BILL TO PROTECT STATE'S RIGHT TO MANAGE GAME

[Outdoor Writer]

Reid Fights To Protect Nevada

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) introduced a bill in the Senate today to protect Nevada's hunters and fishermen. Reid's bill reaffirms the right of states to manage their own fish and wildlife programs. That historic right has been jeopardized by a recent federal court ruling.

"The court ruling is a threat to the conservation of wildlife resources in Nevada, and a threat to Nevada's ability to provide recreational opportunities for its own citizens," said Reid. "This legislation shows that we respect the states' right to manage their own resources. It has bipartisan support, and I'm hopeful we can pass it quickly."

Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) is co-sponsoring the legislation.

"The state should maintain the rights on deciding fishing and hunting regulations," said Ensign. "Nevada is gifted in that our fish and wildlife programs are continuously thriving and to prolong this success, our state and not the federal court, should make the choices to preserve this."

States have traditionally had the right to regulate hunting and fishing within their own borders, including the right to issue licenses and set tag limits. However, a recent decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals could undermine those rights. The court ruled that states should not set different tag limits for residents and non-residents, because that could violate non-residents' Constitutional rights. Reid's bill would reaffirm states' right to make such distinctions.

"Sportsmen are ardent conservationists," said Reid. "For example, in Nevada there are sportsmen's groups like Nevada Bighorns Unlimited and the Fraternity of Desert Bighorn. Members of these groups spend their own time and money protecting our bighorn sheep, which are suffering because of a severe drought. Their understanding of our local habitats, and their efforts to save hundreds of these animals, justifies giving them hunting privileges that out-of-state sportsmen don't get."

In addition to Ensign, Senators Ted Stevens (R-AK), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Conrad Burns (R-MT), and Max Baucus (D-MT) are co-sponsors of Reid's bill.

 

[Outdoor Writer]

Here's a bit more I just located. -TONY

S.2978 : A bill relating to State regulation of access to hunting and fishing.

Sponsor: Sen Reid, Harry M. [NV] (introduced 10/11/2004) Cosponsors (5)

Committees: Senate Judiciary

Latest Major Action: 10/11/2004 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Members of the committee are:

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



****

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.

(b) 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.

 

[wmidbrook]

Thanks for posting this. Will be interesting to see if this becomes a law or not.

I'm by no means a lawyer and don't speak legal'ese but I'd imagine the courts would have a field day with this part if the bill makes it's way through congress and eventually becomes a law...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

(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.[/b]

What court/jurisdiction would this go to next if this were to become law? (assuming the legality of the law were challenged)

 

[Outdoor Writer]

wmidbrook,

Since this would be a federal statute if inacted, I imagine it would go into a federal district court in whatever state a legal challenge starts. From there on appeal it would go to the federal circuit court that has jurisdiction over that state, and then on to the SC if appealed all the way up the line. -TONY

 

[widgnwhacker]

Did you happen to notice some of the names on this piece of legislation?

Patrick J. Leahy RANKING DEMOCRATIC MEMBER, VERMONT


Edward M. Kennedy MASSACHUSETTS


Dianne Feinstein CALIFORNIA


Charles E. Schumer NEW YORK


John Edwards NORTH CAROLINA


Arlen Specter PENNSYLVANIA


Joseph R. Biden, Jr. DELAWARE


All of these people are ANTI-GUN so anything that they are involved in can't be good. Im sure that there is some underlying portions of this bill that are NOT good for sportsmen and women.

Thats just my .02cents worth.

 

[DAWG]

2nd WW's thoughts. I can not imagine much good coming out of a committee with half those names on it. Perhaps they will resolve the issue by eliminating hunting on federal land all together.

 

[spectr17]

Outfitters challenge hunting permits

By SANDRA CHEREB, Press writer

30, 2004

RENO, Nev. -- A lawsuit by three New Mexico outfitters accusing Nevada of discriminating against non-residents when issuing big game hunting tags has state wildlife officials scrambling to revamp the rules before next fall.

The Nevada Department of Wildlife issued an urgent plea to Nevada sportsmen and county advisory boards for suggested changes in the current allotment system after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in an Arizona case that states placing limits on non-resident tags must do so in the "least discriminatory" way.

For Nevada and eight other states in the Western circuit, the new ruling is "now the law of the land," said Terry Crawforth, Nevada Department of Wildlife director and president of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Association. Wyoming is not in the 9th Circuit.

The Nevada Wildlife Commission will discuss options to satisfy the court mandate when it meets Nov. 6 in Reno.

Some possible alternatives could include a "one pot" draw for residents and non-residents alike; limiting the number of tags a person can draw in a season; increasing fees and abandoning Internet applications to reduce the number applicants; issuing bonus points for conservation work.

Crawforth said the department hasn't "thrown in the towel," and it's possible another solution will present itself.

But until then, he said it's important for Nevada to prepare to comply with the court ruling.

"If we don't perform in good faith ... we may not have any season next year," Crawforth said of a worst-case scenario

In their lawsuit filed July 20 in U.S. District Court in Las Vegas, Jean Taulman, Lawrence Montoya, Filiberto Valerio and United States Outfitters Inc., all of Taos, N.M., allege Nevada's draw system that reserves most big game tags for residents discriminates against non-Nevadans and is prohibited under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The same plaintiffs prevailed in the case in Arizona, which used a similar quota system to allocate tags for some species in certain areas.

Under Nevada's lottery system, about 10 percent of deer and bighorn sheep tags and 5 percent of elk, antelope and mountain goat tags available each year are allocated to non-residents. The rest are reserved for residents.

"About 25 percent of applications for big game tags in Nevada are nonresidents and that percentage is growing," Crawforth said.

This year, about 112,000 people applied for tags in Nevada. Of the 19,800 tags issued for big game such as elk, deer and antelope, 18,255 went to residents.

Though other states use restrictive criteria for some hunts, Nevada is the only state that uses a quota system for all big game species.

"Nevada is now the state on the front line," said Crawforth, adding that the issue is being watched closely by other states across the country.

"It has nationwide ramifications," he said.

Nevada is also under the gun, Crawforth said, because planning for the fall season begins in February, when state wildlife commissioners traditionally set hunting seasons. Hunters apply for tags in April, quotas for different species are set in May and the annual lottery is conducted in June.

In response to the lawsuit, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., introduced a bill in Congress reaffirming states' rights to manage their own fish and wildlife programs.

"The court ruling is a threat to the conservation of wildlife resources in Nevada and a threat to Nevada's ability to provide recreational opportunities for its own citizens," Reid said.

Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., one of five co-sponsors of the bill, said the state, not the federal court, "should maintain the rights on deciding fishing and hunting regulations."

Besides lost hunting opportunities, the lawsuit claims quota restrictions have resulted in lost income for the outfitting business. It seeks to recover damages personally from Crawforth and members of the nine-member wildlife commission.

The attorney general's office has filed a motion to dismiss that part of the lawsuit.