texashuntingforum.com logo
Main Menu
Advertisement
Affiliates
Advertisement
Newest Members
smcnaughton, SD Wings, Sooner75, Parker0310, GKIII
66781 Registered Users
Top Posters(All Time)
dogcatcher 101,867
bill oxner 68,867
stxranchman 55,805
SnakeWrangler 52,094
RKHarm24 44,585
rifleman 44,451
BMD 41,064
Big Orn 37,484
Facebook
Forum Statistics
Forums45
Topics428,584
Posts6,449,447
Members66,781
Most Online19,184
Feb 5th, 2020
Print Thread
New Bill Addresses Objections to Last Year’s Sportsmen’s Heritage Act #4084908 02/26/13 08:56 PM
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 701
T
Tjack28 Offline OP
Tracker
OP Offline
Tracker
T
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 701
Don't know if this info has been posted already but I received this email today and though I'd share...

This bill will really help hunting and fishing in our future. Last yer the bill did not get presented because of some objections to the wording. those have been fixed. Read below. BOB LINDER NWTF

New Bill Addresses Objections to Last Year’s Sportsmen’s Heritage Act

By Bob Marshall
Of all the attributes that an effective conservation lobbyist needs, persistence may be the most important. This is one profession where “if at first you don’t succeed try, try again” isn’t a cliché, it’s a fact of life.

That can be seen in the latest attempt to have Congress assure that recreational access and opportunities in the backcountry have at least equal footing to other public interests. Last year, sportsmen’s groups made a run at that goal with two “sportsmen’s heritage” bills, both of which ran into objections from other interests.

So this year they “try, try again” with the “Hunting and Fishing Heritage and Opportunities Act” (S.170) sponsored by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and co-sponsored by Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY). This second effort includes changes to the parts of last year’s bills other parties found problematic. The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, representing most sportsmen’s groups, outlined those changes:

- Wilderness language: S.170 corrects the wilderness-related language that caused so much concern in the last Congress, It requires that wilderness areas and wilderness study areas be open to hunting and fishing, but clarifies that “nothing in this paragraph authorizes or requires motorized access or the use of motorized vehicles for recreational fishing, hunting, or recreational shooting purposes within land designated as a wilderness study area or administratively classified as wilderness eligible or suitable.” S.170 also forbids agencies from leasing or permitting federal land in the Wilderness Preservation System for shooting ranges.

- NEPA exemption: Both the House and Senate versions of this bill in the 112th had National Environmental Policy Act exemption language that gave some conservation groups heartburn. It stated that any action taken under the legislation is not to be considered a major federal action and therefore is not subject to NEPA review. This language is not present in S.170.

- Evaluation requirement: S.170 would require the agencies to include a “specific evaluation of the effects of [planning documents] on opportunities to engage in recreational fishing, hunting, or recreational shooting.” Previous legislation only required that planning documents “provide for opportunities to engage in hunting, recreational fishing, and recreational shooting.”

- Closure reporting/1280-acre rule: S.170 requires that federal agencies report to the House and Senate Natural Resource Committees every other year describing federal land that was closed to hunting, fishing and shooting activities, and justifying the decision to close it. Agencies must also 1) publish appropriate notice 2) demonstrate coordination with State Fish and Wildlife Agencies and 3) submit notice to the NR committees if they plan to close more than 1,280 contiguous or aggregate acres of federal land to hunting and fishing.

Of course, while those changes should help calm some of the specific objections voiced last year, sportsmen should know there were other voices opposing the bill, generally on the ground that placing fish wildlife hunting and fishing interests above those of other users isn’t the right path forward for the nation when considering public lands management.

So, just like those conservation groups championing our issues, hunters and anglers should “try, try again” by contacting their delegation and demanding support. You can find out who your congress people are, and how to contact them, at www.contactingthecongress.org.


T. Jackson
NWTF, Harris County Wildlife Group
P.O. Box 91227
Houston, TX 77088
http://www.facebook.com/pages/NWTF-Harris-County-Wildlife-Group/111234152254353
Re: New Bill Addresses Objections to Last Year’s Sportsmen’s Heritage Act [Re: Tjack28] #4085700 02/27/13 01:42 AM
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 16,312
A
aeb Offline
THF Celebrity
Offline
THF Celebrity
A
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 16,312
Originally Posted By: Tjack28

So this year they “try, try again”


My experience has been that unless your a BIG BIG GUN, it usually takes two and sometimes three trips to the well to get a piece of legislation, regarless of its merit, passed. Maybe #2 will be magic.


Previous Thread
Index
Next Thread

© 2004-2019 OUTDOOR SITES NETWORK all rights reserved USA and Worldwide
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.3