ElkHunter
Life Member
Will explain the intent of S.339 and H.R. 731
> > To State Fish and Wildlife Directors:
> >
> >
> >
> > Many of you have seen or received questions concerning information the
> > U.S.
> > Outfitters (perhaps others also) sent out via email in opposition to
> > the
> > Commerce Clause legislation sponsored by Senator Reid and Congressman
> > Udall.
> > Some of this information has characterized the proposed legislation as
> > the
> > states' attempt to eliminate non-resident sportsmen or to pave the way
> > for
> > more discriminatory licensing practices where non-resident concerns
> > are
> > removed from due process of law. President Terry Crawforth, Gary
> > Taylor,
> > and I have had several opportunities to respond to these concerns in
> > various
> > forums. Our primary points have been as follows:
> >
> >
> >
> > 1. The states aren't trying to change existing processes and
> > systems,
> > they are responding to multiple legal challenges from others.
> >
> >
> >
> > 2. The abundance of wildlife and hunting opportunity in this
> > country is
> > largely the product of the North American Model of Wildlife Management
> > where
> > states have primary stewardship responsibility for wildlife management
> > within their borders. The proposed legislation reaffirms
> > congressional
> > intent that wildlife management, including the right to regulate access
> > to
> > the opportunity to hunt, should be a state authority.
> >
> >
> >
> > 3. The legislation makes no judgment about the advantages or
> > disadvantages of the regulatory processes used by any individual
> > state.
> > There are state administrative processes where citizens or groups can
> > be
> > involved and bring forward concerns about state legislation and/or
> > rule-making.
> >
> >
> >
> > 4. By subjecting to strict scrutiny analysis under the dormant
> > Commerce
> > Clause Arizona's preference for residents in allocating permits for
> > recreational hunting of species highly prized by hunters, the Ninth
> > Circuit
> > decision in Conservation Force, Inc. v. Manning strikes at the ability
> > of
> > States to maintain the level of local sacrifice and contributions
> > necessary
> > to produce big game successfully. In so doing, it chips away at a
> > historical cornerstone of the North American Model of Wildlife
> > Management.
> > S. 339 and H.R. 731 are narrowly drafted to neutralize the impact of
> > the
> > Ninth Circuit's decision in Conservation Force, and seek to return
> > States to
> > the status quo prior to that court decision - nothing more. To
> > address
> > concerns raised with S. 2978 in the last Congress, S. 339 and H.R. 731
> > have
> > been carefully tailored so as to neither enlarge nor diminish state
> > authority. In addition, these two bills make clear that their passage
> > will
> > not effect federal law relating to wildlife management or protection,
> > viz.
> > the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and similar laws, nor diminish federal
> > authority over federal land, nor alter any rights of Indian tribes. We
> > need
> > your support to make this legislation a reality.
> >
> >
> >
> > 5. Regardless of the outcome of the legislation this issue is not
> > going
> > away, and it may be time for the states to initiate a national dialog
> > on
> > resident versus non-resident access to hunting and fishing opportunity.
> > Any
> > such interstate discussion will need to involve wildlife boards and
> > commissions and state legislators as well as wildlife agencies.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ****************************************
> >
> > John Baughman
> >
> > Executive Vice President
> >
> > International Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies
> >
> > 444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 725
> >
> > Washington, DC 20001
> >
> > Phone 202-624-7890/Fax 202-624-7891/Email: baughman@iafwa.org
> > To State Fish and Wildlife Directors:
> >
> >
> >
> > Many of you have seen or received questions concerning information the
> > U.S.
> > Outfitters (perhaps others also) sent out via email in opposition to
> > the
> > Commerce Clause legislation sponsored by Senator Reid and Congressman
> > Udall.
> > Some of this information has characterized the proposed legislation as
> > the
> > states' attempt to eliminate non-resident sportsmen or to pave the way
> > for
> > more discriminatory licensing practices where non-resident concerns
> > are
> > removed from due process of law. President Terry Crawforth, Gary
> > Taylor,
> > and I have had several opportunities to respond to these concerns in
> > various
> > forums. Our primary points have been as follows:
> >
> >
> >
> > 1. The states aren't trying to change existing processes and
> > systems,
> > they are responding to multiple legal challenges from others.
> >
> >
> >
> > 2. The abundance of wildlife and hunting opportunity in this
> > country is
> > largely the product of the North American Model of Wildlife Management
> > where
> > states have primary stewardship responsibility for wildlife management
> > within their borders. The proposed legislation reaffirms
> > congressional
> > intent that wildlife management, including the right to regulate access
> > to
> > the opportunity to hunt, should be a state authority.
> >
> >
> >
> > 3. The legislation makes no judgment about the advantages or
> > disadvantages of the regulatory processes used by any individual
> > state.
> > There are state administrative processes where citizens or groups can
> > be
> > involved and bring forward concerns about state legislation and/or
> > rule-making.
> >
> >
> >
> > 4. By subjecting to strict scrutiny analysis under the dormant
> > Commerce
> > Clause Arizona's preference for residents in allocating permits for
> > recreational hunting of species highly prized by hunters, the Ninth
> > Circuit
> > decision in Conservation Force, Inc. v. Manning strikes at the ability
> > of
> > States to maintain the level of local sacrifice and contributions
> > necessary
> > to produce big game successfully. In so doing, it chips away at a
> > historical cornerstone of the North American Model of Wildlife
> > Management.
> > S. 339 and H.R. 731 are narrowly drafted to neutralize the impact of
> > the
> > Ninth Circuit's decision in Conservation Force, and seek to return
> > States to
> > the status quo prior to that court decision - nothing more. To
> > address
> > concerns raised with S. 2978 in the last Congress, S. 339 and H.R. 731
> > have
> > been carefully tailored so as to neither enlarge nor diminish state
> > authority. In addition, these two bills make clear that their passage
> > will
> > not effect federal law relating to wildlife management or protection,
> > viz.
> > the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and similar laws, nor diminish federal
> > authority over federal land, nor alter any rights of Indian tribes. We
> > need
> > your support to make this legislation a reality.
> >
> >
> >
> > 5. Regardless of the outcome of the legislation this issue is not
> > going
> > away, and it may be time for the states to initiate a national dialog
> > on
> > resident versus non-resident access to hunting and fishing opportunity.
> > Any
> > such interstate discussion will need to involve wildlife boards and
> > commissions and state legislators as well as wildlife agencies.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ****************************************
> >
> > John Baughman
> >
> > Executive Vice President
> >
> > International Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies
> >
> > 444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 725
> >
> > Washington, DC 20001
> >
> > Phone 202-624-7890/Fax 202-624-7891/Email: baughman@iafwa.org
![893USA1-thumb[1].gif](http://www.iowawhitetail.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/893USA1-thumb[1].gif)