“Protecting access for hunters and anglers act”

[Jim/Wa]

Looks like this is coming up for a vote this week. I don’t see where a lot of the sportsman’s groups indicate positions on it. To me it looks like fluff politics but someone I’m close to works in the house and was asking me for an opinion. Has this topic been batted around here yet?

 

[SAJ-99]

It's stupid. It should be voted down. Someone is trying to make a name for himself. That said, Congress is very into stupid, meaningless stuff right now.

 

[Jules Winnfield]

For those wanting the details:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/556

Pretty dumb, and a waste of time/effort.
Maybe Representative Wittman could focus on a bill to prohibit the sale of public lands instead of this weak sauce?

 

[Jim/Wa]

FWIW, the senate version was brought forth by Daines. Personally, I can’t see reason to write a bill like this. What’s the point?

 

[Laszlo Cravensworth]

FWIW, the senate version was brought forth by Daines. Personally, I can’t see reason to write a bill like this. What’s the point?

I've heard the argument on more than one bar stool that the way them rascally gun grabbers are going to take all our guns away is by first outlawing hunting with lead ammo. And the deep state is all in on it, so if an EA were passed it would be the end of the world. It's a slippery slope you know.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

Colorado sportsmen be like “how about a bill that protects the right to hunt and fish?” Can we get one of those?

 

[R.K.]

FWIW, the senate version was brought forth by Daines. Personally, I can’t see reason to write a bill like this. What’s the point?

Paying lip service to sportsman and attempting to placate them given previous actions/votes/decisions that would have driven them away.

 

[Ben Lamb]

It's not even lip service. It is removing science as a primary driver of regulating shot and putting personal favoritism at the head of the line.

When Regan's undersecretary for the Interior banned lead shot, it was through executive fiat, not through the states. Why would we give up that kind of tool for wildlife conservation?

 

[Irrelevant]

it was through executive fiat, not through the states. Why would we give up that kind of tool for wildlife conservation?

Because wildlife is only held in trust for the states. There is no need for federal anything associated with wildlife. Each state shall have complete, dare I say, SUPREME control over its wildlife...

 

[Ben Lamb]

Because wildlife is only held in trust for the states. There is no need for federal anything associated with wildlife. Each state shall have complete, dare I say, SUPREME control over its wildlife...

No.

 

[SAJ-99]

Because wildlife is only held in trust for the states. There is no need for federal anything associated with wildlife. Each state shall have complete, dare I say, SUPREME control over its wildlife...

Waterfowl, et al,cross state and country lines. That’s how that lead rule came to be. With science research showing the negative effects of lead ingestion, of course.

 

[Irrelevant]

No.

Yes.

All depends on the wildlife topic and those who are addressing it.

Waterfowl, et al,cross state and country lines. That’s how that lead rule came to be. With science research showing the negative effects of lead ingestion, of course.

Irrelevant. Ton's of wildlife cross administrative lines and are still the sole ownership of the state.

 

[SAJ-99]

Irrelevant. Ton's of wildlife cross administrative lines and are still the sole ownership of the state.

Not migratory game birds.
I'm not sure where you are going with this argument. Are you in support of the bill?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Yes.

All depends on the wildlife topic and those who are addressing it.

Irrelevant. Ton's of wildlife cross administrative lines and are still the sole ownership of the state.

No.

And honestly, people misrepresent the state's role. The state isn't an "owner" of the wildlife. Wildlife is owned by no-one, and is held in trust by states and the federal government for the conservation of said species as well as their enjoyment by the people.

If the state was the end-all, be-all, then the ESA would have been overturned by the SUPCO.

 

[BuzzH]

Wildlife is owned by no-one

Is that right?

It is when its reduced to bag via legal take.

There's a certain landowner in wyoming that's going to be tried for theft of an elk rack. Pretty tough to be charged with theft if wildlife isn’t owned by someone you're stealing it from.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Is that right?

It is when its reduced to bag via legal take.

There's a certain landowner in wyoming that's going to be tried for theft of an elk rack. Pretty tough to be charged with theft if wildlife isn’t owned by someone you're stealing it from.

Yes - when the animal is alive. The legal classification stops once the animal is reduced to possession (i.e. killed).

When antlers fall off, the antler is not considered an animal, and as such those antlers which fall on private are considered property of the landowner. In the case of the stolen rack, by the time is was heisted - it was owned by the person who had the tag and killed it (reduced to possession). So the charge makes sense.

 

[Forkyfinder]

So the charge makes sense.

Sort of.

He should be tried with a felony - and face serious time behind bars.

But, as you know - outfitters get the kid gloves.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Sort of.

He should be tried with a felony - and face serious time behind bars.

But, as you know - outfitters get the kid gloves.

Well the discussion was around the person being charged with theft of a wildlife part and how the defnition of "owned by no-one" comes into play, but if you have evidence of felonious activity by the accused, you should get that to the prosecuting attorney so he can fold your evidence into his case.

 

[Treeshark]

There is no need for federal anything associated with wildlife.

(Except for money. Lots and lots of money.)