The bill will protect fishing, hunting, trapping, recreational shooting and wildlife management practices on more than 400 million acres of public land across America managed by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. The measure mandates that these public lands are open until closed for angling, hunting and shooting while enabling the agencies to make specific closures or restrictions determined to be necessary and supported by sound facts and evidence. The bill is patterned after the 1997 National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act which made fishing and hunting “priority public uses” on federal wildlife refuge system lands and has helped protect fishing and hunting there from anti-fishing/anti-hunting zealots.

The new Senate bill also fixes loopholes created by lawsuits by anti-hunting organizations that have hampered hunting, fishing and wildlife conservation. For example, under the bill, the Forest Service can keep its public lands open for hunting and fishing even if nearby state and private lands are also open. Previously, a court had ruled that federal public lands might have to be closed if other nearby lands hosted hunters. Similarly, fish and wildlife conservation and management will remain primary purposes on BLM, Forest and Wildlife Refuge lands reversing court rulings from San Francisco. Restrictions in the 1964 Wilderness Act on motorized access, logging and other commodity uses are expressly not affected by the bill and remain in place.

Bill Horn, U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance Director of Federal Affairs welcomed the introduction:

“USSA deeply appreciates today’s action by Senators Murkowski and Manchin. We have been working for over a decade in support of this kind of legislation and as threats mount to fishing, hunting and shooting on public lands, the need for this bill grows. We look forward to working with the Senators and their colleagues to get this landmark measure enacted this year and ensure protection in law of our cherished angling and hunting heritage.”

American Sportfishing Association added its support:

“Recreation is the single largest economic output of national forests and grasslands, with 46.5 million anglers spending over $1.2 billion annually to enjoy recreational fishing on USFS lands,” said Gordon Robertson, Vice President of the ASA. “It is astounding that with such high demand, access is still a barrier for millions of anglers. This legislation directs the USFS and BLM managers to not only promote recreational fishing and hunting access, but to further take advantage of one of the biggest economic drivers for the agencies and the rural communities near their lands.”

The National Rifle Association offered its strong support:

“Protecting the traditions of hunting and shooting on our public lands has long been a NRA priority and the Murkowski/Manchin bill does just that. The leadership for sportsmen and sportswomen demonstrated by the two Senators will not be forgotten by us and our members,” said Susan Recce, NRA Director of Conservation.

Safari Club International also hailed the bill:

“By introducing legislation that will protect America’s hunting, shooting, and fishing community for generations to come, Senators Murkowski and Manchin have taken a much needed bi-partisan step forward. Too frequently, the hunting community is dealt lip-service, but Senator Murkowski and Senator Manchin have brought to the Senate serious legislation that will protect hunting for a generation. The companion legislation introduced in the House of Representatives is equally important to the future of hunting. On behalf of SCI and all of our partners, we would like for all members of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus to co-sponsor the ‘sportsmen endorsed’ legislation,” said President of SCI, Kevin Anderson.

Jeff Crane, President of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation added:

“The Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus has been working with the sportsmen’s community on this Act to allow Federal land planners to evaluate the impacts that management activities have on hunting, fishing and recreational shooting, and to provide a clear analysis of how proposed actions would impact access to Federal lands.”

The new Senate Bill is a companion to legislation passed by the House Natural Resources Committee 29-14. That bill, H.R. 2834, is currently awaiting a vote before the full U.S. House of Representatives.

Contacts:

USSA: Mike Faw, Director of Communications: mfaw@ussportsmen.org

ASA: Gordon Robertson, Vice President: GRobertson@asafishing.org

CSF: Frank Miniter, CSF Communcations Director: frank@sportsmenslink.org

NRA: Susan Recce, NRA Director of Conservation: srecce@nrahq.org

SCI: Nelson Freeman, media@safariclub.org

The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, in which the entire document is 47 pages, contains the phrase, “Significant Portion of Its Range”. This in reference to consideration of whether to include a species for protection or remove a species from Federal protection.

When you examine the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended, you will discover that the word “range” is used a total of 6 times (pg. 5, pg. 6, pg. 7, pg. 11 and pg. 40). The use of the entire term of “significant portion of its range” is used twice (pg. 5, pg. 6).

President Obama has offered a proposal to amend the ESA or perhaps better described as offering a clarification or definition of the use of the term “significant portion of its range”. The president uses 84 pages to accomplish that feat. This approaches nearly twice the length of the entire ESA.

Now I just received a copy of this proposal so I haven’t had the chance to read it but I will. It was just that my first reaction was that it would take only a government agency to define a 5-word phrase used twice in the ESA, 84 pages to do so.

One would also suppose that being that the House Natural Resource Committee began hearings this week to examine the ups and downs of the ESA, that Obama’s Administration would want to get into the act. Some see this as a good thing and others as being very bad.

Dr. Charles Kay, Ph.D. Wildlife Ecology at Utah State University and one who never minces words, had this to say in an email on the subject of Obama’s proposal:

To all—-What do you not understand that they, CBD [Center for Biological Diversity] and others, want wolves, grizzlies ,etc. EVERYWHERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!——Even if this policy is adopted by the OA [Obama Administration], all they will have done is invited CBD to the courthouse to have it overturned—–This, on the part of the OA, is simply a ploy, in a long list of similar ploys, to reduce the growing political movement to repeal the ESA, as presently written BY THE COURTS————-Charles

If I find worthwhile information and/or commentary to pass on after struggling through 84 pages of bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo, you’ll find it posted here.

Tom Remington

For those who don’t already have set up or have knowledge on how to contact members of the Natural Resource Committee and/or your congressional representatives, Big Game Forever has made it easy for you. Please read the press release below and follow their simple instructions on how to send a free notice to Congress.

From Big Game Forever:

Take action today!

Folks,

Many of you have asked “How Can I help?”

Congress needs our support. Our elected representatives in Congress care about wolves and the Endangered Species Act. I was in Congress on Monday for a hearing on the Endangered Species Act. The problems presented by unregulated wolves and endless litigation were repeatedly raised in the hearing. I met with many offices for Senators and Representatives who are working to fix these problems.

Here is how we need your help today!

(1) Go to the website http://biggameforever.org/takeaction and send an email. It’s fast, it’s easy and it’s free. Simply click “take action” and follow the instructions. It should take about 30 seconds to send an email to all of your elected representatives, the White House, Department of Interior and US Fish and Wildlife Service. Big Game Forever makes it easy to make a difference.

(2) Ask your friends to join the fight with Big Game Forever. Send an email asking your friends to do 3 simple things:
(a) send an email to Congress using our automated system at http://biggameforever.org/takeaction;
(b) sign the petition on our website at http://biggameforever.org; and
(c) take 5 minutes and watch the video at http://biggameforever.org which shows why the future of wildlife is at risk. 23,000 people have seen this video already.

Yesterday’s over 6,000 emails were sent to Congress by supporters of Big Game Forever in response to the Big Game Forever “Action Alert”.

Here is how we are different. Some anti-hunting groups have attempted to create the illusion of collective action by sending emails on behalf of their members. Every message sent to Congress from Big Game Forever was sent by actual voter who “took action” using the tools at http://biggameforever.org/takeaction. Hunters care about the future of our outdoor heritage. These collective action show that real Americans are willing to join the fight. Thanks to everyone who has responded so quickly to this call to action.

The vast majority of those who have signed the online petition still haven’t sent their email to Congress. Take a minute and join the fight by sending your email by visiting http://biggameforever.org/takeaction. Together, we can protect wild things and wild places for future generations.

In addition, you can read this piece entitled, “Excessive Endangered Species Act Litigation Threatens Species Recovery, Job Creation and Economic Growth”

Tom Remington

Here is a copy of a press release sent out by the U.S. Sportsman’s Alliance about the effort:

Columbus, Ohio – Today the House Natural Resources Committee passed H.R. 2834, the Recreational Fishing and Hunting Heritage and Opportunities Act. This bill would protect fishing, hunting and recreational shooting on federal lands.

H.R. 2834 passed the Committee with strong bipartisan support by a vote of 29-14. This vital piece of legislation would require fishing, hunting and recreational shooting to be included in all federal land planning documents and would fix numerous inconsistencies in federal law that are being exploited by litigious environmental groups to reduce hunting opportunities on federal land. This bill is strongly supported by the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance, Safari Club International, the National Rifle Association, and millions of sportsmen across the country.

“This legislation is vital given the Administration’s recent actions toward hunters and recreational sport shooters,” said Melissa Simpson, Director of Government Affairs for Safari Club International. “Sportsmen have repeatedly sought to collaborate with the federal agencies and have been greeted with proposed closures in areas such as the Sonoran Desert National Monument, where the BLM intends to close the entire one-half million acre national monument to shooters. There are some 63 shooting sites within the monument, closure of which will end access for sportsmen. Passage of H.R. 2834 is necessary to protect against these anti-hunting policies.”

“Sportsmen are increasingly facing attacks aimed at stopping them from using public land,” said Bud Pidgeon, President and CEO of the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance. “This bill closes the loopholes that anti-hunters have used time and time again to try to deny access for hunting, fishing and shooting. Now is the time to put a stop to it. We are extremely pleased and appreciative that the House Natural Resources Committee recognized the importance of this bill.”

The letter, shown below, reveals a few other things as well. One has to wonder if the Governor actually knows what it’s like “protecting” one’s property from the destruction by wolves. He reminds the Secretary that Idaho citizens have the right to kill a wolf to protect themselves from being attacked and that they can kill a wolf harassing livestock. If it were so easy to do, as one might surmise the governor is intimating, there would be a lot of dead wolves and the citizens of Idaho probably wouldn’t be seeking an emergency declaration.

Another issue that bears scrutiny is that Otter obviously buys into the farce of the bill rider that was attached to the defunct Congress’ budget bill, that some claim will delist wolves. Otter even goes so far as to state that, “This new federal law will restore state management in Idaho under our approved management plan,”.

Which “approved” plan would that be? Is it the illegal wolf management plan of 2005, or the only legal wolf management plan the state of Idaho has, crafted by the Legislature in 2002?

It would be an understatement to say that Gov. Otter never intends to implement any plans to address “emergency” provisions in H343. However, once the federal budget bill rider has run its course, falling back on H343 may be the only option Otter has.

Instead of whining about his perceived loss of executive order, he should be thanking the people of Idaho and the state Legislature for ensuring he has that power.

Click on both images to Enlarge for better reading.

Tom Remington

I am grateful that as owner and administrator of this website and the rest of my businesses, that I don’t have to kiss the assess of powerful politicians to keep my business going into the future to please any membership or shareholders…….yet. I can still express my own thoughts and be solely responsible for them. Ain’t America great!

MISSOULA, Mont. – The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation was among the first to call on Congress to step in and fix the gray wolf debacle, and today’s Congressional delisting of wolves in a portion of the West is a step in the right direction, officials say.

“This is a win for science over emotion. It’s a win for facts over hysteria. Congress has reaffirmed that state wildlife biologists – not lawyers, judges or animal rights activists -are the best authority in conservation and wildlife management today,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO.

He added, “We’re grateful that Congress has begun the process of rescuing science-based wildlife management from the frivolous lawsuits that have kept America’s proven system of conservation bogged down for years in court proceedings and bureaucracy.”

“We thank Senators Tester and Baucus, Congressman Rehberg and Governor Schweitzer of Montana for their willingness to take on this fight. We also thank Congressman Simpson and Senators Risch and Crapo and Governor Otter of Idaho. Additionally, I want to thank Senator Hatch from Utah and Senators Barrasso and Enzi and Congresswoman Lummis of Wyoming for their efforts as well. All of these lawmakers went way out on a limb to debate and fight and establish this first-ever type of legislation. Sportsmen and ranchers everywhere need to thank them for their help,” said Allen.

RMEF has been urging Congress to help end a decade-long struggle to grant states the authority to manage recovered wolf populations. But while Idaho and Montana are now authorized, other states remain vulnerable to continued federal litigation and stall tactics by extremist groups. Several Western and Great Lakes states have long-recovered wolf populations that should be delisted and turned over to the states for management.

Allen said, “RMEF will continue to call for delisting gray wolves wherever populations are recovered. We hope today’s legislation sets a precedent for other states like Wyoming and the Great Lakes states, among others, to get gray wolves delisted and under the management authority of their state wildlife agencies.”

He added, “We’ll have to wait and see, but we’re hopeful that Congress has sent a clear message that the public is tired of courtroom conservation and environmental groups playing games with the Endangered Species Act. If those folks don’t stop manipulating the ESA beyond its original goal, they will destroy its usefulness and purpose.”

Yesterday, I called the Baucus/Tester wolf delisting bill a pig with lipstick. It’s still a pig only with more lipstick that appears to be a bit gothic. What was discovered in the recent over-hyped “agreement” between the House, the Senate and the White House, was that Baucus and Tester got their wolf bill, slightly modified, onto the Continuing Resolution (CR). The wording as it appears in that CR for wolf delisting, reads:

Sec. 1713. Before the end of the 60-day period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall reissue the final rule published on April 2, 2009 (74 Fed. Reg. 15123 et seq.) without regard to any other provision of statute or regulation that applies to issuance of such rule. Such reissuance (including this section) shall not be subject to judicial review and shall not abrogate or otherwise have any effect on the order and judgment issued by the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming in Case Numbers 09-CV-118J and 09-CV-138J on November 18, 2010.

In short, nobody has a clue as to what exactly this wording means or how it is going to affect a laundry list of other settled and pending issues.

I’m not a lawyer nor am I an expert on the U.S. Constitution but I have my doubts as to whether legislation can be written that bypasses judicial scrutiny.

Aside from the unknown mess the U.S. Congress will be getting themselves into, the rider attached to this budget bill is doomed for failure and I am convinced it was contrived with that in mind.

It is assumed that this CR will pass both houses of Congress and signed by the President by week’s end.

All support should get behind H.R. 509. It’s a straightforward bill that’s simple and doesn’t utilize any smoke and mirrors.

*Update* April 12, 2011, 3:15 p.m.

Here is Congressman Mike Simpson’s press release issued today. Congressman Simpson is Chairman of the House Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee, which oversees funding for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Cong. Simpson’s release is hogwash. I know I am probably not making any new friends and losing what few I have, but I’m not willing to jump on some propped up bill rider that will do nothing and probably set this entire process back several years.

Congressman Simpson signed on in support of Denny Rehberg’s bill, H.R. 509 that avoided all this mumbo jumbo of reinstating this and voiding that while, circumventing the courts and cherry picking court rulings, while voiding others. I mean, give me a break! H.R. 509 should have been the language attached in this rider placed on the Federal Budget bill, but it wasn’t. Why not?

Simpson says:

“I am confident that this language gets us closer to our ultimate goal, which is seeing the entire Northern Rocky Mountain wolf population taken off the endangered species list and managed exclusively by the states,”

What about Wyoming? What about the people in the Southwest? What about the citizens residing the Western Great Lakes area? Why write nonsensical, idiot language in a bill rider that gets us “closer” when the language already exists that will resolve the problem for everyone and not come across as a bunch of radical hoodlums trying to blow smoke up someone’s hat to avoid judicial scrutiny? We may not like the results that come out of some of the courts but many of us have to rely on those same courts when the pendulum is swinging the other way.

Supporting this unsettling bill is a very bad idea. I will not do it and will continue to focus on the possibilities of passing H.R. 509. I certainly can’t see any reason why Rep. Simpson of Idaho and Sen. Baucus and Sen. Tester of Idaho should be considered allies in our fight for passage of H.R. 509. They have taken a very different turn.

Tom Remington

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 is a draconian law that offers no flexibility, ruling out any semblance of common sense; strips states of their sovereign right to manage and care for their own flora and fauna; denies property owners of the right to use their land for the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness; allows for the destruction of the country’s economic well being; and abdicates this nation’s sovereignty to International powers, to name a few.

What began, at least back to the days of Teddy Roosevelt, as attempts by the government of protect specific species, resulted in a culmination of efforts and pressure from the international community and more precisely the United Nations, that ended in the signing of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, by President Nixon. Nixon at the time had been through hell with his Watergate turmoil and many believe he hadn’t the foggiest notion of what he was signing……or did he?

Perhaps the first most formal attempt at protecting species happened in 1966 with the signing of the Endangered Species Preservation Act. This law gave authority to the Secretary of Interior (DOI) to make a list of “endangered” domestic fish and wildlife. It also gave the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) $15 million to buy up land to protect endangered species habitat.

Over the next few years, the United States made attempts to expand their reach of “protecting” and “conserving”, even reaching out and listing species outside the U.S. and signing agreements with foreign entities in collaboration to “protect” and “conserve”.

Included in the first attempts at saving plants and animals, were such words as “insofar as is practicable and consistent with their primary purpose.” This, according to certain international entities wasn’t strong enough nor specific enough language to accomplish the agendas of “protecting” and “conserving” species.

It was pressure from the International Community that prompted the drafting and signing of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). Within the ESA very strong and deliberate language was included that offer effectively no means of any kind of flexibility, that would allow for waivers or exemptions or to accord anyone some leeway of practicality and common sense.

The first real test of the strength of the language incorporated into the ESA of 1973, came when the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) began construction of the Tellico Dam. After construction began, a University of Tennessee biologist named David Etnier, discovered what was believed at the time to be a very rare and tiny little fish called persina tanasi (snail darter), and declared that under the ESA the dam construction had to cease to save the fish.

It was during this time that some, including many who had voted for the ESA, began to realize parts of the ESA were impractical. Their thoughts were, “Who would allow for the stoppage of a multi-million dollar dam that was providing jobs and tons of cheap electricity when it was completed”. Their answer came from the Supreme Court.

Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill et al – 437 U.S. 153 (1978), let Congress, the TVA and the rest of the world know that according to the ESA, there were no provisions to make any exceptions for endangered species no matter what the costs.

Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote the majority opinion. (Lore has it that Mr. Burger, an appointee to the Supreme Court by Nixon, was on the minority but changed his vote so he could write the majority opinion. Believing this case to be so ridiculous, he thought his opinion would prompt Congress to begin immediate amendments to the ESA.)

Mr. Burger used language from the ESA like “admits of no exception” and “jeopardize the continued existence” and “halt and reverse the trend of extinction, whatever the cost”. The order was to stop the construction of the dam, even though during this entire time of litigation, building of the dam continued.

This was the onset of resolution when Congress was able to amend the ESA (Section 7) to “create a special exemption process”. Part of this “special exemption process” was the forming of a “Committee” which became commonly known as the “god squad” – the purpose of which was to examine cases such as Tellico and determine, under very strict criteria, if any exemption should be granted. This amendment is believed by some to have actually made the language of the amended ESA even more strict, if that were at all possible, raising serious questions as to the purpose and who or what was behind it.

The “god squad” would not grant TVA an exemption and so, what do you think happened? After all, there is a dam there now. Congress was able to attach an appropriations bill rider to the Energy and Water Appropriations Act for FY 1980. The 1978 Amendment to the ESA was a bust.

So, where did Congress or the United States Government get its authority over species and state sovereignty? That’s the million dollar question in which I hope to be able to answer for you. Who or what was pushing the United States to stiffen its grip on the people through wildlife and habitat protection? In addition, under what legal avenue did the United States Government assume their authority over state sovereignty and their right to manage and care for their own wildlife? Not only is it ironic but intently troublesome that during drafting of the ESA, our own National Wildlife Federation lobbied that management of endangered and threatened species remain with the states.

Let’s take a quick examination of the ESA that tells us where this authority, contrary to the U.S. Constitution, comes from.

Section 2. (4) the United States has pledged itself as a sovereign state in the international community to conserve to the extent practicable the various species of fish or wildlife and plants facing extinction, pursuant to—
(A) migratory bird treaties with Canada and Mexico;
(B) the Migratory and Endangered Bird Treaty with Japan;
(C) the Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere;
(D) the International Convention for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries;
(E) the International Convention for the High Seas Fisheries of the North Pacific Ocean;
(F) the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora; and
(G) other international agreements; and
(5) encouraging the States and other interested parties, through Federal financial assistance and a system of incentives, to develop and maintain conservation programs which meet national and international standards is a key to meeting the Nation’s international commitments and to better safeguarding, for the benefit of all citizens, the Nation’s heritage in fish, wildlife, and plants.(emphasis added)

I will examine some of these treaties and others that are very relevant to the crippling and destructive power of the Endangered Species Act.

Tom Remington