sportsmens/conservation bills in Senate

[Khunter]

PUBLIC LANDS:
Murkowski introduces comprehensive sportsmen's package
Phil Taylor, E&E reporter
Published: Friday, July 19, 2013

Alaska's senior senator yesterday introduced a package of roughly a dozen sportsmen's and conservation bills, potentially reviving bipartisan efforts in the upper chamber to raise the profile of hunting, fishing and shooting on public lands.

The bill by Lisa Murkowski, the top Republican on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, is similar to a package of sportsmen's bills introduced last Congress by Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) that nearly passed the Senate during the lame-duck session late last year.

The Murkowski package includes language backed strongly by sportsmen's groups to require the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to promote hunting, fishing and target shooting on hundreds of millions of acres of federal lands.

Another bipartisan provision would allow lands agencies to acquire lands of high conservation value using revenue from the sales of lower-value lands.

The package would also allow duck hunting permits to be sold online, reauthorize a wetlands conservation program and ensure that a portion of conservation funding supports sportsmen's access.

"This legislative package includes a broad array of bipartisan measures that will improve access for sportsmen and women across our nation," Murkowski said in a statement. "I've worked closely with a wide range of stakeholders to put together a reasonable, meaningful and comprehensive bill."

Murkowski said she had also worked closely with House members to ensure their priorities made it into the bill.

Tester's package last year excluded S. 2066 by Murkowski and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), which mirrored a bill by Rep. Dan Benishek (R-Mich.) backed strongly by the GOP and influential sportsmen's groups but opposed by wilderness advocates.

The primary components of those bills are included in Murkowski's new package, but the controversial language involving wilderness and environmental reviews appears to have been left out.

Paul Spitler, director of wilderness policy for the Wilderness Society, said the group was still reviewing the bill.

"The result is a streamlined package that strikes a careful balance in order to give this bill the best possible chance of being signed into law," Murkowski said.

While the bill could garner support from a wide spectrum of sportsmen's and conservation groups, one provision is likely to again rile some leading Democrats and environmental organizations.

The provision would clarify that U.S. EPA does not have the authority to regulate lead ammunition or fishing tackle under the Toxic Substances Control Act.

Similar language in Tester's sportsmen's package last year drew sharp opposition from Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Ben Cardin (D-Md.) and environmental groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Council and Center for Biological Diversity.

Tester's bill was hobbled by that language last Congress, even though its ultimate defeat came at the hands of Republicans over a minor budget violation.

The source of that budget violation -- a provision to raise the price of duck stamps, which constituted an unauthorized tax hike -- is not in the new Murkowski bill.

Murkowski is beginning to seek co-sponsors for the legislation, a spokesman for the senator said. The ENR and Environment and Public Works committees would presumably share jurisdiction over the bill.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Text of the bill here:
http://www.murkowski.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=SponsoredLegislation

 

[Carrion Carrier]

Ben Lamb, do you like this bill? I respect your opinion very much.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ben Lamb, do you like this bill? I respect your opinion very much.

To date, I've not read or seen anything that would lead me to believe that this bill is bad. It mirrors the same bill that was introduced in the House with the exception that some poorly worded provisions regarding temporary roads in Wilderness are removed.

The bill could be stronger in regards to protecting hunting and angling on public lands by placing it as high on the priority scale as energy development and grazing, but realizing that Congress wouldn't go for that, I think that Senator Murkowski has done a good job incorporating the good portions of HR 1825 and Tester's Sportsman's Act of 2012. The bill does direct the BLM & USFS to evaluate the impacts to hunting and fishing when they do their NEPA planning, and that's a huge step in the right direction not only for protecting hunting and angling as activities on public land, but habitat management and travel management as they relate to ensuring abundant wildlife populations on public lands.

Another thing the bill does is ensures that public lands remain open for hunting and fishing and cannot be arbitrarily closed because of designated status. That helps us fight back against anti-hunters who will try to use Wilderness designations, especially in more populated regions, to shut down the use of firearms or hunting in general (There was a case in Michigan that tried to do this).

I especially like the provision that says that the EPA cannot regulate lead shot and ammo under the Toxic Substance & Chemicals Act (TSCA). The Bush administration and the Obama administration both agree that the EPA has no authority to regulate ammo. That is, and should, be left to the USFWS and individual state game & fish agencies. The courts agreed with that as well.

Unless I hear differently from folks with much better legal backgrounds than I have, I think this is a good bill to get behind.

Here's the link to the actual text of the bill: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113s170is/pdf/BILLS-113s170is.pdf

Here's a link to a blog post I wrote for Outdoor Life regarding HR 1825 (the House version of the bill): http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113s170is/pdf/BILLS-113s170is.pdf

 

[Carrion Carrier]

Thanks buddy!

 

[1_pointer]

Another thing the bill does is ensures that public lands remain open for hunting and fishing and cannot be arbitrarily closed because of designated status.

This I like!

The bill does direct the BLM & USFS to evaluate the impacts to hunting and fishing when they do their NEPA planning, and that's a huge step in the right direction not only for protecting hunting and angling as activities on public land, but habitat management and travel management as they relate to ensuring abundant wildlife populations on public lands

This I would have to see how it is to be done before I would be in support of it. The one good thing about it, if the impacts are to be evaluated it gives hunters/hunting groups a bit more of a leg to stand on when it comes to protests and appeals.

 

[Ben Lamb]

This I would have to see how it is to be done before I would be in support of it. The one good thing about it, if the impacts are to be evaluated it gives hunters/hunting groups a bit more of a leg to stand on when it comes to protests and appeals.

Devil's always in the details.

 

[1_pointer]

Yep. How they want analyzed for NEPA could make it a deal breaker. Or it could just be added and done as a 'straw man', which really wouldn't be that helpful. Something as open ended and subjective as "hunting and fishing" could have many interpretations and may actually prevent work that is needed...

 

[Ben Lamb]

Yep. How they want analyzed for NEPA could make it a deal breaker. Or it could just be added and done as a 'straw man', which really wouldn't be that helpful. Something as open ended and subjective as "hunting and fishing" could have many interpretations and may actually prevent work that is needed...

As I said, it's not worded how I would have done it, but I think that politically, any wording that would have placed hunters & anglers on the same level as lovestock prodicers and the O&G industry would never get a uearing in the House or the Senate.

To be sure,there's a lot of the tail wagging the dog in the bill, but overall, it's a good start to protect hunting & fishing on public lands.