benoît Grenier of the Université de Sherbrooke5. Remnants of the Ancien Régime todayThe professor Benoît Grenier interviewed descendants of lords and censitaires. He found that some people currently alive still remember that their parents paid seigniorial rents. Both groups remembered that in some places, well into the XXth century, people would still informally call the descendents of the lords “lords” (seigneurs).There are still several traces of this culture nowadays.In 2013, the dynasty of Vaudreuil, the Harwood-Lotbinière family, had one of their members buried under the church of Vaudreuil-Dorion.In 2016, Armand Poupart, descendant of the dynasty of Saint-Ours, was buried under the church of Saint-Ours.There are still manorial families that live in their ancestral manorial house.While the majority of the Masson dynasty of Terrebonne is gone from Québec, Amélie Masson-Labonté still lives in the region of Montréal. She’s the last representative of her family in Québec.The Sulpicians (Order of Saint-Sulpice) are still in a way lords of Montréal, because Montréal had a distinct abolition process, and so there remains some lands near the Old Montréal in which something is due to the Sulpicians when there is a change of owner. There are still notaries and lawyers alive that did go to meet the Sulpicians to give them the old lods et ventes, and the Sulpicians would still open their Great Book (Grand Livre Terrier) to record the transaction.The Wendat indigenous of Wendake are still de jure lords of Sillery, and so there was negociations with the City of Québec about their rights over this lordship. It did the headlines a few years ago.At some point the Kanien’kehá:ka nation became the lords of Sault-Saint-Louis, and this is reflected in the modern Kahnawá:ke, that has almost the same borders.The Dessaules manorial family still is present in the region of Saint-Hyacinthe, their former lordship.The Campbell family is still present in the region of the Bic, their former lordship.The Collège Saint-Sacrement in Terrebonne is actually the last manorial house of the Masson family.The last manorial house of Beauharnois, the one of the Ellice family, still has an intact half left in Beauharnois. Jane Ellice was also imprisoned by the revolutionaries in 1838 there and this was when she painted some of her famous paintings.The last manorial house of the Pangman family of the lordship of Lachenaie is currently being repaired in Mascouche. It was abandoned for several years.The “new mill” in the île des Moulins of Terrebonne is the last remaining banal mill of the place. It was used to card wool.Marie-Josée Raymond, a descendant of the Dessaules family of Saint-Hyacinthe that were the lords of the place:Interview of Peter, Robert, Liane, Elizabeth Harwood-Chartier de Lotbinière, Olivia Pontecorvo, Poème Carvalho, all representatives of the Harwood-Chartier dynasty of Vaudreuil, and also the priest Normand Bergeron :Interview of the priest Jacques Roberge of the Séminaire de Québec, who still are collectively lords of Beaupré, and also Jacques Laliberté (manager of the forests) :Département d'histoireQuébec still has plenty and plenty of sites that remind of the reality of the Ancien Régime in America. It’s a shame it’s not more stressed in the tourism and not more sought after. It would make among the most interesting touristic circuits in America.Manorial houses (sometimes called “manoirs” in French, but this a calque from English. It’s the house of the lord, where people had to pay their taxes every 11th of November)(The manorial house of l’île aux Grues.)Banal watermills (ban is an old Frank concept that means the authority of the lord, like in the word banlieue. Lords had the exclusivity of mills, thus industrial development, and for this reason the mills they used to perceive taxes are said to be “banal”)(Banal watermill of Les Éboulements)Banal windmills(Pointe Claire’s banal windmill)Manorial bench (the family of the lord was due its own bench in the church. The lords also had the privilege to be buried under the bench, in the “crypt”.)(Manorial bench in the Saint-Michel de Lotbinière church in Vaudreuil-Dorion)The planting of the mai (every May, people would plant a leafless tree in front of the manorial house and shoot on it with their rifles. In 19th century Québec, this custom was extended to the militia captain.)(Mai planting in Montmagny)Crypts/Underground cemeteries (since the manorial family was entitled to be buried under the church, some manorial families had their own cemetery under the parochial church.)(The underground cemetery of the Masson family, the last dynasty of Terrebonne.)Incidentally, two prime ministers of Québec were descendants of lords and also nobles :In the XXth century, the liberal prime minister Louis-Alexandre Taschereau, whose family was noble and lord of Sainte-Marie de Beauce.In the XXIst century, the liberal prime minister Philippe Couillard, noble and whose family ruled on the lordships of la Rivière-du-Sud, Beaumont, and l’Islet-St-Jean, not to mention many marriages with many important families.Evidence of Philippe Couillard’s nobility : the lettre de noblesse of his ancestor Louis Couillard de L’Espinay.Oh and by the way, the old French arpents, perches and pieds-de-roi still are valid measurements for very official land measurements.The Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources of Québec still proposes converters for the old French units as they are still used in surveys when a piece of land still has the first dimensions it came up with.Conversion des unités de mesure de longueur et de superficieSo this memory is still pretty alive when you know where to look.