National Assembly of Sportsmens Caucuses 2011 Issue Briefs

Issue Briefs 2011
Shooting Sports & Guns Issues Outdoor Sporting Goods Tax Holiday (26)
Microstamping (3) Knife Definitions (27)
Range Protection (4) Modern Restraining Animal Traps (28)
Modern Sporting Rifle (5)
Natural Resource Management
Programs Off Highway Vehicles (30)
Archery in the Schools (7)
Wildlife Violators Compact (31)
Farmers and Hunters Feeding the Hungry(8)
Invasive Species (32)
Hunting & Nature Appreciation in Schools (9)
White-tailed Deer Management (33)
Voter Registration (10)
Conservation Tax Incentives (34)
Internet Based Hunter’s Education Course (11)
American System of Conservation Funding (12)
Anti Hunting /Fishing (Animal Rights)
Lead Sinker Ban (36)
Hunting & Fishing Access
Fresh Water Angling Access (14)
Substandard Kennels (37)
No-Net-Loss (15)
Hunting with Dog Packs (38)
Public Access to Private Lands (16)
Fishing Reciprocity (17)
Oceans Policy
Sunday Hunting Restrictions (18)
Catch Shares (40)
Magnuson-Stevens Act (41)
Hunting & Trapping
Marine Spatial Planning (42)
Apprentice Hunting License (20)
Marine Protected Areas (43)
College Student Hunting/Fishing License (21)
Terminally Ill Youth Hunting Opportunities (22)
Past Issues
Lead Ammunition Ban (23)
Internet Hunting (45)
Crossbows (24)
National Instant Background Check System (46)
Seniors, Veterans and Active Duty Military Hunting
Bullet Serialization (47)
and Angling Privileges (25)
1
Shooting Sports and Gun
Issues
2
Microstamping
Introduction
Microstamping, ballistic imprinting and ballistic engraving are all names given to a controversial technology that has
been developed with the goal of aiding in ballistics identification. Gun control supporters such as the Educational Fund of
the Coalition to stop Gun Violence and the Brady Center are attempting to use microstamping as a way to severely restrict
the sale of guns. Microstamping involves the use of laser technology to engrave a microscopic marking onto the tip of the
firing pin and onto the breech face of a firearm. When the firearm is fired, these etchings are transferred to the primer by
the firing pin and to the cartridge case by the breech face, using the pressure created when a round is fired. After the spent
cartridges are ejected, these microscopic markings are imprinted on the cartridges.
Two separate research studies have concluded that this technology is “unreliable. “Experts at the University of California,
Davis, recently finished a study of microstamping which was requested and funded by the California State Legislature.
The conclusions about the concepts are straightforward and direct. The researchers found microstamping to be "flawed"
and concluded that "At the current time it is not recommended that a mandate for implementation of this technology in all
semiautomatic handguns in the state of California be made. Further testing, analysis and evaluation are required."
According the UC Davis study, the codes on face of the pin can easily be removed with household tools. Another concern
of firearms owners and taxpayers alike is the cost of microstamping.
On October 13, 2007 Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, signed AB1471 into law. On or after January,
2011, upon certification by the attorney general, the law will define any newly designed semi-automatic pistol as an
“unsafe handgun,” unless the pistol is equipped with two or more internal parts that imprint onto the cartridge case of a
fired round of ammunition, a microscopic array of characters that identify the make, model and serial number of the
pistol.
Points of Interest
• Microstamping legislation was passed in California AB 1471 and signed into law on October 14, 2007, but
specifically exempts law enforcement.
• Similar legislation is under consideration in New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Maryland,
Wisconsin, and Illinois.
• An independent peer-reviewed study published in the Journal of the Association of Firearms and Toolmarks
Examiners (AFTE) concluded that “implementing this technology will be much more complicated than burning
a serial number on a few parts and dropping them into firearms being manufactured."
• Law enforcement opposition and support for further study includes the National Fraternal Order of Police, Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), and the New York State Police among others.
• July 2, 2010, U.S. Congressman Dan Boren, Co-Chair of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, introduced the
Firearms Microstamping Evaluation and Study Act (H.R. 5667), to direct the U.S. Attorney General to work with
the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a comprehensive study of firearm microstamping technology and to
evaluate the technology’s cost and effectiveness. CSF supports this bipartisan legislation as a means of ensuring
that adequate research of microstamping is completed, and the concept is proven to work reliably, prior to states
mandating microstamping through the legislative process.
• Criminals could pollute a crime scene by taking microstamped cases from a shooting range and scatter them at the
scene of the crime, thus implicating innocent gun owners in crimes they did not commit.
Contact
For more information or sources regarding this issue, please contact:
Jake McGuigan (203) 426-1320; jmcguigan@nssf.org
Jennifer Lundy (202) 543-6907; Jennifer@sportsmenslink.org
Fact Sheet and referenced studies can be found at: http://nssf.org/media/FactSheets/Microstamping.cfm
3
Range Protection
Introduction
Although firearms shooting ranges have a long tradition of service to a wide variety of citizen groups, they are coming
under fire as population growth and suburban sprawl have moved closer to existing ranges. In recent years, this has
resulted in hundreds of lawsuits and complaints filed by newcomers against range owners and in the passage of local
ordinances aimed at closing ranges. These ordinances take many forms but can include: prohibitions against excessive
noise, controlling times of operation and limiting facility expansion that is necessary to accommodate a growing interest
in the shooting sports and rising shooting club membership levels. Without adequate range protection laws, safe shooting
ranges that offer valuable public services (concealed carry training) and recreational opportunities will be vulnerable to
arbitrary sanctions, creative lawsuits and closure.
Language
By incorporating the views of our partners and other state legislators who have passed range protection legislation, we
present the following language:
1. “A sport shooting range that is not in violation of a state law or an ordinance of a local unity of government prior
to the enactment of a new ordinance may continue in operation after the enactment of the new ordinance.
2. No new ordinance of a local unit of government shall prohibit a sport shooting range that is in existence on the
effective date of this section from doing any of the following within the existing geographic boundaries of the
sport shooting range:
• Repair, remodel or reinforce any building or improvement as may be necessary in the interest of public safety
or to secure the continued use of the building or improvement;
• Reconstruct, repair, rebuild or resume the use of a facility or building damaged by fire, collapse, explosion,
act of nature, or act of war occurring after the effective date of this section.
• Expand or enhance its membership or opportunities for public participation.
Points of Interest
To solidify range protection laws in your state please ensure that the following areas are addressed:
• Protecting ranges against lawsuits being brought by both private and public entities.
• Minimizing the ability for ranges to be zoned out, to have use permits rescinded, or to be put into financial
distress due to licensing fees.
• Grandfathering ranges into municipalities that ban shooting inside city limits.
• Disallowing a locality from regulating firearm discharge in any way.
• Language should provide protection for both supervised and unsupervised ranges.
Contact
For more information regarding this issue, please contact: Jennifer Lundy (202) 543-6907; Jennifer@sportsmenslink.org
4
Modern Sporting Rifle
Introduction
The modern sporting rifle, based on the AR-15 platform, is widely misunderstood throughout the country. Confusion
exists because while these rifles may cosmetically look like military rifles, they do not function in the same way. Groups
wanting to ban these rifles have for years spread misinformation about them to aid their cause.
The AR-15 platform is a semi-auto carbine or rifle, most often in .223 or .308 calibers, designed to accommodate a vast
array of accessories such as scopes and other sights, slings, lights, and much more. Folding or telescoping stocks and
pistol grips can customize cosmetic appearance, but the core functionality of an AR remains identical to traditional semi-
auto long guns.
Modern rifles and accessories are a booming trend within the firearms industry. Sales figures are difficult to report
accurately because many manufacturers are privately held companies, and ATF statistics do not distinguish between rifle
types. However, anecdotal evidence is plentiful. Manufacturers say they're backordered, and that modern firearms now
outsell traditional rifles.
Modern Sporting Rifle Facts

• The AR in "AR-15" rifle stands for Armalite rifle, after the company that developed it in the 1950s. “AR” does
NOT stand for “assault rifle” or “automatic rifle.”
• AR-15-style rifles are NOT "assault weapons" or “assault rifles.” An assault rifle is fully automatic—a machine
gun. Automatic firearms have been heavily regulated by the National Firearms Act since 1934.
• AR-15-style rifles look like military rifles, such as the M-16, but function like other semi-automatic civilian
sporting firearms, firing only one round with each pull of the trigger.
• Versions of modern sporting rifles are legal to own in all 50 states, provided the purchaser passes the mandatory
FBI background check required for all retail firearm purchasers.
• Since the 19th century, civilian sporting rifles have evolved from their military predecessors. The modern sporting
rifle simply follows that tradition.
• These rifles' accuracy, reliability, ruggedness and versatility serve target shooters and hunters well. They are true
all-weather firearms.
• Chamberings include .22, .223 (5.56 x 45mm), 6.8 SPC, .308, .450 Bushmaster and about a dozen other calibers.
Upper receivers for pistol calibers such as 9 mm, .40 and .45, and others, are available. There are even .410
shotgun versions.
• These rifles are used for many different types of hunting, from varmint to big-game. And they’re used for target
shooting in national matches.
Crime control legislation should be based upon solid facts, not emotions, cosmetics or appearance. Semi-automatic
firearms are now one of the most popular types of firearms in America and are used for a wide variety of legitimate
sporting purposes, including hunting, small game control, target shooting and personal defense.
Contact
For more information regarding this issue, please contact:
Jake McGuigan (203) 426-1320; jmcguigan@nssf.org, Jennifer Lundy (202) 543-6907, Jennifer@sportsmenslink.org
5
Programs
6
Archery in Schools
Introduction
More than 7500 schools in 47 states, the District of Columbia, Nova Scotia, Canada, South Africa, and Australia have
adopted a National Archery in Schools Program® (NASP®). NASP® is a non-profit (501-C-3) for students in grades 4-
12. School archery programs are safe, build student self-esteem and introduce kids and families to shooting sports through
target archery. These programs are popular with teachers because success in archery can be achieved by students of all
genders, abilities, and backgrounds. According to teachers, participation in the NASP® improves student grades, behavior
and school attendance. Over 7.2 million youth have participated in archery via the NASP® and it continues to grow by
about 2,000 schools per year. According to a 2004 survey of NASP® graduates, 27% purchase personal archery
equipment after learning target archery skills from their teacher. There are still 104,000 U.S. schools yet to implement
NASP®.
Archery program start-ups have been successful but continued funding, support, and the creation of community archery
programs in each state is necessary to continue this success. Currently the after-school and out-of-school needs of
participants are being under-served. A majority of communities lack archery in local recreation programs and shooting
locations are few and far between. Recruitment into archery and other shooting sports will not continue without providing
additional locations and opportunities for participants to practice. The Archery Trade Association has entered into MOUs
with many state natural resource agencies to effectively utilize funds to further develop archery in the school and
community archery programs. Only through repeated exposure to archery will kids have a chance to make archery part of
their recreational lives.
Points of Interest
• Funding support should be protected within program budgets for NASP® coordinators, instructor training and
equipment purchases.
• Encourage fish and wildlife agency utilization of Pittman-Robertson funds for NASP® and community archery
programs.
• State and local funding opportunities should be explored for both indoor and outdoor shooting facilities as a part
of city and county parks.
• Archery parks and ranges need to be located within a reasonable distance of schools with programs and these
facilities need to be child and family friendly.
• Current recreational facilities could be expanded or adapted in many cases to include archery.
History
The NASP® started when Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources (KDFWR) Commissioner, Tom Bennett
wanted archery to become a 'high school sport choice.' The KDFWR hosted a 'Step Outside' event to introduce the
Kentucky Department of Education to the sport of archery. It was suggested that archery would be a popular sport with
students. The Department of Education agreed to help if the program was started as a PE class in middle school. The
program began in 21 Kentucky Middle Schools and has grown to 7500 schools and 20,000 NASP® certified archery
teaches. NASP® will teach 2,000,000 students the lifetime skill of archery this school year.
Contact
For more information regarding this issue, please contact: Chris Horton (501) 865-1475; Chris@sportsmenslink.org
7
Farmers and Hunters Feeding the Hungry
Introduction
As a result of the growing number of deer, geese and other game animals across America, crop and property damage
preventive game permits are being issued to farmers, airports, military installations and agricultural facilities. Many of the
animals harvested as a result of these special permits are being wholly discarded and a possibly beneficial resource is
going to waste. In addition, high bag limits and extended seasons are putting hunters in the position of being able to
harvest more deer and other game than they can personally consume. A Farmers and Hunters Feeding the Hungry
Program or Farmers and Hunters Feeding the Hungry (FHFH) helps distribute this surplus of meat to put healthy meals
onto the tables of needy citizens. Donating venison and other wild game is a great way to make sure that harvested meat is
not wasted.
Research has shown that most non-hunters (75%) will support hunting if they know the meat is used wisely. Most people
are not likely to object to a needy child getting a good meal. Although there are various programs geared toward hunter
retention and our hunting heritage, FHFH is a great public relations tool that we can utilize to frame the importance of
hunting in a way that non-hunters can understand and feel comfortable supporting.
Most states have a venison donation program to feed the hungry, but the biggest obstacle these organizations encounter is
a lack of funds for butchering costs. A nationwide, non-profit feeding ministry called, Farmers and Hunters Feeding the
Hungry (FHFH), is attempting to change this and inviting all hunters to return to their hunting heritage as food providers.
FHFH is now attempting to affiliate all state venison donation programs under one national feeding umbrella.
Points of Interest
• During its first seven years (1997 to 2003), FHFH programs in 27 states have processed and distributed over
1,400 tons of venison for soup kitchens and food pantries across America.
• A number of states now allow hunters to donate money to similar programs when purchasing their licenses. This
money helps to cover the cost of processing.
• Each dollar donated equates to 6 meals for the hungry.
• Ranchers also participate in the FHFH program.
• On average, 50 pounds of meat can be taken off of a deer. If ground and used in spaghetti or chili, one deer can
feed 200 people at $0.25/serving.
History
The FHFH program, which started in Maryland in 1997, is unparalleled and unique in that it only has one mission, to feed
the hungry, via venison donations. To learn more about FHFH please go here: http://www.fhfh.org/Home.asp
Contact
For more information regarding this issue, please contact: Chris Horton (501) 865-1475 Chris@sportsmenslink.org
8
Hunting, Fishing & Nature Appreciation in Schools
Introduction
The number of American youth with health problems is a concern. Rising youth obesity rates, stemming from poor dietary
choices and a progressively more sedentary lifestyle, is alarming. In recent years, many states have experienced declines
in the issuance of hunting and fishing licenses, which results in fewer parents giving their kids the opportunity to get
outdoors and live a healthy life. In an effort to improve the quality of young people’s lives, several states have introduced
legislation to require hunting and nature appreciation in schools, or to institute hunting and fishing education courses as
part of the student’s academic curriculum. It is hoped that instruction in hunting, fishing, and/or nature appreciation might
go a long way to curb some of the recent declines in health amongst our American youth.
State legislatures should consider the option of introducing legislation that offers hunting, fishing and nature appreciation
in the schools, or to offer a hunter’s education elective course. These programs work to recruit new hunters and anglers;
something that will ultimately benefit state conservation efforts because of the license fees and tax generated monies.
Language
By incorporating the views of our partners and other state legislators who have passed this legislation, we present the
following language:
• Urging the State Board of Education to provide for a course of instruction for students in grades nine through 12
that would include Hunting, Fishing, and Nature Appreciation;
• WHEREAS, hunting, fishing, and nature appreciation courses are designed to teach hunting safety, principles of
conservation, and sportsmanship, and such instruction may help prepare a student for a career in public safety or
natural resources where there are critical shortages of trained personnel; and
• WHEREAS, offering a course on hunting safety provides a physical education option to persons who may
otherwise be unable to participate in physical sports or outdoor school activities due to physical limitations or
disabilities;
• WHEREAS, children should be given an opportunity to develop an appreciation for the natural wonders of the
State and be encouraged to experience the beauty of nature.
• THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the opportunity to participate in a hunting, fishing, and nature
appreciation course should be offered to students in public schools in grades nine or above, and the State Board of
Education should make available to eligible students in grades nine through 12 an elective course on Hunting,
Fishing, and Nature Appreciation for the purpose of fulfilling a prescribed course of study in physical education
or as an elective course.
Point of Interest
• A lack of routine contact with nature may result in stunted academic and developmental growth. This
unwanted side-effect of the electronic age is called Nature Deficit Disorder (NDD). The term was coined
by author Richard Louv in his book Last Child in the Woods. To read more about Last Child in the
Woods see here: http://richardlouv.com/
History
Former West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin III signed into law legislation that: directed the state Board of Education to
develop a hunter education program for use in the state’s public schools. An instructor from the state’s Division of Natural
Resources offers the class over a 2-week period as an elective to students in grade six as part of the physical education
class, general education curriculum or after-school programming.
Former Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter signed into law legislation that improved Colorado youths' knowledge of the
environment, and, in connection therewith, creates the Colorado kids outdoors grant program.
In 2010, the Michigan Legislature approved a House resolution to express support of public policies that promote outdoor
activities for Michigan's children.
Contact
9
Voter Registration
Introduction
Encouraging sportsmen’s involvement in the political process is an important method for preserving our outdoor heritage.
Increased participation helps ensure that the sportsmen’s voice is heard, particularly though the ballot box, which also
strengthens the sportsmen’s ability to collectively defeat anti-sportsmen groups. Facilitating voter registration for
sportsmen at the time they purchase their sportsmen’s licenses is one way to increase the number of registered sportsmen
voters.
Language
following language:
“Each application to obtain a resident hunting, fishing, or trapping license issued by the (Department of
Natural Resources/State Wildlife Agency) and made by an applicant who is within six months of such
applicant's eighteenth birthday or older shall also serve as an application for voter registration unless the
applicant declines to register to vote through specific declination or by failing to sign the voter
registration application.
(The Board of Natural Resources/State Wildlife Agency) and the Secretary of State shall agree upon and
design such procedures and forms as will be necessary to comply with this Code section, including
without limitation procedures applicable to processing of applications received by persons approved as
license agents for the (Department of Natural Resources).”
Points of Interest
It is the duty of each caucus leadership team to determine the best means of action in your respective state and modify the
above language as necessary.
History
The issue was introduced at the inaugural NASC Annual Meeting in 2004 by a Georgia legislator and was issued as a
NASC issue brief during the 2005 legislative session. Sportsmen’s caucuses in Florida and Georgia have passed similar
legislation and attempts have been made in at least six other states.
Contact
10
Internet Based Hunter’s Education Course
Introduction
Currently 28 of the 49 states that require hunter’s safety education as a prerequisite for obtaining a hunting license offer
an online hunter’s education program. Potential hunters can complete a convenient, self-paced home study for free. Then,
for a $15 fee, students can take an exam which qualifies them for a two hour field test that may be registered for online
and completed at a location convenient to them. Once the test is passed, the student is able to print out their field day
qualifier certificate, which they bring with them to the field day qualifier. The field day qualifier is administered by
conservation officers, and a student’s successful completion of the course is evaluated by the administering officer.
Points of Interest
• Online hunter’s safety courses provide a quick and efficient way for new hunters to gain valuable knowledge and
receive hunter safety certification. By offering new hunters an easy and efficient way to gain hunter safety
certification, more people will have an opportunity to begin hunting and hunt responsibly.
• By allowing students to study hunter safety materials online, students will be able to learn the material at their
own pace and study at times that fit their personal schedule.
• Through online education many hunters who were previously uncertified or did not require certification can easily
become certified. By posting safety materials online more hunters will have access to the materials.
• Through the use of online hunters’ safety courses, states can compile accurate databases with all the registered
and certified hunters’ information. This information can be used to expedite the licensing process as well as the
process of recording each year’s hunting statistics.
Additional Information
• 28 states (AK, AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, DE, GA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, LA, MD, MI, MS, MO, MT, NV, NH, NC,
OR, SC, TN, TX, WA, and WV) currently offer the online hunter’s safety field day qualifier course.
• One of the online courses is offered by Today’s Hunter. Today's Hunter is the official hunter education course of
many state hunting and wildlife agencies. Students who successfully complete an approved hunter education
course will receive a safety certificate or card that is often recognized by other states.
• Further information can be found online at: http://www.hunter-ed.com/mktg/national_1.htm
• Online hunter education services are also offered by: HunterExam.com.
Contact
11
American System of Conservation Funding
Background
For over 75 years sportsmen have played a crucial role in funding conservation in the United States through the
American System of Conservation Funding. The American System is a user-pays structure, unique to the rest of the
world, in which those that consumptively use the public resource pay for the privilege to do so.
Sporting licenses were the first example of this “user-pays” structure and in some cases made up the entire funding
source for the creation of state wildlife agencies (Duda et al., 2010). Along with license sales, sportsmen contribute to
conservation funding in a number of other ways. Federal legislation, the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act
(Pittman Robertson Act) and the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act (Dingell Johnson Act), set up a system in
which excise taxes collected from sporting goods purchases are funneled back into conservation. These excise taxes
are used to fund a wide variety of activities including: fish and wildlife research, habitat management, program
administration, hunter education, waterfowl impoundments, planning, shooting range development, land acquisition
and easements, exotic species control, angler access area construction, and private and public land management
(Williams, 2010). To date these two acts have contributed more than $10 billion to conservation, money that stems
directly from sportsmen.
Points of Interest
• To this day, state wildlife agencies are funded primarily (in many cases upwards of 75%) by sportsmen through PR
and DJ apportionments and the sale of sporting licenses (Scott Hansen, & Mosher, 1999 as reported in Duda et al.,
2010).
• In 2009 alone the PR funds amounted to $50.2 million for operations and maintenance across 18.6 million acres,
$32.1 million to fund 9,567 population research projects, $18.2 million for habitat improvements on 1.2 million
acres, $11.5 million to acquire 1.3 million acres of land, and $10.7 million to provide hunter education to 372,000
students (Williams, 2010).
• Last year the Dingell Johnson Act contributed: $31.9 million to fund 1,092 research projects, $23 million for
hatchery maintenance at 101 sites, $20.8 million for operations and maintenance across 360,000 acres, $20.1
million for renovations at 65 hatchery sites, and $10.3 million to provide aquatic education to 754,000 students
(Williams, 2010).
Contact:
12
Hunting & Fishing Access
13
Fresh Water Angling Access
Introduction
Recent developments in freshwater angling access are cause for concern. Marina owners on public Corp of Engineer’s
managed lakes and rivers have attempted to deny access to public waters under and surrounding their facilities. Recently
a court ruling in Louisiana denied that angling and hunting from a boat are legitimate uses of public navigable waters,
potentially setting a national precedence for denying angler access. This growing concern extends throughout the country.
In the 2010 session, the Utah legislature passed House Bill 141 which places an immediate one-year moratorium on all
land access to and on rivers and streams crossing private land.
Another alarming trend concerns access limitations as a result of aquatic invasive species. In many areas of the country,
the growing concern around invasive species has prompted local municipalities and state agencies to restrict access to
certain lakes and rivers except during certain hours when an inspector in present. While some efforts to curtail the spread
of aquatic invasive species are needed, it is important to remember that they should be constructed in a way that is
scientifically based and measureable with limited impacts to angling access.
Points of Consideration
• Closures of public access for fisheries management purposes should be based upon a specific problem and
scientific criteria.
• Public comment should be mandatory for public water closures and water plans.
• Closures should be used only as a last resort after all other resource management tools are utilized.
• Provisions should be provided to reopen access to public aquatic resources when management objectives are
achieved.
• The economic and societal impacts should be measured and weighed against the benefits of the closure.
• Anglers should have reasonable access to public waters and facilities, especially if license or Sport Fish
Restoration and Boating Trust Fund monies were used to provide resource management or facility construction or
maintenance.
• Stakeholder experts, such as those from the recreational angling community, should be consulted by agency staff
during the proposal process.
Potential Action by Legislators

To maintain public access to aquatic resources in your state please consider the following:
• Legislation that establishes or amends the definition of public use of navigable waters should include the ability to
fish from a boat.
• New “Right to Fish” legislation that includes the public’s right to fish on any state or federal waters up to the
ordinary high water mark.
• In states with No-Net-Loss legislation, amend the legislation with a clause that includes access to public waters.
• Encourage your state fish and wildlife agency to purchase access easements, or land adjacent to important public
fisheries and improve/expand angler facilities.
• Legislators and members of the public should support angler access in state and federal land management plans in
your state.
Contact
14
No-Net-Loss
Introduction
“No Net Loss” of public hunting lands has become increasingly more important to ensure access to hunting lands for
current and future generations of hunters. Also referred to as “Hunting Heritage Protection Acts,” these bills create a base
line number of publicly owned lands open to hunting, ensuring that future generations have the same opportunities
tomorrow that currently exist today.
Language
By incorporating the views of our partners and other State Legislators who have passed this legislation, we present the
following language:
“(1) Subject to existing rights, lands managed by the (Commission on Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks) shall
be open to access and use for recreational hunting except as limited by the commission for reasons of
public safety, homeland security, or as otherwise limited by law.
(2) The commission shall exercise its authority to manage lands in a manner to support, promote and
enhance recreational hunting opportunities to the extent authorized by law.
(3) To the greatest practicable extent, commission land management decisions and actions may not
result in any net loss of any acreage available for hunting opportunities that exists on the effective date of
this act.”
Points of Interest
above language as necessary. If the language must be modified please keep in mind the following:
• In Florida, many of the environmental and land conservation groups were concerned that the legislation was
trying to open state parks to hunting. The bill had to specifically provide that State Park lands would not be used
as replacement lands.
• This legislation in no way infringes on private property rights or on local governments to manage their own lands.
• Language could include a provision that requires state agencies to provide written justification for any closure of
public hunting lands and provide annual reports to the Legislature detailing the public lands closed to hunting in
the preceding year and the lands opened to hunting to compensate for the closure.
• The Language should also include the “No Net Loss” of public fishing and fishing access points.
• Any replacement lands or waters should be of equal or greater quality wildlife habitat than those it replaces.
History
The issue was introduced at the inaugural NASC Annual Meeting in 2004 by Illinois Representative Dan Reitz and first
issued as a NASC issue brief during the 2005 legislative session. Sportsmen’s caucuses in Missouri, Tennessee and
Virginia passed related legislation in 2007. Sportsmen’s caucuses in Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana,
Maryland, and Mississippi previously addressed the issue.
In early 2010, the Alabama Legislature passed House Bill 330, which requires the Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources to find replacement acreage for hunting lands when existing hunting lands owned or managed by the
department are closed to ensure there is no net loss of land acreage available for hunting.
Contact
15
Public Access to Private Lands
Introduction
Access is one of the biggest issues facing sportsmen today. In an attempt to address this issue, hunter access programs
have been created in 26 states to provide incentives to private landowners who open up their land for public hunting. The
purpose of these programs is to increase the acreage available to hunters, which helps with recruiting and retaining
hunters. Additional benefits may include providing an economic boost to rural communities, strengthening ties between
rural and urban communities, increasing the appreciation of, and respect for, these communities, and technical assistance
for wildlife management on private land.
Points of Interest
• No legislative action may be required. Many programs are administratively created by state fish and wildlife
agencies.
• Pittman-Robertson Federal Aid grant monies can be used to support these programs.
• Additional stamps or permits have also been created to generate necessary funds.
• Conservation tax incentives/rebates and other incentives can be used to provide public access. For example, the
Vermont legislature considered legislation (VT HB 204) that would have offered moose permits as an incentive
for landowners who do not post their land against hunting. Had it passed, it would have set aside 15% of moose
permits for these landowners.
• Landowners maintain control of property.
• Hunting is generally regulated to foot traffic only.
• Legislation and regulations need to be reviewed to ensure landowner liability protections. For example, Arkansas
passed legislation (AR HB 2324) that encouraged landowners to open their land to the public by limiting
landowner liability. Pennsylvania strengthened language (PA HB 13) to protect landowners’ liability in accidents.
• Lack of access to hunt able lands is well documented as being one of the primary reasons why hunters stop
participating in the sport.
Interesting Facts
• Wyoming has several different access programs all with varying levels of commitment required by the
landowners. As of 2010, these programs have opened up more than 3 million acres the hunters.
• The 2008 Farm Bill authorized Open Fields (formerly called Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive
Program). VPA-HIP incentivizes owners and operators of privately held farm, ranch and forest land to voluntarily
give hunters, fishermen, hikers, bird watchers and other recreational outdoor enthusiasts access to land for their
enjoyment. VPA-HIP was authorized and the first round of payments was distributed to 17 states.
From the highly successful Kansas “Walk-In Hunter Access” program:

• In the fall of 2005, 1,023,000 acres of private land were opened to public hunting (an increase of 9600% since the
program’s 1995 inception)
• For spring of 2005 turkey hunting, 135,000 acres of private land were enrolled (an increase of 220% since the
program’s 2001 inception)
• The fish access program, which was added in 1999, opened 92 miles of stream/river access available in 2005
• Over 86% of cooperators are moderately to very satisfied with the program
• Greater than 96% of hunters are in favor of the program.
History
The issue was first presented to the NASC at the 2006 NASC Annual meeting by the Kansas DNR and was issued as a
NASC issue brief the following year.
Contact
16
Fishing Reciprocity Agreements
Introduction
State licenses for fishing and hunting have been used to support fish and wildlife conservation programs for over a
century. In some states, non-resident hunters and anglers pay an expensive fee to get a license. The idea of implementing
reciprocity agreements between the states is to enable non-residents to purchase licenses at the same price as residents do,
or to enable residents of border states to use their own state license.
Several states have entered into agreements to allow anglers to fish across state lines, honoring a neighboring state’s
license. These agreements have been arranged so that fishing licenses from a state which is part of the agreement will be
valid in the bordering waters. Reciprocity agreements facilitate recreational fishing by enabling anglers to fish in
boundary waters without having to buy an additional license.
Map of the current fishing reciprocity agreements:
Points of Interest
• Most of the time, the agreements do not apply to tributaries, bayous or backwaters.
• Persons entering the waters are subject to each states jurisdiction’s respective laws, rules, regulations, and
amendments.
Language
following language:
o “The department is authorized to enter into reciprocal agreements with corresponding state officials of adjoining
states for purposes of providing reciprocal fishing privileges upon any body or bodies of water as described in
subsection.”
o “A reciprocal agreement may include provisions by which each state shall honor the license of the other state only
when a valid reciprocal license is purchased from the honoring state, the charge for the reciprocal license being
set by mutual agreement of the states.”
Contact:
17
Sunday Hunting Restrictions
Background
Sunday hunting bans are one of the last remaining examples of the puritanical blue laws that were initially designed to
encourage church attendance. At the time when these restrictions were first put in place, other activities that were
illegal on a Sunday included: opening a store for business, drinking alcoholic beverages, and tilling your fields. Today
most of the blue laws have been repealed; however, Sunday hunting restrictions remain in 11 states.
Seven states (ME, MA, CT, PA, NJ, DE and VA) either severely restrict or completely ban Sunday hunting. Maryland
allows Sunday hunting in a few counties, but restrictions remain for much of the state. North Carolina allows for
Sunday hunting in limited instances and for specific species. In South Carolina there is no big game hunting on
Sundays; however, small game may be hunted subject to open season regulations.
Points of Interest
• In a recent economic analysis conducted by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, it was found that providing a
Sunday hunting option in Virginia would contribute an additional $296 million to the state’s economy and 3,927
new jobs would be created.
• In New York, Sunday hunting was opened in 1996 for three Sundays during the gun season. Five years later
however, the entire state allowed Sunday hunting throughout the year, with the exception of specifically
designated lands.
• In Ohio, a three year trial period for Sunday hunting was initiated in 1998, and then became permanent in 2002.
• Prior to 2003, Sunday hunting in Michigan was banned on private land in certain counties, but in 2003, all Sunday
hunting closures were repealed.
• Anti-hunters have claimed that allowing Sunday hunting would harm game populations and pose safety issues;
however, none of the states that recently allowed Sunday hunting saw these claims substantiated.
• Sunday hunting is seen as a key component of providing youth and working class citizens with more opportunities
to engage in the sport.
• The seven states that severely restrict Sunday hunting have all seen sharp declines in hunter numbers over the past
25 years.
• Amount of available time is often cited as a reason for declining hunter numbers. Adding Sunday hunting may be a
way to slow or reverse the declining trend.
Moving Forward
States should decide for themselves which legislation will be most successful given the opinions of their particular
constituencies and localized political climates. Educational campaigns that highlight the economic, social, and
ecological benefits of Sunday hunting are a useful outreach tool and are likely to be successful in garnering further
support for Sunday hunting.
Contact
18
Hunting
19
Apprentice Hunting License
Introduction
In an attempt to combat the decline in hunters, many states now offer some form of youth season to encourage potential
young hunters. The apprentice hunting license is a tool for recruitment that allows novice hunters the opportunity to hunt
under the supervision of a licensed hunter before they have completed their hunter education course. In essence, the
apprentice license allows youth to “try before they buy” which makes entry into the sport less challenging for the new
recruits. The apprentice hunter receives hands-on experience and additional incentive to complete hunter education. In
some states the apprentice hunting license is also called the mentored hunter program.
Language
following language:
The state may issue to a person a temporary firearm and/or hunter education deferral license which shall
exempt the person from the requirement for successful completion of a firearm and hunter education course
prior to obtaining a hunting license.
The fee for such deferral license shall be ($ or free). For residents, the deferral license shall be valid for
(variable time period depending on the state) from the date of issuance and shall be issued in lieu of basic
hunting, big game, bow, muzzleloader, and state waterfowl licenses, turkey hunting stamps, and WMA
hunting permits. For nonresidents, the deferral license shall be valid for (variable time period depending on
the state) and shall be purchased in addition to nonresident basic hunting, big game, bow, muzzleloader, and
state waterfowl licenses, turkey hunting stamps, or WMA hunting permits.
The recipient of a deferral license shall carry the deferral license on him or her while hunting and shall be
accompanied by and under the direct supervision of a person who is eighteen years of age or older and has a
valid hunting license.”
Points of Interest
above language as necessary. If the language must be modified, please keep in mind the following:
• Laws such as minimum age requirements and coursework mandates can be relaxed without compromising safety.
• The time period for which the apprentice licenses are valid is different state to state, as is the minimum age
requirement.
• Apprentice opportunities should be available to each person for a minimum of three years because the process of
recruiting a new hunter may take several years due to limited opportunity. For this reason, many states allow
multiple year extensions.
• Wisconsin most recently implemented its system during the 2009 hunting season after a long and difficult
legislative battle that was blocked for years because of safety concerns. In the 2009 season, more than 10,000
apprentice licenses were sold and there were no firearms-related incidents that occurred.
History
The issue was introduced to NASC at the 2005 NASC Annual Meeting and issued as a NASC issue brief during the 2006
legislative session. In 2010 Vermont became the 30th state to pass the apprentice hunting license.
Contact
For more information regarding this issue, please contact: Bethany O’ Donovan (202) 543-6907;
Bethany@sportsmenslink.org
20
College Student Hunting/Fishing License
Introduction
Several states have introduced legislation that allows non-resident full time college students to obtain hunting and/or
fishing licenses at the same price as an in-state resident. The intent of these bills is to increase hunter and angler retention
and recruitment within a group that is especially prone to being prohibited from hunting because of the financial
circumstances that are common for many college students.
Bills may also include language with provisions enabling a student attending college out of state to obtain a resident
license when they return home for visits if they are originally from, and still have family, in that state.
Language
following language:
“(1) A student who is not a resident, may purchase a non-resident college student hunting and/or fishing license
for the same price as an in state resident license if that student:
(a) is currently enrolled as a full-time student at a post-secondary educational institution in <State>, with 12
credits or more being considered full-time; or
(b) (i) has a natural or adoptive parent who currently is a <State> resident, (ii) has a high school diploma from a
<state> public, private, or home school or can provide certified verification that the applicant has passed the
general educational development test in <State>; and (iii) is currently enrolled as a full-time student at a
postsecondary educational institution in another state.”
Points of Interest
• College hunting licenses are particularly beneficial in western states where the price of an out of state big game
tag is costly, and the chance of being drawn for a license as an out-of-state resident is low.
Contact
21
Terminally Ill Youth Hunting Opportunities
Introduction
There exists a special opportunity across the country to enrich the lives of young terminally ill youth by facilitating for
them, at no cost, hunting and fishing opportunities that will provide them with a truly invaluable life experience. The idea
of offering these special opportunities to terminally ill youth is not new, and has long been a goal of many well known
hunting and conservation organizations. State legislators are now also joining this charitable mission. Many states,
including Washington, New Hampshire, Michigan, and Oregon have introduced legislation to allow for special hunting
and fishing permits, in some cases out of season. Continued legislation is needed to create opportunities in a way that
allows Fish and Wildlife Directors to efficiently and quickly provide terminally ill individuals with these opportunities.
Language
following language:
“In order to facilitate hunting and fishing opportunities for a terminally ill person, the director may provide any
licensed, tags, permits, stamps, and other fees without charge including transaction and dealer fees.
“Youth may take game outside of an established season if that person is deemed to be terminally ill and the hunt
is pre-approved by the Director.”
Success
• On Oct 17th of 2008, terminally ill hunting legislation in New Hampshire allowed a nine year old boy to go on a
successful moose hunt. He suffers from a rare incurable autoimmune disease but could not have been happier on
that day.
• On March 15th of 2010, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour approved House Bill 1070 establishing a hunting season
specifically for terminally ill youth under eighteen years of age by authorizing the Mississippi Commission on
Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks to establish a special permit for children with a life threatening illness.
Contact
22
Lead Ammunition Ban
Introduction
Anti-hunting groups are active in a lobbying campaign to ban lead ammunition, citing allegations that lead is having a
detrimental effect on wildlife populations. In California the condor has been the species utilized to enact a lead
ammunition ban. Those who advocated a ban on lead ammunition in California indicated that they believe that the efforts
to save the endangered California condor from extinction have been adversely affected by the deaths of condors
attributable to lead poisoning. They assert that the source of the lead poisoning condors is from ammunition used by
hunters, but this has not been conclusively proven. Anti-hunting groups have also made unfounded assertions that wild
game harvested using lead ammunition, and then consumed, may cause health concerns. Those allegations came after an
individual in North Dakota claimed to have found lead fragments in venison packages he obtained at a food shelter.
Points of Interest
• Legislators and environmentalists did not listen to the scientific research which never resulted in conclusive
negative wildlife population effects and instead continued to support the drastic move of banning lead
ammunition.
• Any ban on the use of lead ammunition for hunting will have a significant negative economic impact on your state
fish and wildlife agency.
• There could be a noticeable loss to the economy of the state and local economies, particularly in rural areas.
California is already experiencing this downturn.
• The U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted a study of hunters and others that have
consumed game to determine whether they have an elevated level of lead in their blood that can be attributed to
the ammunition used to harvest the game. Indications of the CDC study released by the North Dakota Department
of Health (DOH), which is participating in the study, show none of those tested had unsafe blood lead levels. The
readings were far below the level considered elevated for a child (10 micrograms per deciliter); let alone the level
for an adult (25 micrograms per deciliter).
• The CDC study was done in response to reports of lead fragments having been found in a few packages of
venison sampled at food pantries in North Dakota and a few other upper Mid-Western states. As a result, some
states overreacted to the reports by becoming overly cautious and ordering that all venison at food pantries be
destroyed, a clear overreaction not based on sound science.
• Wildlife management focuses on populations, not individuals. Isolated incidents concerning individuals of
wildlife populations do not warrant a ban on lead ammunition.
• In August of 2010 a petition was submitted to the EPA to ban the production and sale of lead based ammunition
and fishing tackle. The petition was denied.
Despite there being no scientific evidence to support the hypothesis that lead ammunition is endangering the health of
wildlife populations, anti-hunting interest groups are continuing to press state legislatures around the country to support a
ban on traditional ammunition. These politically driven groups understand that an outright ban on hunting would be nearly
impossible to achieve, dismantling the heritage of hunting one step at a time has become a substitute goal. Banning lead
ammunition is a first step a step that is literally taking the food out of the mouths of the hungry, unnecessarily, to advance
a political agenda.
The group study conducted in North Dakota mentioned above found that while 98.8% of people consumed venison meat,
their lead levels were still below the national average. Regardless, it is important to note that if lead fragments are
consumed there are potential health consequences; therefore, all meat should be prepared and cleaned well.
Contact
For more information regarding this issue, please contact: Jake McGuigan (203) 426-1320, Bethany O’ Donovan (202)
543-6907; Bethany@sportsmenslink.org
23
Crossbows
Introduction
In recent years many states have began to lift their previous restrictions on crossbow hunting. The lifting or lessening
of these restrictions by states has expanded since 2002 to include 34 states that allow some form of crossbow hunting
usage. While some states still ban crossbows altogether, others now allow unrestricted crossbow use throughout all
seasons. Still other states choose to allow crossbows only in certain seasons. For example, some states ban the use of
crossbows in archery only seasons, while allowing them to be used during gun seasons.
Issue
Incorporating crossbows may increase hunter recruitment and retention. Potentially, offering another facet of bow
hunting may draw more people into the sport and may keep older hunters engaged for longer. Crossbows, like
compound bows, are also recognized as a useful tool for the management of deer populations in suburban and urban
areas – areas in which the concerns of human-wildlife conflict and damage to the ecosystem are particularly high.
The increasing trend towards the relaxing of crossbow restrictions has caused controversy with some traditional bow
hunters. These traditional hunters contend that crossbows provide some hunters with an unfair advantage and make
their own hunt harder since they are now competing with other hunters during previously “traditional” bow only
seasons. Additional debate on this topic has surfaced regarding wounding rates of various bow types. Some members
of the conservation community feel that crossbows may actually wound more deer than the more typically used
archery implements such as the compound, long, and recurve bows. To date there has been no statistically rigorous
study conducted that adequately answers the question of which type of archery tackle results in the highest wounding
rates; further research should be devoted to this aim.
Moving Forward
There is a high level of variability in the way that states have chosen to regulate crossbows. Some states choose to
allow for liberal usage in most of their seasons, others restrict them to gun seasons only (with exceptions for seniors or
disabled persons), and still others ban the use of crossbows altogether. Ultimately, whether or not to allow crossbows
for hunting is, as it has been, a state issue – one that should be decided on a case by case basis in response to the needs
and desires of the constituency, localized ecological conditions, and the social norms in each state.
Points of interest
• New York is the most recent state to allow crossbow hunting. Recent legislation called for the promulgation of
rules by the Department of Environmental Conservation, which has now authorized crossbow usage for the
2011 season. Crossbows will be allowed in the gun season and the late bow/muzzleloader season, and will not
be allowed in the archery only season
• Crossbows may be a useful tool for certain sectors of the population who for physical reasons may be incapable
of using a traditional bow.
• Crossbows, like compound bows, may be a useful implement to consider when evaluating suburban deer
management scenarios.
• A peer reviewed study found that both hunters and homeowners support the use of crossbows for suburban deer
management, so long as they are used outside of the traditional archery season (Kilpatrick et al., 2007).
• In a 2007 online poll sponsored by Outdoor Life, 75 percent of the respondents replied “no” when asked,
“Should crossbows be legal during archery season?”
• On October 28th, 2010, Nebraska lifted the remaining restrictions that were in place regarding the use of
crossbows. Although crossbows have been allowed during the firearms season in Nebraska for the past 25
years, beginning in 2011 they will be permitted in the archery season as well. Additionally, the disability
provision has been lifted; any hunter in the state will now be able to use a crossbow.
Contact: For more information regarding this issue, please contact: Bethany O’ Donovan (202) 543-6907;
24
Seniors, Veterans, and Active Duty Military Hunting and Angling Privileges
Introduction
In many state legislatures across the country, legislation has been enacted to afford senior citizens special hunting and
fishing opportunities and discounted fees. The purpose of creating senior privileges is to maintain senior hunter and angler
numbers, and reward senior hunters for their years of commitment to conservation.
In addition, many states allow those who are currently serving on active duty or on leave from active duty to obtain
hunting and fishing licenses for free. Other states give active duty military members stationed in that state the ability to
purchase licenses as residents of that state, even though they may be residents of another. This regulation can also spare
them the necessity of obtaining a hunter’s education certification in that state. Nearly every state with an active hunting
and fishing community entitles disabled veterans to heavily discounted licenses for both fishing and hunting.
Language
following language:
“Resident hunters 65 years of age or older may obtain a free, permanent identification card. This replaces the
annual sport fishing, hunting and trapping licenses.”
“U.S. military personnel stationed in [state] on active duty are deemed residents for the purpose of purchasing a
hunting license, freshwater fishing license or saltwater fishing license. Proof of active military status must be
shown when purchasing a license.”
“Disabled veterans who are [state] residents may qualify for a free hunting and fishing license. To receive this
license you must have been honorably discharged from military service, and certified by the US Veteran’s
Administration as having incurred 50 percent or greater disability during military service. Written proof from the
VA is required at the time of application.”
“Persons 65 years of age or older, with proof of age, are also allowed to use special trails and need not obtain a
permit. However, these persons must abide by all rules in place for these trails”
Points of Interest
• States that offer discounted hunting or fishing license fees for senior citizens: WA, OR, TX, NM, UT, CO, NE,
MT, AR, IL, IA, LA, MD, MI, IN, NY, NC, OK, PA, SC, TN
• States that do not require or provide free license for senior citizens: AK, KS, FL, GA, LA OH, MT
• States that share proxy hunting for senior citizens: AK, AR, SC
• 36 of the 38 caucus states offer free or reduced cost hunting and/or fishing licenses to disabled veterans.
• 32 of the 38 caucus states consider active duty military stationed within their state to be residents for licensing
purposes.
• States that provide access to special lands, trails or waters for senior citizens: WA, AR, OK, LA, PA, SC
Contact
25
Outdoor Sporting Goods Tax Holiday
Introduction
State implemented sales tax holidays are not a new concept. However, recently, such holidays have been implemented to
benefit distributors and purchasers of firearms, ammunition, and other outdoor sporting goods. For example, the South
Carolina Legislature passed legislation that created a sales tax free weekend for firearm purchases.
This holiday occurred for the first time in December of 2008 and gun sales soared (650% increase in one day), resulting in
a huge stimulus to the local firearms businesses of South Carolina. It is estimated that the state revenue lost from the tax
holiday was outweighed by the increased revenues that came from taxes on ammunition sales.
Not only have these tax holidays proven to be financially beneficial to the firearms and sporting goods industries, and to
conservation programs, they have made it easier for sportsmen to purchase the hunting and fishing equipment they need.
Language & Definitions

following language:
From MO HB 977:
• As used in this section, "sportsman equipment" means any firearms, hunting equipment, camping equipment,
fishing equipment, outdoor nature sports equipment, and paddle sports equipment, but shall not include any
recreational vehicle, boat, or bicycle.
From SC General Assembly Act 338:

• Enacting the “Second Amendment Recognition Act” by establishing the Second Amendment Weekend,
exempting from sales tax the gross proceeds of the sale or sales price of firearms sold on Second Amendment
Weekend and to designate the Friday and Saturday after Thanksgiving each year as the Second Amendment
Weekend
o Sales of handguns as defined pursuant to Section 16-23-10(1), rifles, and shotguns during the forty-eight
hours of the Second Amendment Weekend. For purposes of this item, the ‘Second Amendment
Weekend’ begins at 12:01 a.m. on the Friday after Thanksgiving and ends at twelve midnight the
following Saturday.”
Contact
26
Knife Definitions
Introduction
In an effort to limit the type of knives that can be legally imported into the United States, the Department of Homeland
Security proposed revocation of the admissibility of certain knives with spring assisted opening mechanisms. This
proposal would establish a new definition for qualifying switchblade knives.
Under the Switchblade Knife Act of 1958, a switchblade is defined as any knife with a blade which opens automatically
by hand pressure applied to a button or other device in the handle of the knife, or by operation of inertia, gravity, or both.
The proposed regulation would designate one-hand and assisted opening knives as being switchblades, even though the
federal law does not declare these knives as switchblades.
Issue
Spring loaded knives are an important tool for hunters and anglers. According to the American Knife and Tool Institute,
there are over 35.6 million Americans, including many who are hunters and anglers, who carry and use some type of
utilitarian knife which opens with one hand. In the United States, assisted-opening and one-hand-opening knives are 80
percent of all knives sold. Spring loaded hunting knives should not qualify as switchblade knives.
Language
The Texas State Legislature passed H.B. No. 4456. This bill provided the state definition for qualifying switchblade
knives.
1. “Switchblade knife” means any knife that has a blade that folds, closes, or retracts into the handle or sheath that
opens automatically by pressure applied to a button or other device located on the handle, or opens or releases a
blade from the handle or sheath by the force of gravity or by the application of centrifugal force.
2. The term (Switchblade) does not include a knife that has a spring, detent, or other mechanism designed to create a
bias toward closure that requires exertion applied to the blade by hand, wrist, or arm to overcome the bias toward
closure and open the knife.
Points of Interest
• Court cases in several states such as California, Illinois, Michigan, and Texas, have all ruled in favor of assisted-
opening and one-hand opening knives. These knives are not considered switchblades because they do not possess
the activating button or device on the handle of the knife.
Contact
Bethany@sportsmenlink.org
27
Modern Restraining Animal Traps
Introduction
In 1989, the Canadian government attempted to establish a world standard for humane mammal traps through the
International Organization for Standardization (IOS). Thirteen countries did agree, including the United States. The
United States Technical Advisory Group (TAG) included of veterinarians, biologists, animal welfare representatives,
trappers and the general public. During the 1990’s, two ISO standards were developed and agreed upon which provided
criteria and thresholds for time of death for killing traps and thresholds for acceptable levels of minor traumas from
restraining traps.
Through annual appropriations from Congress to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS) and to the Wildlife Services to the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA), extensive
research on restraining traps has been conducted. Since 1997, 17 species Best Management Practices (BMPs) have been
developed from the research using the approved protocol. All common trap designs were field tested for each species and
all captured animals were necropsied by veterinarians. Some devices passed and some failed the threshold of the approved
humane trap standards for that species.
All structural components of each tested restraining traps were evaluated based upon the trapping system used and the
target species.
Points of Interest
• The restraining trap BMPs developed for each furbearer species evaluated are voluntary recommendations to State
Wildlife Management Agencies, trappers and the trap manufacturing companies.
• One of the most exciting results from the release of the BMPs is how the manufacturing industries have
voluntarily embraced the recommendations and have designed and redesigned new traps that meet the new
humane trap standards.
• The majority of the old conventional restraining traps used for the capture of raccoons failed the injury thresholds
resulting in new species specific traps developed that are now being used to capture the number one furbearer in
the country.
• Components of the restraining traps for the larger predator furbearer are also being modified and redesigned to
meet the BMP injury standards.
Contact
For more information regarding this issue, please contact: Bethany O’Donovan Bethany@sportsmenslink.org(202) 543-
6850 or Jim Curran, National Trappers Association (775 867-2239) jcurran@cccomm.net
28
Natural Resource
Management
29
Off Highway Vehicles (OHV)
Introduction
Off Highway Vehicles (OHV) include any vehicles that are built by their manufacturers for primarily off-highway use.
This includes dirt bikes, all terrain vehicles (ATV’s), snowmobiles, dune buggies, amphibious vehicles, and any other
vehicles built specifically for off-highway use. There are thousands of miles of roads and trails on public lands that are
appropriate and accessible for Off Highway Vehicles (OHV's) use. OHV's are a fun and exciting way to experience
America's natural treasures. Backcountry roads and trails provide a wide range of recreational opportunities for
responsible Off Highway Vehicle users on public lands. These opportunities range from vehicle touring to vehicle access
for hiking, hunting, fishing, and other public land uses.
In recent years OHV use has increased rapidly across the country. Some states, such as Arizona, have experienced a 347
percent growth in OHV usage in the last decade. The unmitigated consequences of such growth not only threaten the
environmental health and resources of the lands being used for OHV recreation, but also threaten to eliminate future OHV
riding opportunities for OHV enthusiasts themselves if an adequate system of sustainable OHV routes is not developed.
States may want to consider legislation to provide adequate funding for state agencies (i.e. Fish & Wildlife) to mitigate
environmental damages induced by OHV usage. A licensing fee, for example, is a way to account for OHV usage, accrue
funding for the state agencies that regulate OHV usage, and maintain environmental standards. When considering
legislation states might also want to consider language for a stewardship credit (a discount from your annual license fee),
as a way of incentivizing for volunteerism which is critical to helping the agencies manage sustainable OHV recreation.
Points of Interest
• An estimated 30,000 hunters used OHVs during Montana’s 2007 hunting season, OHV registrations in Montana
climbed from about 23,000 in 2003 to about 54,000 today.
• According to a 2007 National Wildlife Federation survey of private landowners, ATV use and abuse is cited as
one of the top ten reasons a landowner would not allow the public to hunt on their lands.
• Vehicles operated off-highway on Public Lands in many states such as Montana and California are required to be
street-licensed or registered as an off-highway vehicle (OHV).
Arizona S.B 1167

• The Bill specifically outlines appropriate use of OHVs including provisions prohibiting use in, “a manner that
damages the environment,” and additional provisions outlining the criteria necessary for appropriate OHV use
areas.
• Additionally, the bill establishes an OHV Recreation Fund and dictates the usages for which this fund will be
distributed to benefit OHV recreation in the state of Arizona.
• Furthermore, S.B. 1167 requires all active OHV users to pay an annual “use” fee in order to receive an OHV
decal legalizing their vehicles use. The revenues from these collected fees, much like the monies from the OHV
Recreation Fund, will be used to further riding opportunities for OHV users and mitigate the sports affect on
impacted lands, and environmental resources.
• Finally, the bill also includes provisions that outline vehicle equipment and safety requirements, including a law
requiring OHV riders under the age of 18 to wear a U.S. DOT approved helmet specifically designed for
motorized vehicles when riding on public lands.
Contact
30
Wildlife Violators Compact
Introduction
Despite the strong tradition of ethics that the vast majority of hunters and anglers abide by, there are those that disregard
the laws that regulate hunting and fishing. With increased sophistication of poachers and other wildlife violators, there is
a need for increased levels of coordination between state fish and wildlife agencies.
To assist in this coordination the Wildlife Violators Compact creates the mechanism allowing State Fish and Wildlife
Agencies to share information about fish and wildlife violations between the states. The availability of this information
helps stop poachers and other violators from moving their illegal activity to another state after receiving a violation
elsewhere.
Points of Interest
• The compact is overseen by a board of administrators, consisting of one representative from the fish & wildlife
agency of each participating state.
• The Compact is overseen by a board comprised of representatives from wildlife law enforcement or licensing
authority divisions of participating states.
• The compact will do the following for the agency in your state:
1. Allow wildlife conservation officers to devote more time to patrol, surveillance and apprehension of violators.
2. Burden on courts and jail facilities will be reduced due to decreased case loads.
3. The number of “Failure to Appear” cases will be reduced because non-residents cannot ignore a citation from
participating state without facing the suspension of their wildlife license privileges in their home state.
4. It will serve as a notice to wildlife violators that their activities in one state can affect their privileges to
recreate in all participating states.
• The compact will not negatively impact state sovereignty.
• Sharing information is obligatory but recognition of violations is not.
History
The Wildlife Violators Compact was created in 1989 after being passed into law in Colorado, Utah and Oregon. Since
that time twenty-five additional states have signed on: Alaska, Arizona, California, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa,
Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North
Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Washington, Wyoming and most recently Florida, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania.
Contact
31
Invasive Species
Introduction
Invasive species are plants, animals or pathogens that are nonnative to the U.S. or region of the U.S. and that harm, or are
likely to harm, the economy, natural resources, or human health. Invasive species have been extremely costly to the
American taxpayer. For instance, the state of the Florida spends roughly $30M annually on the control of exotic plant
species alone. Zebra mussels, New Zealand mud snails, and Asian carp reduce the productivity of fisheries; and
Heartwater disease (spread by invasive ticks) is fatal to cattle, sheep, deer, antelope and other animals.
Despite many federal and state programs set up to stop invasive species – most efforts only start after these species have
become established and spread which makes them costly to control and almost impossible to eradicate – (i.e., the zebra
and quagga mussels that have now spread from the Great Lakes across the nation to western waters). Recent efforts to
better coordinate and plan invasive species programs emphasize actions to prevent species from becoming introduced in
the first place; detect new species early enough to eradicate the species before it spreads and causes harm; or contain the
spread of species to limit the damage they can cause (i.e., current effort to keep Asian carp out of the Great Lakes).
Issue
Invasive species are introduced through travel, trade and tourism. Many species “hitchhike” on commodities or items
travelers bring into the country as garden plants that may escape to natural areas, pets that may escape or be released, live
bait or for many other uses. Invasive species can then be spread around the country on tires of vehicles, in waders and bait
buckets or in campers’ firewood. Because invasive species do not respect jurisdictional borders – addressing invasive
species requires unprecedented coordination and joint action by federal agencies, states, local governments and private
organizations. There is a National Invasive Species Council – made up of 13 federal entities; 26 individual state invasive
species councils; and the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force to tackle this issue. Limited federal and state authorities to
regulate invasive species, lack of resources to implement state and federal plans, and inadequate public education and
outreach to stakeholders have limited progress.
Points of Interest:
• The National Invasive Species Act (NISA) authorizes $5M per year to fund State Aquatic Nuisance Species
Plans, however, the Act has never been fully funded and currently each state only gets about $38,000 annually to
manage invasive aquatic species.
• In the last ten years there has been significant progress in invasive species research and policy development,
including: new methods to monitor, eradicate and control species; improved outreach and education campaigns;
and wider use of volunteers. These advances need to be better communicated and supported if we are to get ahead
of the invasive species curve and reduce their impact.
Addressing major pathways for invasive species (for example: live bait transfer or ballast water) is the most efficient way
to prevent the introduction of invasive species.
Contact: For more information regarding this issue, please contact: Chris Horton (501) 865-1475
32
White-tailed Deer Management
Introduction
Over the past century populations of white-tailed deer have increased dramatically. Although the recovery of deer
populations from only about 500,000 nationwide in the early 1900s to around 20 million today is considered a wildlife
management success story, many people increasingly view the situation with mixed feelings.
In some areas, deer populations have exceeded population management goals which has also lead to increased deer-
related damages. Reports estimate damage exceeds $2 billion annually nationwide including, $1 billion in car damages,
more than $100 million in agricultural crop damage, $750 million in damage to the timber industry, and more than $250
million in damage to metropolitan households (e.g., landscape plantings). These estimates are conservative, and it is often
difficult to obtain reliable statistics for wildlife-related losses. Additionally, overpopulation in certain conditions has lead
to harm to the ecosystem as evidenced by isolated pockets of biodiversity decline.
Issue
The use of contraceptive agents to manage deer numbers are becoming increasingly popular as a possible management
tool in suburban areas, despite the fact that products currently being reviewed are experimental, costly, require multiple
applications to be effective and are not considered to be effective on free ranging populations.
Many state wildlife agencies continue to see hunting as the most effective deer population management tool for several
reasons. First and foremost, hunting has a proven track record of being effective in managing populations. State fish and
wildlife agencies rely on the funds generated by hunting as a major source of revenue, and expenditures from hunters
provide a significant boost to local economies.
Today, there are an increasing number of locations where regulated hunting is not seen as an acceptable management
option by certain sectors of the population. These areas include suburban communities and corporate and government
properties. The application of regulated hunting programs in suburban communities is affected by (1) real or perceived
safety concerns, (2) conflicting social attitudes and perceptions about wildlife and, (3) firearm-discharge ordinances. In
contrast, deer populations on corporate or government properties often become overabundant because of liability or
public-relations issues. As a result of the management conflicts in these situations alternative methods for population
control are being considered.
Points of Interest
• Hunting is still the most effective method to regulate deer populations.
• Hunting is cost effective; it generates revenue for the state and costs little to operate.
• Regulated hunting, even in suburban and urban areas is a safe practice.
Contact
33
Conservation Tax Incentives
Introduction
One of the important tools to protect fish and wildlife habitat is a state-level tax credit for gifts of conservation easements
or land for conservation. Such tax credits complement the available Federal conservation tax deductions to make
conservation options more attractive to landowners. Because state tax rates are low, most state tax incentives
are structured as tax credits to provide dollar-for-dollar write-offs against the landowner's state income tax liability.
Landowners with relatively little taxable income, including many agricultural producers, can benefit from carry-forward
provisions that allow them to apply their credit to their state income taxes over a number of years, or from transferability –
the ability to sell their tax credit to another taxpayer.
Variety of Approaches: States with Tax Credit Programs

• Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico,
North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia provide a tax credit equal to a percentage of the value of the
conservation easement or land donated to be applied to state income taxes (subject to various limitations;
easements only in AR, CO & MD).
• Colorado, New Mexico, South Carolina, and Virginia allow landowners to transfer their credits in order to allow
them realization of the full potential of their tax credits. Transferring credits can often result in an immediate cash
benefit for a landowner.
• New York allows 25% property taxes paid on land protected by a conservation easement to be used as a credit
against state income tax liability each year.
• Mississippi allows a landowner’s expenses in a conservation transaction (recording, document preparation,
transfer taxes, etc) to be used as a credit against state income taxes.
• Florida has no state income tax so legislation was passed to allow a 50-100% property tax exemption for land
protected by a conservation easement.
• Arkansas, Idaho, and Oregon allow expenses of managing land for conservation to be used as a credit against
state income tax liability.
Items that would need to be considered in any legislation

• Ensuring that the interests donated meet legitimate conservation purposes (such as by a process for review and
approval of proposed transactions).
• Describing the eligible interests (e.g. easements, fee title) or activities (e.g. habitat restoration, ownership costs,
conservation sales) that would qualify for the credit.
• Describing the entities to which such gifts may be made in order to qualify for the credit (e.g. qualified land trusts,
government agencies).
• Identifying the financial aspects and benefits that would arise from the gift:
o Appraisal substantiation requirements to assure that valuation abuses are avoided.
o Percentage of the fair market value of the gift eligible to qualify for the credit.
o Carry-over period (if the value of the credit exceeds the taxpayer's tax liability in any one year.)
o Coordination with other conservation transactions (e.g. how would the credit work in coordination with a
conservation sale).
• Whether the legislation has to include a fiscal cap, a transfer of the credit, a refundability feature, an effective
date, the administering agency, and definitions.
State Contact Information

• Respective State Departments of Natural Resources; Departments of Fish and Game; Departments of
Conservation and Recreation; etc.
• State land trust associations and service centers: www.lta.org/community/service-centers
• Respective Nature Conservancy State Offices www.nature.org
Contact
34
Anti Hunting/ Fishing
(Animal Rights)
35
Lead Sinker Ban
Introduction
When it comes to sinkers, nothing beats lead; it's heavy, cheap, and soft. Qualities of lead shot have long been a point of
concern and research in the U.S. In 1991, because of waterfowl population health concerns, the Federal government
officially banned the use of lead shot in waterfowl hunting. Likewise, the use of lead sinkers in fishing has also become a
contentious issue. Although precise estimates are not currently available for the amount of lead that a sinker adds into the
environment each year, it is estimated that about 4,300 tons of lead sinker are sold each year in the U.S., and some states
have already initiated lead sinker restrictions. Approximately 80% of the unit sales are lead sinkers ½ ounce or less.
In 2000, New Hampshire became the first state to implement a ban. The primary threat of lead sinkers is to waterfowl,
like the loon, that ingest whole pebbles (or small lead sinkers) to aid in the digestion of their food. Although there have
been documented individual loon deaths linked directly to lead fishing sinkers, there has been no documented evidence
that lead fishing sinkers, of any size, have a detrimental impact on local or regional loon populations. In fact, according to
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, loon populations are stable or increasing across the nation.
It seems that most research into the potentially negative effects of lead sinkers has been geared towards waterbirds, with
little or no population level effects. Nonetheless, the trend towards banning lead sinkers is growing. In August of 2010 the
American Bird Conservancy, Center for Biological Diversity and three other groups filed a petition with the EPA to ban
the use of lead sinkers and ammunition. The petition was denied.
Points of Interest
• In states where lead sinkers have been banned, there has been little resistance to the legislation. However, the
fishing community is beginning to push back on similar efforts in other states.
• New York, Vermont, and Maine have banned the sale of lead fishing weights weighing one half ounce or less.
• Massachusetts has banned the sale and use of lead sinkers and jigs one ounce or less.
• Alternative metals for small split shots (1/2 ounce or less) are available but are more expensive and do not offer
the same level of performance as lead.
• As of April 2010, Washington State’s legislature unsuccessfully attempted to pass House Bill 3158 prohibiting
the sale and use of lead sinkers and lead jigs.
• The highly successful model of fish and wildlife management in the United States is based on management at the
population level. In that regard, there is no justification for implementing lead sinker bans based on individual
level effects except on potentially isolated water bodies.
• The prohibition of lead is generally a social, rather than a biological issue.
Contact
36
Substandard Kennels
Introduction
Working with dogs is a cherished part of the hunting tradition. Sportsmen have a strong attachment to and affinity for
their four-legged hunting partners and recognize that maintaining good care and conditions in hunting kennels is key to
the well-being of their dogs and the success of their sport.
Unfortunately, breeders and kennel owners who maintain substandard kennel conditions create a blight that hurts the vast
majority of responsible kennel operators. Animal rights groups have used these neglectful, and often illegal, operations as
a reason to push for overbearing “puppymill” legislation that impacts all breeders, not just the problem kennels. Although
such legislation is not directly tied to hunting dogs at this time, sportsmen-legislators need to keep a watchful eye on
future legislation to ensure that attempts at regulating substandard kennels do not negatively impact law-abiding dog
breeders and sportsmen.
Points of Interest
• Over-reaching proposals are supported by animal rights groups that systematically attempt to whittle away at
hunters’ rights with subtle attacks on specific hunting interests, including hunting with dogs.
• Over the past five years, several states, including Pennsylvania, have proposed regulations that would make it
nearly impossible for sportsmen to breed and raise packs of hounds and hunting dogs. Many other state
legislatures have addressed or passed similar legislation that requires excessive kennel oversight, arbitrary limits
on dog ownership and breeding, extensive daily record keeping, onerous kennel engineering requirements, and
daily exercise requirements that do not include hunting or field trialing.
• The bottom line is that sportsmen’s rights are not being adequately considered in the formulation of legislation
around the country that is attempting to reign in abusive commercial breeders.
• Where substandard kennels do exist, they can almost always be addressed through the enforcement of existing
animal negligence and cruelty laws. This makes onerous new laws unnecessary.
• Responsible sportsmen fully support an end to any kind of negligent or abusive practices by substandard kennels.
In opposing unnecessary and overbearing kennel regulations, sportsmen are reaffirming their dedication to their
dogs and preserving their right to responsibly breed dogs for sport—a freedom that animal rights activists seek to
abolish through draconian legislation, emotional media campaigns and biased information.
• Earlier this year, legislation designed to regulate high volume dog breeders was introduced in the US Congress –
the Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety (PUPS) Act (S. 3424 and H.R. 5434). At this time these bills have not
moved out of committee, but may do so in the upcoming session. PUPS seeks to regulate “puppy mills” (high
volume dog breeders) by expanding federal regulation of dog breeders to include breeders who breed and sell
more than 50 dogs a year to consumers. Stronger language needs to be included in this bill that will protect
sportsmen, sporting dog trainers, and hunting clubs from being regulated alongside “puppymills” in the future.
Likewise, solutions pertaining to additional funding sources that would allow for more stringent enforcement of
the existing laws should be pursued.
Contact
37
Hunting with Dog Packs
Introduction
Hunting with dog packs has emerged at the forefront of controversial issues in the several states, pitting anti-hunters
against the many hunters using dog packs, who passionately pursue a sport with traditions deeply seeded in the history of
their state. Hunting with dog packs utilizes packs of dogs to flush animals such as deer, to track game so that it can be
harvested by the hunter, and allows hunters to fulfill their ethical obligation to do everything in their power to recover
game.
The use of dog packs is a deep-seeded component of hunting for wild game including some dangerous game such as
cougars and bears. Without dog packs, sportsmen’s success afield would be severely lessened. Additionally, the use of
tracking dogs increases game recovery.
Anti dog pack hunting advocates are outraged by this method of hunting and have made repeated attempts to outlaw the
sport. Their complaints include repeated reports of trespassing by hunters, and damage to their crops, property, and
livestock along with various animal cruelty accusations. However, sportsmen, as always, must remain prudent and ethical
with their use of dogs to discredit the accusations of the anti hunting community, and to not give way for further criticisms
of hunting with dog packs.
In response to the growing challenges emerging for the sport, the Virginia Department of Fish and Game commissioned a
study and created a Stakeholder Advisory Committee to gather information on issues related to dog hunting, evaluate
findings, and recommend possible strategies to address growing concerns.
Points of Interest
• It is the duty of each caucus leadership team to determine the best means of action in your respective state to
address this issue.
Contact
38
Oceans Policy
39
Catch Shares
Introduction
Catch share programs set a biologically based annual catch limit for fish stocks and allocate a specific portion of that
catch limit to entities such as commercial fishermen, recreational fishermen, cooperatives or communities. When designed
correctly, catch share programs can help eliminate the race to fish, reduce overcapacity and bycatch, and improve
economic efficiency.
Implementing catch shares in commercial-only fisheries can be a useful tool for managing harvest; however they are an
inherently inappropriate tool for recreational-only fisheries. In fisheries where there is a large and growing recreational
sector, exclusive fishing rights proposals maximize benefits to the commercial fishing industry while ignoring the
participation and beneficial economic impacts of recreational fishing.
Issue
In 2009, the Obama administration suggested they would create comprehensive national ocean policy. With the backing
of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), sustainable fisheries have become an essential part of
that vision. Given the challenges facing U.S. fishery managers, the best available science and practical experience support
the conclusion that it is in the public interest to encourage and support the evaluation of catch share programs authorized
under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
Catch share programs have existed in the U.S. since 1990, and NOAA has taken the initiative to promote catch shares
throughout the country in the hopes of adding four more programs over the next year.
However, more research and data needs to be obtained before any of the $54 billion allocated by the Obama
administration to NOAA is implemented for this system. When considering a national catch share program, NOAA
should consider the following:
• Conduct a thorough analysis of the impacts on all the sectors in the fishery, especially the impacts on recreational
fishing, prior to the initiation of a catch share system.
• Procedures must be established for the regional councils to review the current allocations. In a mixed-use fishery,
the councils should be required to examine the existing allocation to determine if it is consistent with the best use
of the resources for the nation as a whole. If the allocation is deemed to not be in the best interest of the nation as
a whole in terms of economic contribution of the sectors, a reallocation should be conducted by the regional
council.
• All quota share systems should be based only on the percentage of the commercial catch.
• It should not be the policy of the federal government to “give away” access and public resources for commercial
profit.
Points of Interest
• There is concern that in the long-run, catch share programs would benefit big commercial fishers while putting
those smaller sized fishermen and sport fishermen at risk of losing access and work.
• Catch share programs may create huge problems for recreational anglers. When applied in mixed-use fisheries
such as the Gulf red snapper, recreational anglers are forced to focus their efforts in limited state waters or to not
participate in the fishery at all.
• Catch shares once distributed can be leased or sold to eligible parties including individuals, communities, fishing
cooperatives and states, which can further distribute the catch.
Contact
40
Magnuson – Stevens Act and the Fishery Conservation Transition Act
Introduction
In 1996, the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) underwent a major overhaul and was reauthorized as the Sustainable Fisheries
Act. The Act’s basic structure is to regulate fishing on a regional basis with oversight by the Department of Commerce,
specifically the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The marine waters covered by the Act are
divided into eight regions, governed by regional councils. The principal responsibility of the councils is to develop
fisheries management plans for their region.
The reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation & Management Act (MSA) in 2006 provided several
important legal requirements to end overfishing by a certain date and establish limits on the amount of fishing that can
take place in a given fishery. The requirements in MSA to end overfishing by 2010 and to establish annual catch limits
were predicated on two critical assumptions: (1) proper management by National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
including recent and accurate stock assessments and (2) improved catch data to better anticipate potential problems in the
fishery.
Issue
In early 2010, it become apparent that NOAA had neither the resources nor the ability to comply with the amendments
other than to resort to the total closing of some marine fisheries in the Atlantic region. While the intentions behind the
2006 reauthorization were aimed at better marine fisheries conservation, it is clear that NOAA Fisheries was not prepared
for a law that mandates all our marine resources be managed to end overfishing by 2010 and 2011 without resorting to
abrupt and unnecessary closures of important recreational fisheries throughout the United States, particularly in South
Atlantic states.
Legislative Fix
In an effort to properly implement the true objectives of the 2006 reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Fishery
Conservation Transition Act (FCTA) (S. 3594/H.R. 6316), has been introduced in Congress. The FCTA will give federal
marine fisheries managers the time, resources, and more specific direction necessary to address the chronic deficiencies in
data collection and science that are resulting in massive and abrupt closures of popular recreational saltwater fisheries
exemplified by the South Atlantic red snapper closure.
Contact
41
Marine Spatial Planning
Introduction
Marine spatial planning is a public process of analyzing and allocating the spatial and temporal distribution of human
activities in marine areas to achieve ecological, economic, and social objectives that usually have been specified through a
political process.
Effective coastal and marine spatial planning has three essential attributes. They are:
• Multi-objective: Coastal and marine spatial planning balances ecological, social, economic, and governance
objectives.
• Spatially focused: The ocean, and/or Great Lakes area to be managed must be clearly defined and large enough to
incorporate relevant ecosystem processes.
• Integrated: The planning process should address the interrelationships and interdependence of each component
within the defined management area, including natural processes, activities, and authorities.
Issue
The recreational fishing and boating community supports marine spatial planning to the extent that its intent is to identify
the variety of ocean uses and their impact (or lack thereof) on ocean resources; to identify available data/science necessary
to make appropriate ocean management decisions; to identify any gaps in data/science; and to establish a system to
identify both conflicting and compatible ocean uses.
Any marine spatial planning program should focus on gathering the necessary tools to encourage compatible multiple
uses. It should focus on ways in which to balance the economic, social and conservation needs in order to strengthen
coastal economies that depend heavily on both ocean uses and a healthy ocean ecosystem.
Points of Interest
• On June 12, 2009 President Obama signed a memorandum establishing an Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force
(OPTF), led by the White House Council on Environmental Quality. The Task Force was charged with
developing recommendations for a national ocean policy, a framework for improved stewardship, and effective
coastal and marine spatial planning.
• On July 19, 2010 The final OPTF report to President Obama was issued. The Task Force included recreational
fishing and boating as part of the National Ocean Policy; however, the Task Force should have gone further and
established public access to these great resources as a national priority.
• According to the OPTF report, marine spatial plans will be developed through regional planning bodies.
However, those regional planning bodies, and the process of how they will operate, are not well defined.
Contact
42
Marine Protected Areas
Introduction
The official federal definition of a Marine Protected Area is: “any area of the marine environment that has been reserved
by federal, state, tribal, territorial, or local laws or regulations to provide lasting protection for part or all of the natural and
cultural resources therein.”(E.O.13158, May 2000). In the U.S., MPAs span a range of habitats including the open ocean,
coastal areas, inter-tidal zones, estuaries, and the parts of the Great Lakes. Marine Protected Area (MPA) is a term that
encompasses a variety of conservation and management methods in the United States. An MPA is not necessarily a no
fishing zone (marine reserve). Increasingly, however, the proposals for new MPAs contain provisions for permanent
recreational fishing closures.
Issue
E.O. 13158 (2000) called for the establishment of the National Marine Protected Areas Center, a collaboration of federal
agencies, led by the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the
Department of the Interior. The MPA Center’s main task is to consult with government agencies, non-government
organizations and the public to develop a scientifically-based, comprehensive national system of MPAs. The national
system of MPAs will represent diverse U.S. marine ecosystems and natural and cultural resources. In June of 2006
President Bush designated the Hawaiian National Monument it is the largest MPA in the world (nearly 140,000 square
miles).
Although the national system serves to link existing MPAs into a network for protected areas, states often retain the
discretion with regard to how MPAs are designated and managed. In California for example, the Marine Life Protection
Act (MLPA) seeks to develop a system of MPAs along the entire 1,100 mile coastline. In April 2007 and August 2009 the
CA Fish and Game Commission voted to severely restrict or ban fishing in a total of 7 percent, or 357 square miles, in
California state marine waters. Implementation of the MLPA will not be completed until 2011. Just prior to this vote,
Governor Schwarzenegger removed a pro-angling member of the Fish and Game Commission and appointed a new
director. However, the conservation community won a small battle on October 1, 2010 when a Superior Court Judge ruled
that the two groups that govern MLPA decisions are to be considered state agencies and are thus required to share
information with the conservation community. With this ruling fishing interest groups will be better able to understand the
processes that have been used in designation decisions in the past and critique them in the future.
In July of 2009, the Oregon legislature passed, and the Governor signed into law, legislation creating two pilot marine
reserves and designated four other areas for study. A process moving forward will use community groups to study and
recommend proposed protection sites that will be reviewed by the Ocean Policy Advisory Council (OPAC). OPAC will
then recommend sites to the Governor’s office for consideration.
Points of Interest
• Depressed fish stocks can be rebuilt through relying on recreational anglers as stewards of the resource.
• Marine protected areas should be designated only when justified by scientifically-based methods, via a transparent
and open process, and should be monitored and revised as necessary to ensure effectiveness.
• The science used for determining MPA locations should be site specific, as in many areas it is possible to
accomplish the same goals with less area being affected. Should the designation of an MPA be deemed necessary,
planners should strive to determine the smallest possible area that would be effective in achieving the goals of the
MPA to designate as no-take, while leaving the majority of the MPA open for multiple use, including recreational
angling.
• Designating vast swaths of marine environment as strictly “no-take” fails to acknowledge the socio-economic
concerns of local fishermen, the cultural heritage of angling and tribal traditions. Multiple use MPAs with small
isolated pockets of no-take areas have been shown to be more effective than cookie-cutter style no-take only areas
both in terms of generating stakeholder involvement, as well as compliance. Without compliance, the MPA
designation is self-defeating and will fail to accomplish the intended goals.
Contact
43
Past Issues
44
Internet Hunting
Introduction
Internet hunting became a hot button issue in 2004 after a Texas rancher set up a remote controlled rifle that would have
allowed anyone with an internet connection to sit at their computer and, with the click of a mouse, fire the rifle at the
hunted animal. This idea violates the fair chase ethic of hunting that outdoorsmen have stood by for years. The unethical
practice quickly garnered international attention, and legislators in sportsmen’s caucuses across the country sprung into
action to ban the practice and protect the fair chase ethic of hunting. Beyond violating fair chase, internet hunting
garnered negative press for hunting.
Language
By incorporating the views of our partners and other State Legislators who have passed this legislation, we present the
following language:
“No person shall shoot at or kill any bird or animal with any gun or other device accessed via an internet
connection in (state). Accessing, regulating access to, or regulating the control of a device capable of
being operated in violation of this subsection shall be prima facie evidence of an offense under this
subsection.”
Points of Interest
It is the duty of each caucus leadership team to determine the best means of action in your respective state and to modify
the above language as necessary. If the language must be modified please keep in mind the following:
• It is NOT the intent of this legislation to negatively impact the ability or opportunity for disabled hunters to
harvest game
• Changing from “internet” to “remote” may expand the scope of the language and create negative consequences
such as those mentioned above.
• Internet hunting is considered a “past issues” brief because most of the caucus states have passed legislation
banning internet hunting.
History
This issue was introduced at the inaugural NASC Annual Meeting in 2004 and first issued as a NASC issue brief during
the 2005 legislative session. Now 35 states have now passed legislation banning the practice.
Contact
Jennifer Lundy or Bethany O’ Donovan (202) 543-6907; Jennifer@sportsmenslink.org or Bethany@sportsmenslink.org
45
National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)
Introduction
Federal law requires every licensed firearms dealer to contact the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check
System (NICS) before transferring a firearm to a non-licensee, to determine if the transferee is a “prohibited person” who
may not receive a firearm.
In some states, dealers contact NICS through a designated state point of contact (POC) for all transfers. In other states,
dealers contact NICS directly for all transfers. Finally, some states require licensees to contact their state POC for
handgun transfers, and NICS for long gun transfers.
The databases used for these checks contain a combination of federal and state records on prohibited persons. NICS is a
“network of networks” that makes state records available to the federal government and to other states, and also makes
federal records available to POC states.
Issue
The murders at Virginia Tech drew attention to problems with incomplete records on persons who have been “adjudicated
as … mental[ly] defective” or who have been involuntarily committed to mental institutions. At that time, about half the
states provide no records of such people for use by NICS. Many states also lag in providing records of other classes of
prohibited persons.
Several states, including Virginia, have already moved (either by legislation or executive action) to make more records
available to NICS.
Congress considered and passed the “NICS Improvement Amendments Act” (H.R. 2640), which creates grant programs
to update state court records on prohibited persons. The bill also allows for withholding a small portion of funds under
other grant programs from states that, after several years, fall significantly behind federal benchmarks in making those
records available to NICS. Finally, it requires participating states to have programs for “relief from disabilities” so that
people who no longer pose a threat due to mental illness can have their firearm rights restored. H.R. 2640 passed the
House of Representatives and the Senate and was signed by the President on January 8th, 2008.
Neither H.R. 2640 nor most state legislation to date would create any new class of prohibited persons, or interfere with
privacy laws. The records in question are generally public under current law, and are records only of people who are
already prohibited from receiving firearms.
Points of Interest
• State caucus leadership teams will need to consider the unique situation of each state with respect to providing
records under current law and under the proposed federal legislation.
• NICS is considered a “past issue” brief because the system has improved since the creation of this issue brief.
Contact
46
Bullet Serialization
Introduction
Bullet Serialization is the process by which individual rounds of ammunition are identified and marked with a laser
engraved serial number during their production. So far, bullet serialization legislation has been defeated by each state
where it was introduced. Bullet serialization would cast unbearable requirements onto the backs of the ammunition
industry as they would be forced to endure a tremendous drop in production efficiency coinciding with a dramatic
increase in their production costs. Ammunition manufacturers could not serialize their product without hundreds of
millions of dollars in capitol investment to build the new factories that would be needed to meet the requirements of bullet
serialization. In turn, the many different consumers of ammunition, which include sportsmen, as well as federal, state,
and local law enforcement agencies, would be forced to cope with large unjustifiable increases in ammunition prices.
Points of Interest
• The technology has not been the subject of any articles in the journal of the Association of Firearm and Toolmark
Examiners (ADTE), the relevant professional society.
• There have been no independent, peer-reviewed studies by qualified forensic scientists.
• No independent studies have been done to determine the safety implications of using high speed laser engravers in
the presence of the ammunition components, i.e. primers, propellants, etc. For instance, flash photography is not
permitted inside factories because of gunpowder ignition concerns.
• The proposed technology is largely considered to be ineffective given that most bullets are mangled on impact in
such a way that would obliterate the serial number.
• Bullet serialization is considered a “past issue” brief because the technology patent expired.
Contact
47

National Assembly of Sportsmens Caucuses 2011 Issue Briefs

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

National Assembly of Sportsmens Caucuses 2011 Issue Briefs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Issue Briefs 2011

Modern Sporting Rifle Facts

Potential Action by Legislators

From the highly successful Kansas “Walk-In Hunter Access” program:

Map of the current fishing reciprocity agreements:

Language & Definitions

From SC General Assembly Act 338:

Arizona S.B 1167

Variety of Approaches: States with Tax Credit Programs

Items that would need to be considered in any legislation

State Contact Information

You might also like