HR 4089 - Rat in Wolf's Clothing?

[Corax]

I received the following from Backcountry Hunters and Anglers:

Dear BHA Member,

You may know that the U.S. House of Representatives is expected to vote on H.R. 4089, the Sportsmen’s Heritage Act, this week.

As a sportsmen’s conservation organization, we felt compelled to comment. While we support numerous parts of this bill, there are specific details that could result in enormous negative consequences for world renowned hunting and fishing destinations, conservation and public lands fish and wildlife habitat.

In a letter to the House this week, BHA asked the House of Representatives to address these outstanding issues.

BHA knows that our members depend on keeping public lands open for hunting and fishing, and we will defend that legacy with all we have.

However, included in the Sportsmen’s Heritage Act is specific language that would undermine the proud heritage American sportsmen have been defending for generations:

First, Section 104(e) (1) in H.R. 4089 would open Wilderness Areas to motorized vehicles, helicopters, road building and any other imaginable tool that is used for hunting or fishing, but is not allowed in Wilderness. This would undermine world class hunting destinations such as the Bob Marshall Wilderness in Montana, the Frank Church Wilderness in Idaho and the Gila Wilderness in New Mexico.

Second, Section 104(e) (2) would allow industrial development of Wilderness areas. Activities such as industrial logging and oil and gas drilling are inappropriate for our nation’s Wilderness areas.

Third, we have problems with language under 104(1) (b) and 104(1) (c) that would prohibit adequate NEPA review of management decisions. The way the language is written in this section, it could actually result in less hunting opportunity.

As sportsmen who know and use our public lands, we urge our Representatives to fix these major problems with H.R. 4089!

I also got an email from Safari Club International thanking the House for passing the bill. If what BHA says is true, I assume the NRA is behind it as well.

I plan to read the actual text and write to my Senators, since it is apparently a done deal in the House.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

Yep, it's on the way to the Senate!

 

[Ben Lamb]

It should be referred to the Senate Energy and Natural Resource Committee.

Contact your Senators and ask them to oppose this bill as written. If they amend out section 104(e), and ensure that we don't lose the tools congress gave TR under the Antiquities Act, then this bill would be great.

 

[WV Hunter]

It should be referred to the Senate Energy and Natural Resource Committee.

Contact your Senators and ask them to oppose this bill as written. If they amend out section 104(e), and ensure that we don't lose the tools congress gave TR under the Antiquities Act, then this bill would be great.

Ben,

For the busy and less elegant writers (like me), do you have a generic letter to email senators that outlines what you've said above?

WV

 

[Big Fin]

In the same day, I get my eblast from my membership in Back Country Hunters and Anglers, that Corax provided here, stating to oppose the bill, and then get an eblast from Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partners, stating they support the bill.

I am a member of both and put a lot of faith in the people at both groups. Puts a lot of people "betwix and between" on this one.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Here's the Congressional Research Service's report on the bill:
http://www.eenews.net/assets/2012/04/16/document_pm_01.pdf

As I said in the OL blog post, there's a lot to like in the bill, but section 104 has some real problems with it. If they can fix those issues, then I think we've got a great bill that will help the Feds manage with consideration towards hunters and anglers.

As it is right now, I'm with BHA on this.

 

[Corax]

I finally dug out the text of the final bill, plus the version under consideration when BHA wrote their email. Without going into details, it appears that the original version would not have had the impact that I passed on. To leave no doubt, however, the following paragraph was inserted:

(3) Paragraphs (1) and (2) are not intended to authorize or facilitate commodity development, use, or extraction, or motorized recreational access or use.

The final version is available here: www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr4089/text

As far as I am concerned, this clears it up. The rest of the bill looks to be excellent - I plan to write my Senators, but now I will be supporting it.

Sorry for any confusion.