SB 339 Making progress

[AZ402]

A bill by U.S. Senators Harry Reid and John Ensign that would protect Nevada’s right to regulate its own hunting and fishing has passed a Senate Committee.

The bill would allow Nevada, and other states, to distinguish between residents and non-residents when issuing hunting and fishing licenses. States have traditionally regulated all hunting and fishing within their borders, but a recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals questioned how states can allocate hunting tags for residents and non-residents.

“Nevada sportsmen work hard to enhance the fish and wildlife habitat in Nevada,” said Reid. “Nevada’s hunting and fishing groups are actively involved in local, non-profit conservation efforts. They also support conservation through taxes and fees. Nevadans invest in conserving our fish and game resources, and they should be rewarded for their efforts.”

“This is a states’ rights issue that should not be subject to federal interference,” Senator Ensign said. “Nevada’s incredible wildlife resources make it a natural attraction for hunters and fisherman, and our state has managed its recreational programs to the benefit of all Nevadans. That is how it should continue to be.”

Reid and Ensign’s bill would reaffirm the long-standing right of states to make decisions about tag limits and licenses. The bill was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee today, and now goes to the full Senate for approval

 

[ringer]

Good news and I bet Taulman's hemorroids just blew up. Let's hope it passes muster in the Senate. The House should be a no brainer.

 

[A-con]

I hope this one passes.

 

[AZ402]

I'm not getting my hopes up but it's a start..........

 

[ELKCHSR]

Start sending those letters and e-mails; this usually seems to help the cause.
There should be plenty of sportsmen and women in that area to flood them with correspondence

 

[Bandit]

they can use all the letters from those sportsmen as possible. My guess is if the federal government steps in, all that extra income will go to them and not the state where it belongs.

 

[cjcj]

Thats GREAT NEWS!!... If this passes and holds up to the [for sure] court challenge...it will sweep every state... that would be AWESOME... Screw U.S.O.

 

[FAIRCHASEBEN]

Boy George and USO have made themselves a giant shit sandwich and now they get to eat it , this is just the first bite !

 

[AZ402]

I recieved this email today, not much different from what I posted above.

This morning we received some very good news. The bill to reaffirm a states right to regulate hunting and fishing was attached as an amendment by Senator Reid to an emergency appropriations bill which was passed by the Senate unanimously. We are not home free just yet. It must now be reconciled by congressional committee because the House bill did not include the amendment. Right now we are being asked by Senator Reid's office to hold on contacting our Congressional representatives. They are hopeful that this is just a formality and it may slip through. We need to be ready to contact them should this turn into a fight. Those who oppose this bill will do everything they can to derail it so we need to be ready. I will try to keep you informed.

 

[BuzzH]

Hopefully it will pass.

The best thing I can see with the latest law-suit is States at least recognizing that they need to be equitable in how they treat NR hunters. A reasonable number of permits should go to NR's and some states were/are pretty much ignoring that.

 

[Tom]

I think the system has errors in it, that's why there are law suits every once in a while, at least that's some indication for unbalanced distribution. We need checks and balances somehow, that's what makes our government great. States without any checks and balances would lead to more abuse. There should be some kind of balance between federal and state land, and I don't see anybody discussing that. Westerners here, i.e. the hunters, mostly seem to think, federal welfare for hunting is fine. Welfare ranching is bad, make them pay. If anything looks like welfare use of federal land is a puny tag price of a resident on a great 1000 lb elk. Calling a spade a spade. What do you say to the tree huggers and the easterners on that? I would like to know a good answer, but I don't.

The system, however it works, needs to reward those who provide good habitat and not reward those who don't. Who pays the bill on federal land in a state? Are they federal emplyees or state or a mix, how does that work?

Letting the state regulate animals from federal property is what's confusing? How do the feds encourage the state to do a good job? We need that.

 

[ringer]

When's the last time the feds worked on animal habitat of any kind? They are good at passing rules then forcing states to pay to enforce them. The states are the ones along with resident volunteers that have improved herds and habitat. Look at the big project to improve Lake Havasu with fish habitat, piers and docks. 240000 hours of volunteer labor but the feds did kick in a few bucks. Most of the improvement is from volunteers and most are local people. I have no issue with NR hunters getting a 10 or 15 percent share of tags but not 50% just because they want it. This bill is basically to get the courts out of game management and that is a good thing IMO.

 

[BuzzH]

Ringer,

Actually the feds do kick in quite a bit of money for wildlife and habitat...probably more than you realize.

When I was a board member for the Wetlands Protection Advisory Council in MT...a lot of our projects were jointly funded with the USFWS, Army Corp, etc. Theres lots of federal funding going on for wildlife.

 

[danr55]

Buzz, I'm not sure but I seem to recall that the biggest impetus for allowing any non-res hunters was matching federal funds for public lands. Seems to me that at one time is was considered a minimum of 10% tags for matching funds.

Does that sound right? If so, I wonder if there would be any non-res permits in some states without the matching funds. The only other impetus I can imagine is the difference in tag fees. Since Arizona does not have a lot of tags available, the actual delta in generated income would not be a very large incentive. Seems that some states like Wyoming, Montana and Colorado that issue thousands of non-res tags would see significant fees generated by those sales. Arizona, on the other hand, would not.

 

[Tom]

"The Forest Service manages public lands in national forests and grasslands, which encompass 193 million acres." from www.fs.fed.us. Federal budget for a few bucks there. Everybodies taxes pitched in on that, not just one state. Where is all that tallied up and reported in the state's management of wildlife?

I think those volunteers should get some reward, to be encouraged to do more work like that. Did they get anything?