An Earmark + “K Street” Lobbyist = Massive Federal Land Grab

by David A. Ridenour

With his signature on May 8 to S. 2739, the ‘Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008,’ George Bush has now signed on to the establishment of de facto federal zoning along a 175-mile corridor running from Gettysburg, Pennsylvania to Charlottesville, Virginia. It’s one of the largest federal land grabs in history.

On April 29, the U.S. House of Representatives passed this massive, pork-laden bill that included a provision creating the Journey Through Hallowed Ground (JTHG) National Heritage Area. Debate was limited to just 40 minutes.

Heritage areas are National Park Service preservation zones in which environmentalists, federal officials and local elitists influence local land-use decisions, frequently in ways that restrict property rights and move property ownership beyond the means of the less well-to-do.

Environmentalists and preservationists love heritage areas, because they can be used to curtail development.

Local elitists like them because they can help keep people they consider to be undesirable out of their communities. Minorities are harmed disproportionately when land-use restrictions cause home prices to soar. (It is perhaps no coincidence that lily-white Waterford, Virginia was at the epicenter of the effort to create the JTHG Heritage Area. Waterford has a rich black history — and history is apparently where the village would like to keep it.)

Politically well-connected developers like heritage areas because they can be used to establish near monopolies on real estate development opportunities. As the Heritage Foundation’s Ron Utt discovered, that’s precisely what the JTHG Heritage Area would do.

And federal bureaucrats love heritage areas because they allow them to get around little inconveniences to their central planning — inconveniences such as local elected officials.

House passage of the Journey Through Hallowed Ground Heritage Area was hailed by its chief sponsor, Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), and by the Journey Through Hallowed Ground foundation, the chief lobby organization behind the effort. Both noted the overwhelming vote in the House, 291-117.

The bill received support across party lines. In the House, supporters included Representatives Alan Mollohan (D-WV), Don Young (R-AK), William Jefferson (D-LA), Rick Renzi (R-AZ), and John Doolittle (R-CA). (Now all these gentlemen can say they have a second thing in common.)

But it is unlikely that support for the land grab was as great as the tally might suggest, as it was buried in an omnibus bill of over 60 other proposals — some enjoying wide support.

As Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) noted during the limited debate, “Many of the sections of this bill are unable to stand on their own and have subsequently been bundled into a $300 million brew to avoid individual scrutiny… this omnibus was created with enough prizes that inevitably the bad will be overlooked and everything, the good, the bad and the ugly, will be able to cross the finish line.”

Approval of the JTHG Heritage Area is a case study in what is wrong with American politics.

The JTHG Heritage Area wasn’t approved by Congress due to overwhelming public demand for it. Borrowing from the Beatles, perhaps it got by with a little help from Wolf’s friends — a lot of Ben Franklins, Alexander Hamiltons, Abe Lincolns and George Washingtons.

You see, Congressman Wolf slipped a $1 million dollar earmark in the 2005 federal transportation bill — buried among 6,372 other earmarks — for the Journey Through Hallowed Ground Foundation. This is the very group that has led the lobbying effort for Wolf’s bill. More unusual still is that at the time of the earmark, the foundation had yet to even be incorporated and was operating out of the personal post office box of its executive director, Cate Magennis Wyatt.

It appears as though Congressman Wolf used taxpayer money to fund the lobbying campaign for his own bill. (Read more about his here)

Then there’s the unseemly Wolf-”K Street” lobbyist connection. Wolf’s land grab bill was written by Don Pongrace, who runs the Indian practice (yes, a lobbyist for Indian gaming interests) for Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, a large law firm with offices in D.C., London, New York and Moscow.

Not only that, but Pongrace apparently was authorized to speak for Congressman Wolf in meetings about the Journey Through Hallowed Ground Heritage Area.

It turns out that Pongrace serves on the board of the Journey Through Hallowed Ground foundation — the group receiving Wolf’s earmark largesse — and Pongrace’s wife has served the group as vice president.

Apparently, the concept of a conflict of interest is lost on the mega law firm of Akin Gump.

Interestingly, at the very time Frank Wolf was collaborating with Akin Gump on his bill, he criticized the firm for working for the Chinese government in its bid to acquire Unocal.

Wolf wrote to Akin Gump, “I question the appropriateness of an American firm… being on the payroll of the Chinese government… I immediately thought, ‘Is there no bright line to separate who lobbyists in Washington will and will not represent?’”

Is there no bright line, indeed.

Congressman Wolf introduces a bill written by a “K Street” lobbyist, arranges a $1 million earmark for the group lobbying for that bill — and employing the lobbyist’s wife — and he asks about bright lines?

Congressman Wolf also received help pushing his bill from National Park Service employees, who acted contrary to the Service’s official position, which calls for the creation of no additional heritage areas until a formal NPS program is created through legislation. Nonetheless, the NPS’s Brenda Barrett and Alma Ripps were dispatched to defend creation of the JTHG Heritage Area.

The full extent of the National Park Service’s assistance with the legislative effort is still unknown, as the Service has so far failed to fully comply with a Freedom of Information Act request. In violation of the FOIA law, it provided only incomplete records and documents that obviously had been altered (helpful hint for NPS employees: if you plan to alter documents, you might want to avoid using ruled paper).

Ethical questions surround the process through which this national heritage area was approved. A presidential veto was warranted.

-David A. Ridenour is vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research.

akin gump strauss hauer & feld, consolidated natural resources act of 2008, david a. ridenour, don pongrace, earmarks, journey through hallowed ground national heritage area, National Center for Public Policy Research, National Park Service, omnibus bills, rep. alan mollohan, rep. don young, rep. frank wolf, rep. john doolittle, rep. rick renzi, rep. rob bishop, rep. william jefferson, U.S. House of Representatives

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Maine, like a lot of states, is having trouble funding its Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. Maine, not necessarily like a lot of states, loves to tax its citizens. Maine is one of the most heavily taxed states in the Union. Maine is coming off one of the most severe winters in history and in parts of the state, the deer herd has been hit very hard. Needless to say, the state has its troubles financially and is faced with decisions on how it is going to fund programs.

The MDIFW is facing a shortage this year in its budget and they are scrambling to find funding. Sen. Bruce Bryant, Committee Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, is proposing an increase in hunting, trapping and fishing license fees by $2.00 per year for residents and $4.00 per year for nonresidents.

Coming as no big surprise, Maine sportsmen are divided on whether they should be asked once again to pick up the slack.

Rep. Tom Saviello of Wilton and member of the JSCIFW, is also proposing a bill that would levy a fee on hikers and kayakers of $20.00 annually. That money, as I understand it, would go into a pool used to offset the costs of the Maine Warden Service to respond to search and rescue calls for non-license holders in the state. This bill may be facing more resistance than the license fee increase.

I’m not going to get into discussions about whether or not I think any of the fees are fair, necessary or justified. What I will do is raise some questions that I think need to be answered before anyone in Augusta or the users and sportsmen can make qualified decisions on what should be done.

Sportsmen are notorious for complaining about fee increases and we can’t really blame them. It does seem that all too often they are called upon to pick up the slack when it comes to financial shortcomings. But also true to sportsmen is that they don’t mind coughing up their fair share and a lot more, when they are able to see the worth of their investment.

There is also a trust factor. Sportsmen have to have a belief that the MDIFW is looking out for them. Here’s one example. Last year in Michigan, the Department of Natural Resources, said it had to raise license fees because it was looking at a $10.8 million shortfall. Sportsmen there were also divided but after raising fees, when the end of the year came around, DNR had a surplus of nearly $20 million. Trust me when I say there is no more trust between Michigan sportsmen and the MDNR and it could be years before MDNR will get a license fee increase again.

As I see it, those complaining the most about paying the extra fee are doing it for two basic reasons. 1). They see their services being cut along with a reduction in fish and game and opportunities. 2). They believe that non payers that rely on Fish and Game services, which includes the Maine Warden Service, need to start anteing up their fair share. In honesty, I think these two reasons are legitimate, although I probably won’t get a majority approval on that from readers.

How MDIFW will find the funding remains to be seen. What isn’t being answered, and I have sent out emails that have not been answered, is how is funding of MDIFW going to be affected if Gov. Baldacci gets his way and merges MDIFW with other “natural resources” departments in order to save money?

As most of you know, I am dead set against such a move for a number of reasons, one of them being the problems that arise from how revenue is generated to this new department and how it gets spent. Sportsmen need guarantees that the money they lay out in license fees is actually going to be spent on managing fish and game and not going to fund the local nature walk project that once open will be closed to all hunting and fishing.

In previous discussions I have had on this subject, people remind me that Maine is required by law to spend fish and game money on fish and game programs. I realize that but nobody will answer my question when I ask if those laws become null and void if legally the MDIFW is dissolved and a new entity of natural resources is created?

Maine doesn’t have the best track record when it comes to spending the money generated by license fees on fish and game items. If Baldacci gets his way, will the formation of a different department guarantee that Maine sportsmen’s money will be spent as promised?

Baldacci opposes a license fee increase, which I find interesting as I never knew a tax he didn’t like. Maine sportsmen need to decide if any money they have to spend more than they do now will be spent as promised and whether it is worthwhile. I don’t completely buy into the argument that Skip Trask, spokesman for the Maine Trappers Association and Maine Guides, used as was reported in the Banger News.

Skip Trask with the Maine Trappers Association and Maine Professional Guides Association pointed out that a daily lift ticket at a ski resort can cost $70 while some golfers pay $60 for a day of green’s fees.

Paying $40 for a year’s worth of hunting and fishing, as the bill proposes, is a deal by comparison as long as it helps keep wardens patrolling the backcountry to protect the resources, Trask said.

Trask is right in his representation of the costs of skiing and golf. I’ll also concur that the cost of a license to hunt, trap and fish in Maine is a bargain but making such a comparison isn’t in and of itself justification to raise fees. We shouldn’t raise fees simply because we can and get away with it - and I don’t think Trask is suggesting such a thing.

My point still comes back to perception of the license holder. It’s what you get for your money and whether you feel the money is spent with the best interest of the sportsman in mind.

This proposal for a rate hike comes at a troubling time in my mind. If this was coming at a time when Baldacci wasn’t suggesting a hocus-pocus, mix up and blend departments together, closely resembling a shell game, then maybe the decision could be easier.

It seems the majority of Maine sportsmen want non-paying users to contribute. How to make that happen is argumentative for certain. Making government bigger in hopes of accomplishing that task will never work. We need to fight Baldacci’s idea of creating a bigger department of natural resources and return the fish and game department back to more what it used to be - fish and game management.

Tom Remington

gov. john baldacci, Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, maine license fee increases, Maine Professional Guides Association, Maine Trappers Association, Maine Warden Service, rep. tom saviello, sen. bruce bryant, skip trask

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Essentially, it was LD823 of the Maine Legislature that created the Northern and Eastern Maine Deer Task Force. Their mission was to find out why there are very few deer left in Northern and Eastern Maine and make recommendations as to what to do about it. Before anything else is said, the 11 members of this task force where given a commission that others before them had yet to accomplish and the time put into this effort is to be commended. Thank you!

Having said that, brings me back to the main question I have had since I heard of the Deer Task Force’s commission and the task given to them. What can they do that nobody or entity before them has been able to accomplish?

It certainly didn’t take hours of hard work from any task force to know that two major obstacles face the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife in attempting to fulfill the deer population goals in the MDIFW Deer Management Program - loss of habitat and predators.

Although many more issues that do have some degree of effect on the deer herd were discussed, quickly winter deer yards and predators, such as coyotes and black bear, became the front issue. Let’s jump immediately into the final recommendations of the task force and then we can look back as some of what drove them to those conclusions.

*Note* - The full report of the Task Force can be found on the MDIFW website by clicking this link. (pdf)

Task Force Recommendations:

1. That MDIFW work cooperatively with landowners to protect deer wintering areas in Northern and Eastern Maine to gradually increase the deer population in conjunction with land carrying capacity. This recommendation was a majority vote as some felt that a forced land-use zoning regulation would work better.

2. That MDIFW establish a Deer Predation Working Group, in short, to figure out how it is going to control predators, namely black bears and coyotes, that are killing too many deer.

3. That MDIFW establish a Deer Research Working Group whose function will be to figure out better science in managing winter yards and the species.

Obviously, each of these recommendations come with much more detailed procedures for carrying out the recommendations.

Long before this Task Force met, Maine hunters have known what is causing the loss of deer in these affected areas. From what I read in the report, there certainly was not consensus on how to go about trying to protect deer wintering areas (DWA). Some advocate for a land zoning initiative that would force landowners that have DWA on their property to preserve it, tying their hands from full use of their property. According to representatives of the Maine Forest Products Council, landowners are opposed to land zoning for this purpose. They said landowners understand they have certain responsibilities “but are very resistant to zoning.”

John Gilbert of JD Irving says that of the 1.3 million acres of forest its company manages, 6% or nearly 82,000 acres are cooperatively set aside for DWAs. He says one of the problems facing deer management is that these are historically DWAs but the deer aren’t going there anymore. This makes them reluctant to be forced into setting aside such areas.

I think it was mostly agreed upon that any work with protecting and establishing deer wintering areas was a long-term goal and efforts wouldn’t yield positive results for some time.

One of the recommendations of the DTF was to use money from Land for Maine’s Future to buy up easements and land for wintering habitat.

On the issue of predators, part of what made this effort even more difficult than it already was, was because Maine was in the middle of a lawsuit filed against it by the Animal Protection Institute to stop trapping in Canada lynx habitat. Near the end of the meetings of the Task Force, Maine reached an agreement with API and thusly gave up many of the tools being used in the trapping of coyotes.

It has been said by trappers that earlier on when snaring was outlawed on coyotes, the major tool of controlling the coyote was taken away. Reports are that better designed traps might provide a better means of trapping the coyote but that has of yet to be revealed.

Between coyotes, black bears and bad winters, like this year’s, mortality rates on deer have skyrocketed. The Task Force made several recommendations for controlling and reducing bear populations. They included lengthening the bear season, increasing bag limits, among others, most of which require either legislative action or implementation through the MDIFW.

Probably the one most effective recommendation that could have some effect on predation is the recommendation of the Task Force that the MDIFW renew Animal Damage Control, a tool to use to target known areas of predator problems and work to reduce coyotes and bears.

The Task Force in recommending to set up the Deer Predation Working Group, effectively shuffled some of its responsibilities to establish methods to reduce coyotes off onto that perhaps-to-be group. Gerry Lavigne, former Maine deer biologist and a representative of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, who sat on the Task Force, points out that this needs to be addressed. This in a letter addressed to the Task Force from Lavigne with his recommendations on it.

Finally, we note that the Deer Task Force failed to tackle one directive of LD 823. There is a provision directing the working group to: “establish methods of controlling coyote populations and set goals to manage the populations.” While the Task Force clearly deferred discussion of control methods to the proposed Deer Predation Working Group, the task of goalsetting
was never addressed. This is unacceptable, because serious efforts at predator control require the same attention to harvest intensity, data collection, and monitoring of efficacy as is required for other big game management.

The Dept. requires the use of management systems to guide harvest and other management actions for most hunted and trapped species, as well as for many non-hunted species. Yet, no management system has ever been implemented for eastern coyotes, since the Dept. initiated the management system approach 23 years ago! SAM believes the DIFW is long overdue for creating a management system for coyote that will guide recreational harvest, ADC activities, and public outreach, as these activities pertain to achievement of clearly defined population objectives. We urge the Dept. to accomplish this task without delay, and with the scientific competency it accords other important wildlife.

I think Lavigne nails it pretty close but I’m wondering, as I’m sure many more are as well, just how is this going to be accomplished? It’s easy to say the MDIFW needs to do this and that but we also must remember that by them giving in to the animal rights groups, many good effective tools used to keep coyote populations in check, were given away.

Trappers that I talk say they could easily target deer wintering areas with their snare traps catching the coyotes as they bear down on deer in the yarding areas. They say what’s left for tools is quite inadequate to do a good enough job.

I don’t want to sound like an excuse maker looking for ways to fail but I can’t say that I have any real suggestions either and I’m sure this has played a significant role in the past with those trying to find ways to deal with coyotes.

MDIFW will have their work cut out for them, especially when it comes to dealing with the public, namely the environmentalists and animal rights groups. Two issues talked about as possible methods of dealing with predators was opening up a spring bear hunt with a “cub clause” - meaning no bear with cubs could be harvested. In states that do have spring hunts, there has been opposition to them because cubs are involved.

Going along with that same social outcry, is talk of targeting denning coyotes in the early spring. This would involve destroying coyote pups while still in the den. This is not an easy task to locate dens and is highly controversial as animal lovers can only see that these are cute little puppies. This method has been discussed in Alaska in their efforts to control overgrown wolf populations. They have seen strong opposition to this method, yet again, they’ve seen strong opposition to anything they are trying to do to reduce wolf numbers.

MDIFW personnel think nothing of killing every fish in a pond in order to “reclaim it” and restock it with game fish, yet can’t deal with denning coyotes? One of the problems I think the department has had in the past is not taking a firm enough stand. They must stand behind their science in wildlife management, even if it gets grief from the public or a handful of noisy activists. If their science behind what the do is real and necessary, then they must, from a position of strength, stand firm. I’m not sure they can accomplish that. Surely they understand that giving a little here and a little there isn’t going to make the noisy ones go away?

The facts are, Maine has a serious deer management problem in the Northern part of the state and Downeast. This has been exacerbated by a record-breaking winter dumping in excess of 200 inches of snow in parts. It might not be too far fetched to claim that there are probably more Canada lynx in some of these areas than deer.

It’s tough to suggest asking hunters to give up their deer hunting opportunities but it might come to that. This of course would be tragic, coming at a time when some economic leaders are officially saying this country is in recession and MDIFW is cash strapped, struggling now to make ends meet. Losing valuable license fee money would just make matters worse.

One thing is for certain. I have faith that hunters and trappers are the real true conservationists and they’ll roll up their shirt sleeves and do what needs to be done to bring the deer herd back. We can’t control the weather but there are many more things that we can do, which might require a fight.

Tom Remington

Animal Protection Institute, Canada lynx, deer management, gerry lavigne, Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, northern and eastern maine deer task force, severe winters, Sportsmans Alliance of Maine

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Peyton Knight of the National Center for Public Policy Research is warning sportsmen that the proposed Clean Water Restoration Act sponsored by Representative James Oberstar (D-MN), “would do more to threaten the cherished pastimes of hunters, fishermen and other outdoor enthusiasts than it would to ensure the cleanliness of our nation’s water.”

I’ve written a couple times over the past few months about the CWRA (here and here) but Knight brings to the attention of American sportsmen what could await us should this act be approved.

The intent of the existing Clean Water Act was to ensure that our navigable waters remained pollution free. We have witnessed some abuses of this act through narrow interpretations by our court system. The Clean Water Restoration Act, according to Knight, goes far beyond navigable waters, leaving us to wonder just how far this regulation and court-interpreted Act would go.

In reality, the Clean Water Restoration Act (CWRA) does not “restore” the CWA. Instead, it greatly expands its scope and jurisdiction. The bill would bring federal oversight to activities that affect all “waters of the United States” as opposed to merely “navigable waters” as called for in the original CWA. “Waters of the United States” is broadly defined in the legislation to include “all interstate and intrastate waters and their tributaries, including lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, natural ponds, and all impoundments.”

I spoke with Knight by phone last fall and we discussed the prospects that with enactment of CWRA and the typical efforts of environmentalists, particularly through lawsuits, hunters could be facing ridiculous restrictions on such things as constructing duck blinds, whether portable, temporary or permanent without first obtaining permits.

Knight gives prime examples in addressing foreseeable problems in the upper Midwest - some of this nation’s top waterfowl hunting grounds.

Both “prairie potholes” (depressed areas that temporarily hold rainwater and snowmelt) and “sloughs” (swampy depressions typically comprised of stagnant water or mud) are specifically named in the CWRA as “waters” that would be subject to regulation - a departure from the original Clean Water Act. As a consequence, driving posts into water and mud near a prairie pothole for construction of a duck blind could constitute discharging dredged or fill material into the “waters of the United States,” which is illegal under the CRA without a permit.11

In addition, hunters who fire shot over and near prairie potholes, lakes, rivers, ponds and wetlands could be considered polluters under the CWRA. In 1996, a U.S. District Court in New York ruled against a shooting range when it found that expended shot, even non-toxic steel shot, is considered a pollutant under the current CWA.12

But the passage of the CWRA wouldn’t just affect hunters. It could have unusual and ridiculous consequences for anglers, recreational boaters and all shooting sports. Knight says that with the wording of the CWRA, that includes virtually every place there is or has been water and leaving much of the interpretation of what would be considered a pollutant up to the courts, anything and everything that is put in the water, including the fisherman, could conceivably be prohibited.

This means trout and small-mouth bass fishermen could lose access to their favorite rivers and streams, as wading in these waters necessarily disturbs rocks and sediment, and therefore could be considered harmful to fish and other wildlife. Lead lures, sinkers or split-shot could be deemed pollutants.

Recreational boating could be restricted or banned in certain waters due to the incidental discharge of engine cooling water, bilge water, deck runoff or ballast water. In fact, environmental litigators have already struck a blow against recreational boating under the current CWA.

We already have seen the courts rule that spent lead and steel shot, as well as clay targets, from shooting ranges, for example, are deemed a pollutant. With expanded control by the government to all waters, which includes watersheds and wetlands, where will this leave shooting ranges, etc.?

EPA notes that lawsuits “have been the driving force behind most legal actions against outdoor ranges.”28 For example, in 1994, the Long Island Soundkeeper Fund, an environmental organization, successfully sued the New York Athletic Club under the CWA because the club had been operating a trap shooting range on its property. In this case, the court found that debris from clay targets and expended shot, including non-toxic steel shot, are pollutants under the CWA. According to EPA, “Based on the court’s decision… any range whose shot, bullets or target debris enter the ‘waters of the United States’ could be subject to permitting requirements as well as governmental or citizen suits.”29

More recently, Blue Eco Legal Council, an environmental organization, filed a lawsuit under the CWA against the United States Department of Justice, Coast Guard, Navy, Marines and Department of Defense, alleging that an FBI shooting range in North Chicago is endangering Lake Michigan with stray bullets.3

The majority of hunters, fishermen and outdoor enthusiasts want to keep our land and our waters clean. As a matter of fact, sportsmen have contributed over $10 billion dollars in funds used for conservation but to give the federal government, which in turn would turn interpretation over to the courts, broad and sweeping jurisdiction over “all the waters” in this country, would not only be costly but could very easily tie up the courts with ridiculous lawsuits and seriously strip hunters, fishermen, boaters, landowners and effectively every American, opportunities to enjoy the natural resources God has given us.

The Clean Water Restoration Act, at least as it is written, should not be allowed to pass. Please contact your congressmen and let them know.

Tom Remington

boating, clean water act, clean water restoration act, fishing, hunting, National Center for Public Policy Research, Peyton Knight, pollutants, rep. james oberstar, shooting sports

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Some Pennsylvania deer hunters have yelled a lot ever since the Pennsylvania Game Commission began its current deer management program. This program calls for the reduction in deer populations throughout the state, mostly based on what has been deemed a destruction of forest habitat by too many foraging deer. Some hunters don’t like the reduction. They say now there aren’t enough deer and the program is not working. Perhaps their yelling has paid off.

Rep. David Levdansky of Allegheny is proposing House Resolution 642, which calls for an audit to be done of the deer management program by outside sources. According to the Morning Call, the audit requests specific tasks be accomplished.

To that end, Levdansky’s resolution includes a litany of specific topics the audit will address, including deer population trends for the past 12 years; a current deer population estimate for the entire state and each Wildlife Management Unit; a scientific review of the agency’s modeling techniques for deer harvests, deer health and forest health; the potential impact of acid rain in relation to deer on forest regeneration; a comparison of Pennsylvania’s deer management techniques to other states; and an evaluation of the current size of existing Wildlife Management Units.

The cost of the audit will run an estimated $100,000 to $200,000 and then that will put an end to all the yelling, fighting, back stabbing, bickering and lawsuits, right? Well, probably not exactly and in reality, it probably won’t change much of anything.

At least some hope that the audit will give hunters and the PGC a more accurate estimate of the existing deer population. One of the tasks of the auditing people will be to make recommendations as well as deliver hard facts. At issue also is the size and number of Wildlife Management Units. Some say the units are laid out wrong and/or too small or too big. Perhaps the auditors will make recommendations in that way.

But to quiet the masses, I don’t think that will ever happen. There’s some hope that it may help ease the dissatisfaction but in my opinion the majority of those unhappy will more than likely always remain unhappy for a host of reasons. Off the top of my head, I can think of one reason. There just is bad blood between some sportsmen and the government agencies who make the decisions. Some of that bad blood is a result of dissatisfaction over the new deer management plan and some if it has always been there and probably always will be.

If approved, which would only take the approval of the House vote, as per a resolution not a bill, once signed would have to be completed within one year.

I hope the audit proves to be a good thing for the Pennsylvania hunters, landowners and game personnel.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

The Kansas House of Representatives approved 99-21 a constitutional amendment that would guarantee citizens the right to hunt and fish. If the Kansas Senate passes the bill by 2/3 majority, then it will go before the voters in November. KansasCity.com has a bit more on this, along with the quote of the day.

“It’s kind of silly,” the Democrat (Rep. Sue Storm of Overland Park) said. “Why not have a constitutional right to golf?”

Well, silly Miss Overland. I guarantee that if there were groups bent on putting an end to golfing, oh let’s say because they destroy the environment with all the fertilizers, etc., then golfers would be looking for ways in which to protect their interest too. Silly, I guess until someone puts the shoe on your foot.

Tom Remington

constitutional amendment to hunt and fish, god given right to hunt and fish, hunting bills, kansas house

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Over the years I have been asked countless times which states currently have amendments to their constitutions guaranteeing the right to hunt, fish and trap. (Not all states are all inclusive)

Recently I was asked again by a reader from Arkansas, B.J. Hardy, who is also actively concerned about his state passing a constitutional amendment. I explained I just hadn’t had time to pull all this information together but I provided him some contact information where he could begin. It wasn’t long before he began emailing me with information he had retrieved from his leg work. Thank you, B.J.

This is my attempt at pulling all this information together for readers. I will also make every attempt that I can to keep it updated. For that, I am requesting your help as I can’t be everywhere all the time. Send me information you have that would lend toward making changes to this information. I will also try to create a permanent page here at the blog so that this information can be easily accessed with a link on the home page.

The below information comes from Douglas Shinkle of the National Conference of State Legislatures office in Denver, Colorado.

States That Currently Have Constitutional Amendment to Hunt and Fish (includes state and year passed)

Vermont - 1777
Alabama - 1996
Minnesota - 1998
North Dakota - 2000
Virginia - 2000
Wisconsin - 2003
Louisiana - 2004
Montana - 2004
Georgia - 2006

Right to Fish

Rhode Island - 1844?
California - 1910

States That Have Attempted and Failed or Are Still Active

Arizona (active)
Arkansas
Colorado
Florida
Idaho (active)
Indiana
Kentucky
Michigan (active)
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
New Jersey (active)
New Mexico
New York
Ohio
Oklahoma (active)
Pennsylvania (active)
South Carolina (active)
South Dakota (active)
Tennessee (active)
Texas
West Virginia

Tom Remington

roulette per giocare,giocare roulette,come giocare alla roulettegiochi kenomigliori bonus casinogiocare casino onlinecasino online commigliori casino onlinebonus casino on netroulette strategywin roulettebonus code casinocasino on line senza depositoblog casino onlinegiochi blackjackbaccarat downloadrussian roulettegioco craps in linearoulette americanagioca alla roulettecasino gioco virtualegiochi roulette,giochi online roulette,giochi di rouletteroulette 36gioco roulette gratisstrip roulettegiocare alla roulettevideo poker per pc gratisblackjack in lineagiochi video pokereuro casinoslots on linegioco kenodownload casino gamesil gioco della roulettesistemi per la roulettevideo poker machinesgioco baccarat gratiswww casino online comrisposte eurobarre casino on netcasino comgiochi di casino gratisinternet gamblingcasino online con bonus,casino online bonus,casino online con bonus di entrata senza versamentocasino online mobilecasino on line gambling,casino on line con bonus,casino on lineall download slotsvideo poker machineregole baccaratbwin casinocasino online italianoonline free pokerfree texas holdem poker game

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

The state of Oklahoma moved a step closer yesterday when the senate, in a vote of 45-0 approved a bill that would amend the state constitution to guarantee to its citizens the right to hunt, fish, trap and take game. Senate Joint Resolution 38 in part reads like this:

Section 36. A. All citizens of this state shall have an inherent right to engage in hunting, trapping, fishing, and taking game and fish, free of state laws which explicitly or implicitly effectively prohibit the ability of citizens to engage in such activities. Hunting, trapping, fishing and the taking of game and fish are a valued part of our heritage and will forever be preserved for the people. The Wildlife Conservation Commission shall be vested with the power and authority to approve methods, practices and procedures for hunting, trapping, fishing and the taking of game and fish.
B. Nothing in this section shall:
1. Be construed to prohibit reasonable regulation of the hunting, trapping, fishing and taking of game and fish; or
2. Operate to repeal or invalidate any laws or rules in existence on the effective date of its adoption.

This measure will be presented to the general electorate in November.

Tom Remington

constitutional right to hunt, oklahoma state constitution, right to fish, right to hunt, right to trap, sen. glenn coffee, sjr38

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Not much of a shocker there I’d say. The problem is the information the Sierra Club is presenting to the public about HCR2037, which is a proposed amendment to the Arizona Constitution that would give citizens of that state a guaranteed right to hunt. The Sierra Club is saying that a passage of this bill would remove control of wildlife management from the fish and game and put it in the hands of the legislature. But that’s not true.

HCR2037 says: (the emboldening is mine)

House Concurrent Resolution 2037 amends the Arizona Constitution to ensure the right of Arizona citizens to hunt, fish, and harvest game animals pursuant to existing regulations and restrictions.

It also spells out the authority of the Game and Fish Department and the Game and Fish Commission. Perhaps the Sierra Club is taking out of context the part of the bill that says under “provisions”,

States that the right of Arizona citizens to hunt, fish, and harvest game animals in a manner consistent with the laws of trespass shall not be impaired, except as reasonably restricted or regulated by the Legislature.

I believe this is in reference to laws that influence access to hunting lands and in no way states or implies that the management of fish and wildlife in Arizona would be put in the laps of the legislature.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Dear SAOVA Friends,

I’m temporarily filling in for Susan Wolf, who is recovering from surgery. The Humane Society of the U.S. HB538 “commercial” breeder measure passed the Virginia House on 2/12/2008. It will clear our Senate within days. HSUS is about to gain in Virginia what it couldn’t in years of Washington lobbying the Santorum Pet Animal Welfare Statute - (AKA PAWS). VAPAWS (HB538) requires hobby dog breeder licensing and inspection for anyone selling puppies at retail as well as wholesale, if they’re over a certain size. Virginia has an early, very short and frenetic legislative session. Its 2008 agenda included over 30 animal rightist supported bills. HB538 was HSUS’s top priority.

Sportsmen and hobby breeders here lost to HSUS’s five paid Richmond professional lobbyists, its DC personnel and numerous very well coordinated local semi-pro anti activists. HB538 duplicates and supplants the federal licensing system that registers and inspects all large dog breeders and investigates any dog breeder with four (4) or more females about whom a tip or a legitimate complaint has been received. USDA-APHIS has 5700+ Class A breeders that it monitors and inspects at least once per year, including 14 in Virginia. The federal government did 10,000 inspections last year, checking compliance with 60 pages of detailed dog care standards.

HSUS personnel used the public firestorm over Michael Vick’s despicable dogfighting and created their own inflammatory anti-dog breeder hyped press. Horton’s Dogs in Carroll County, Virginia, the HSUS “Virginia is for Puppy Mills” cause célèbre, was well known to local authorities and the animal control officer (ACO) for years. He had a business license, a 500 dog kennel permit, five employees, bought dog food by the ton and advertised puppies in newspapers and on the Internet. He sold both retail and to pet stores and should have been federally licensed and inspected by law, but wasn’t. On that there’s no dispute.

That situation was a local political problem, not a federal law or enforcement shortfall. Someone could have brought Horton to the USDA’s attention at any time. Three months after the well-publicized HSUS November “raid,” there still hasn’t been a complaint lodged with USDA, nor has the local ACO returned to that facility, which continues to sell puppies. Horton remains in business and still meets the USDA definition of a licensed “dealer.” The fourteen USDA licensed and inspected VA dog breeders are listed on the USDA-APHIS website. This isn’t some mysterious, unknown or unaccountable animal welfare service, just one the State Veterinarian’s Office and ACOs need to learn about, rather than being asked to supplant, or duplicate the federal program at great cost to local taxpayers and risk to responsible dog owners.

HB538 requires local county ACOs to review pet store records and to enforce both new state dog kennel inspection standards and those of USDA-APHIS. This is totally absurd, as the bill has internal self-contradictions, as well as numerous conflicts with federal animal care regulations. Further, the new inspection system will cost $ millions to implement, none of which has been budgeted. The counties and cities have been saddled with another unfunded mandate from Richmond. The bill’s precise details may be found at http://vhdoa.uplandbirddog.com/stater.html Suffice it to say that Virginia’s new “commercial” breeder definition includes many hunt clubs, those with co-owned dogs and other responsible breeders that aren’t “puppy mills.”

One of my disappointments while lobbying against this bill over the last three weeks was the refusal of top USDA-APHIS management to take position on HB538. Even more discouraging, a few dog owner groups supported HB538, to the point they joined the animal rightist speaking panels and heavily lobbied members one on one. Included among these individuals was the fired professional lobbyist of the AKC Virginia Federation of Dog Clubs and Breeders (VFDCB) and another Richmond lobbyist representing a MFH hunt club. The Legislative Chairman of the Virginia Veterinary Medical Association also supported this anti-dog breeding measure. Unfortunately, the American Kennel Club’s HB538 opposition letter arrived too late to be useful.

Despite all of this opposition, it’s usually easier to stop a bill than it is to pass one. That didn’t happen in Virginia, for the second significant time in three years. We lost the crucial committee vote (9-Y 8-N). The Old Dominion dog groups opposed to HB538 failed to cooperate with each other, coordinate their efforts, or compensate for the adverse actions of VFDCB’s dismissed lobbyist. Our lobbying effort was very frankly embarrassing. The lessons learned during our 2005 PAWS opposition fight were forgotten. HSUS announced last year that it was taking its PAWS anti-breeder effort to the states and that Virginia was its first target. Please learn from our mistakes and prepare to better defend your sport and your dogs.

Freely forward and cross post.

Sincerely,

Bob Kane, President
Virginia Hunting Dog Owners’ Association
Chairman Emeritus, Sportsmen and Animal Owners’ Voting Alliance
http://vhdoa.uplandbirddog.com http://saova.org

Posted by Tom Remington

hunting dogs, sportsmen and animal owners voting alliance, virginia hunting dog owners association

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

A bill that was sponsored by Colorado democrat Rep. Debbie Stafford and supported by the Humane Society of the United States, to end hunting in enclosures died in the House Agriculture, Livestock and Natural Resources Committee on February 6, 2008.

HB1096, a bill that many said was poorly worded and very vague, was suspended indefinitely in the Colorado committee and many hope it is never revived in any way but you can be assured Coloradoans have not heard the last from at least the Humane Society of the United States whose aim is to stop all hunting.

While many Colorado residents, hunters, ranchers and supporters of property rights can breathe a brief sigh of relief, they surely cannot let their guard down. HSUS and all anti-hunting and animal rights advocate groups look for any opportunity they can to suck the life out of Americans by stealing away their rights and heritage.

This is one more bill we are happy to see die!

Tom Remington

canned hunting, colorado house agriculture livestock and natural resources, debbie stafford, hb1096, high fence hunting, Humane Society of the United States, property rights

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Several concerned readers have been emailing me and leaving comments asking for information about who to contact about