diablo Report post Posted October 19, 2004 Speaker: Senator Harry M. Reid (NV) Title: Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions - S. 2978 Location: Washington, DC Date: 10/11/2004 STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS By Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. NELSON of Nebraska, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. BURNS, Mr. STEVENS, and Mr. ENSIGN): S. 2978. A bill relating to State regulation of access to hunting and fishing; to the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. REID. Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today explicitly reaffirms each State's right to regulate hunting and fishing. I am pleased that Senators BEN NELSON, CONRAD BURNS, and TED STEVENS are joining me in sponsoring this important bill. This is a Nevada issue, but it is also a national issue, as a recent Federal circuit court ruling undermines traditional hunting and fishing laws. In Conservation Force v. Dennis Manning, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that State laws that distinguish between State residents and non-residents for the purpose of affording hunting and related privileges are constitutionally suspect. This threatens the conservation of wildlife resources and recreational opportunities. Although the Ninth Circuit found the purposes of such regulation to be sound, the Court questioned the validity of tag limits for non-resident hunters. I respect the authority of States to enact laws to protect their legitimate interests in conserving fish and game, as well as providing opportunities for State residents to hunt and fish. That's what this legislation says-we respect that State right. Sportsmen are ardent conservationists. They support wildlife conservation not only through the payment of State and local taxes and other fees, but also through local non-profit conservation efforts and by volunteering their time. For example, in Nevada there are great groups such as Nevada Bighorns Unlimited and the Fraternity of Desert Bighorn. These are dedicated sportsmen who spend countless hours, as well as money, building ?guzzlers? in the desert, which help provide a reliable source of water for Desert Bighorn Sheep. Without these efforts it would be extremely hard for the Bighorn Sheep to survive, because many areas of their natural habitat where they used to drink water have been developed. Today, Southern Nevada is in the 5th year of a 500 year drought, and the work of the groups I mentioned is saving the lives of hundreds of bighorns. The involvement of local sportsmen in protecting and conserving wildlife is one of the facts that justifies traditional resident/non-resident distinctions, and provides the motivation for our legislation. The regulation of wildlife is traditionally within a State's purview, and this legislation simply affirms the traditional role of States in the regulation of fish and game. This bill is time sensitive. This bill needs to pass before next year's hunting season begins. I look forward to working with my colleagues to expedite passage of this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: S. 2978 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. STATE REGULATION OF ACCESS TO HUNTING AND FISHING. (a) DECLARATION OF POLICY.-Congress hereby declares that- (1) the continued regulation of access to hunting and fishing by the several States is in the public interest; and (2) silence on the part of Congress shall not be construed to impose any commerce clause barrier to the regulation of such activities by the several States. ( STATE REGULATION OF ACCESS TO HUNTING AND FISHING.-The licensing of hunting and fishing, or of other access thereto, and every person engaged in hunting or fishing, shall be subject to the laws of the several States which relate to the regulation of such activities. ? CONSTRUCTION.-No Act of Congress shall be construed to invalidate, impair, or supersede any law enacted by any State for the purpose of regulating the access to hunting and fishing unless such Act specifically so states. Contact Us | About Us | E-mail this page to a Friend All content ? 2002-2004 Project Vote Smart Project Vote Smart One Common Ground, Philipsburg, MT 59858, 406-859-8683 Questions? Need help? Call our Voter's Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.270 Report post Posted October 19, 2004 is this all there is to the bill? any specifics? heard that nevada was going to outlaw guiding all together. that's a kick in the gonads to a bunch o' guys. one thing that has kinda got me wondering is the deafening silence from other guide and outfitter services on this whole subject, especially those based in Az. i kinda suspect that maybe their might be some silent support for uso's side, because they know it could increase their revenue (the other outfitters), too. something tells me that if nevada succeeds, and outlaws guiding, that there might be an increase in vocalization. anyway, at least nevada ain't sittin' on their hands like Az. did. the best defense is a good offense. Lark. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MattMan Report post Posted October 20, 2004 The very fact that AZGF just kinda tossed their hands up and said "We gave it a good shot boys, but they got us" kinda leads me to believe that they don't have the resident's best interests in mind. They sat on their thumbs for TWO YEARS after losing the case... not doing anything just in case the appeals process didn't got their way... ending up in the crisis this year during the draw. Lots of people are under the mistaken impression that this is something that developed during the draw process this year. If AZGF truly had resident hunting opportunity in mind, they would have pursued legislation to exempt game services and wildlife from interstate commerce law... kinda like Nevada did. If the cap is found unconstitutional, how do you change it... enact a bunch of changes that are totally different from what your surveys indicated the residents supported, or pursue an amendment to the constitution that would allow reinstatement of the cap? What you have to remember about AZGF, is they are pretty much the only self-funded state agency. They basically exist from the revenue they generate. So if they put out fewer tags, the only way to increase revenue is to raise tag fees, or give more tags to the non-residents. So every decision they make regarding the number of total tags, and the portion of those tags that will go to non-residents, is bordering on a conflict of interest. The management of mule deer in many of the units in this state is a prime example... they simply put out too many tags. I think outlawing guiding services altogether is a pretty radical step. All that would do is encourage under the table type crap... creating the atmosphere for crooked idiots like USO to thrive. I think the penalties for any type of illegal activities by a guide should be ten fold. Maybe even permanent revocation of the priveledge to guide in this state. Like a driver with a CDL... they are held to a much higher standard than the driver with a standard license. Alaska has pretty severe reprocutions for any type of violations, from what I understand. They also place undercover folks on hunts with the guides to catch the crooked ones. The best we can hope for is that one of the other states, like Nevada, has a little different system, and will sack up and actually do something on a federal level to negate USOs case. The best you can do is call or write your congressmen to support those efforts... and encourage everyone you know to do so. Then AZGF will pretty much have to reinstate the cap... which they don't really want to do. Sorry for rambling, and telling you a bunch of stuff you probably already knew. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablo Report post Posted October 20, 2004 Here's the full committee. Orrin G. Hatch CHAIRMAN, UTAH Patrick J. Leahy RANKING DEMOCRATIC MEMBER, VERMONT Charles E. Grassley IOWA Edward M. Kennedy MASSACHUSETTS Arlen Specter PENNSYLVANIA Joseph R. Biden, Jr. DELAWARE Jon Kyl ARIZONA Herbert Kohl WISCONSIN Mike DeWine OHIO Dianne Feinstein CALIFORNIA Jeff Sessions ALABAMA Russell D. Feingold WISCONSIN Lindsey Graham SOUTH CAROLINA Charles E. Schumer NEW YORK Larry Craig IDAHO Richard J. Durbin ILLINOIS Saxby Chambliss GEORGIA John Edwards NORTH CAROLINA John Cornyn TEXAS Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
