Grr...

[Tracks]

I hate it when political gamesmanship defeats commonsense...
Guess those GOP lawmakers hunt on private land...

 http://news.msn.com/politics/gop-blocks-bill-to-give-hunters-more-land-access

[Michael R]

Have you read the bill or the bullet points? ( http://gunowners.org/a11152012.htm )

[Mojostick]

$16,000,000,000,000.00 in debt. But look at the bright side, your birth control pills and Obama phones are free.

[Tracks]

Originally posted by Michael R:
Have you read the bill or the bullet points? (  http://gunowners.org/a11152012.htm  )

Yes I have read it. THIS is the bipartisan bill (you linked to propaganda):  http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s3525/text

Here is what the NRA has to say about this bill:
 http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2012/contact-your-us-senators-and-urge-their-support-of-s-3525,-the-sportsmen\\'s-act-of-2012.aspx

Here is the text from the NRA link above:
  Contact Your U.S. Senators and Urge Their Support of S. 3525, the "Sportsmen's Act of 2012"

Posted on November 9, 2012

When Congress reconvenes on November 13, one of the first items the U.S. Senate could vote on is S. 3525, "The Sportsmen's Act of 2012."  S. 3525 is an essential piece of legislation focused on the expansion and enhancement of hunting, recreational fishing and shooting on federal public land.

This bill is a compilation of 19 bipartisan bills important to the sportsmen's community.  In addition to promoting land access, the bill would amend the "Toxic Substances Control Act" to prevent this and future administrations from using the Environmental Protection Agency to eliminate the right of hunters, shooters and anglers to use traditional ammunition and fishing tackle.  The bill would amend the law to clarify that the EPA does not have the authority to regulate shot, bullets or sport fishing equipment.  

The bill also allows for the importation of polar bears legally taken from approved populations in Canada before the 2008 ban.  

As we previously reported, H.R. 4089--the "Sportsmen's Act of 2012"--passed the U.S. House of Representatives on April 17, 2012, by a bipartisan vote of 274 to 146.

A recent motion to proceed to S. 3525 passed by a vote of 84 to 7.  Having cleared this hurdle, a vote on S. 3525 is likely to happen soon.

Please be sure to contact your U.S. Senators TODAY and ask them to support S. 3525.  

You can find contact information for your U.S. Senators by using the "Write your Representatives" tool at  www.NRAILA.org.  You may also contact your Senators by phone at (202) 224-3121.

Fox News was all for this bill when it passed the Republican controlled house last spring, but I couldn't find their article online.

Blocking this bill was stupid gamesmanship, and I don't believe we can afford to tolerate such games.

[Michael R]

"(2) AQUATIC HABITAT-

(A) IN GENERAL- The term ‘aquatic habitat’ means any area on which an aquatic organism depends, directly or indirectly, to carry out the life processes of the organism, including an area used by the organism for spawning, incubation, nursery, rearing, growth to maturity, food supply, or migration.

(B) INCLUSIONS- The term ‘aquatic habitat’ includes an area adjacent to an aquatic environment, if the adjacent area--

(i) contributes an element, such as the input of detrital material or the promotion of a planktonic or insect population providing food, that makes fish life possible;

(ii) protects the quality and quantity of water sources;

(iii) provides public access for the use of fishery resources; or

(iv) serves as a buffer protecting the aquatic environment."
"(2) ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS-

(A) IN GENERAL- No fish habitat conservation project that will result in the acquisition by the State, local government, or other non-Federal entity, in whole or in part, of any real property interest may be recommended by the Board under subsection (b) or provided financial assistance under this subtitle unless the project meets the requirements of subparagraph (B).

(B) REQUIREMENTS-

(i) IN GENERAL- A real property interest may not be acquired pursuant to a fish habitat conservation project by a State, public agency, or other non-Federal entity unless the State, agency, or other non-Federal entity is obligated to undertake the management of the property being acquired in accordance with the purposes of this subtitle.

(ii) ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS- Any real property interest acquired by a State, local government, or other non-Federal entity pursuant to a fish habitat conservation project shall be subject to terms and conditions that ensure that the interest will be administered for the long-term conservation and management of the aquatic ecosystem and the fish and wildlife dependent on that ecosystem.

(e) Non-Federal Contributions-

(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (2), no fish habitat conservation project may be recommended by the Board under subsection (b) or provided financial assistance under this subtitle unless at least 50 percent of the cost of the fish habitat conservation project will be funded with non-Federal funds.

(2) PROJECTS ON FEDERAL LAND OR WATER- Notwithstanding paragraph (1), Federal funds may be used for payment of 100 percent of the costs of a fish habitat conservation project located on Federal land or water.

(3) NON-FEDERAL SHARE- The non-Federal share of the cost of a fish habitat conservation project--

(A) may not be derived from a Federal grant program; but

(B) may include in-kind contributions and cash."

Well it seams the "propaganda" had the bullet points correct!

To me the it says the feds can seize land that aquatic life may depend on even if there is no water on the land (or pollutes the water even if it miles away as they have no distance defined in the bill). There are two limitations to the seizing one is half of the money has to not come from the government (Wonder where they would get the money? unions? peta? animal liberation front? American Bird Conservancy? and there are many more). The other is they have to manage it. (Have they successfully managed anything? and how do you manage land if it's forrest or an empty factory? that would be blocking access to the public.)

This wouldn't be the first time the NRA was wrong/let us down and wont be the last.

It may be bipartisan in the house but with what some of the so called republicans will vote for it is anyone's guess what is really is.

(Edited to add NRA)

[wapitirod]

I actually posted about this a little while back, on my post "hunting legislation" there is a pre written letter done by NSSF that you can electronically sign and it will send it to  your representatives.

[Michael R]

I know I read it and did some research. Then this post came up slamming the GOP by someone, I wanted to set the record straight about the bill.

[Tracks]

This bill says nothing about land seizure whatsoever.

Furthermore, I have yet to see any evidence that the Senators who voted against this bill did so because they share your baseless concerns about land seizure. They voted against this good bill to hold a political line as a form of political wrangling.

I encourage you to re-read the bill in its entirety; it would have done a lot of good things for fish, wildlife, bowhunters, and public lands.
 
Here is the link in case any independent thinkers would like to read it for themselves:
 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s3525/text

[Tracks]

Originally posted by wapitirod:
I actually posted about this a little while back, on my post "hunting legislation" there is a pre written letter done by NSSF that you can electronically sign and it will send it to  your representatives.

Too late now, but here is the text from wapitirod's link to the National Shooting Sports Foundation website:

Keep Pressure on to Pass Sportsmen’s Act; Vote is Set for Late This Week, Call Your U.S. Senators
November 14, 2012 By NSSF Alert 10 Comments

We have some great news! By an overwhelming 92-5 vote, the U.S. Senate on Tuesday passed an important procedural motion that will allow senators to vote on the Sportsmen’s Act of 2012 (S.3525) currently scheduled for this Thursday, but that could slip to Friday.

NSSF thanks everyone who called and emailed your senators to help make this upcoming vote possible. Now we need all hunters, target shooters and firearms owners to keep the pressure on. Call your senators again and urge them to vote YES on the Sportsmen’s Act of 2012 (S.3525), the most important package of measures for the benefit of sportsmen in a generation.

While we believe phone calls are most effective at this late stage in the process, you may also send a quick e-mail using the link provided on this page. In either case, your involvement will take only minutes. If this is your first opportunity to weigh in, the timing could not be better. Act today.

This historic legislation includes the firearms industry’s top legislative priority, the Hunting, Fishing and Recreational Shooting Protection Act (S.838) that would clarify that ammunition is excluded from regulation by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Toxic Substances Control Act.

Anti-hunting groups led by the Center for Biological Diversity are suing the EPA to force a ban on traditional ammunition made with lead components that would devastate hunting and shooting sports participation, drive up ammunition prices by almost 200 percent on average and dry up conservation funding.

No less than 46 of the nation’s leading sportsmen and conservation groups including NRA, Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, Ducks Unlimited, American Sportfishing Association, International Game Fish Association, Center for Coastal Conservation, and Boone and Crockett Club are championing S.3525. This bipartisan legislation is strongly supported by the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

The Sportsmen’s Act of 2012 is a package of 19 separate bills — the majority of sportsmen’s legislative priorities on Capitol Hill. (See below for an overview of the components of the bill.) A similar package of bills–the Sportsmen’s Heritage Act of 2012 (H.R.4089)–was passed by the House in the spring by a bipartisan vote of 276 to 146. Passage of this pro-sportsmen’s legislation will promote, protect and preserve our nation’s hunting, shooting and conservation heritage for generations to come.

Your voice must be heard! As you read this, anti-hunting forces are working to defeat S.3525. So act now, call your U.S. senators at 202-224-3121 and urge them to vote YES for the bipartisan Sportsmen’s Act of 2012.

Sportsmen’s Priorities in the Sportsmen’s Act of 2012

The Hunting, Fishing and Recreational Shooting Protection Act: Specifically excludes ammunition and fishing tackle from the Toxic Substances Control Act, preventing unnecessary regulations that could devastate hunting, shooting, conservation funding and the firearm and ammunition industries.

Making Public Lands Public: Requires that the 1.5 percent of annual Land and Water Conservation Fund funding is made available to secure public access to federal public land for hunting, fishing, and other recreational purposes.

Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act: Makes Pittman-Robertson funds available to states for a longer period of time for the creation and maintenance of shooting ranges. The bill encourages federal land agencies to cooperate with state and local authorities to maintain shooting ranges and limits liability for these agencies.

[wapitirod]

one thing I think really needs to happen is as hunters we need to pull together.  I'm amazed in this political climate that there is still an elitist attitude in all aspects of hunting.  I see it all the time in the handgun community, I've seen it to a limited point since I joined this site but I think it's time to quit worrying about what the other guy is using and work together.  The second problem is ignorance of what is going on in the political real.  That is how we got stuck with a broken administration for a second term but part of pulling together means we spend more time educating those that aren't informed instead of bashing someone for their weapons.  I'm not saying any of you that have posted on this thread are that way but I've seen it on this site.  Then again I've also seen it alot with fly fisherman vs bait fisherman and I don't get it.  I'm a true hunter and outdoorsman, if I have an opportunity to hunt I don't care what the weapon is, it could be a centerfire rifle for elk or a knife for hogs. I just enjoy hunting, I do have preferred weapons and now that I am physically able to shoot again my recurves are at the top of the list with my handguns in second.  I'll be making my first muzzleloader hunt next year with my son for antelope because here in OR it takes a while to draw a tag and this one is easier to draw.  I also fly fish but I'll use bait or lures depending on the fish and conditions, when I fish I want to catch fish.  Anyways sorry for rambling but bottom line is hunting is under attack and right now we have to pull together.

[Cory Mattson]

MSN frames the headline to present the GOP in a negative light. I read it and can't see where the GOP is the problem. I am not falling for this contrived press. I see nothing here that shows me democrats support hunting on public land and the republicans are against it. Much of this is confusing since there are many issues lumped together - reason enough to crush it like a bug. I have seen times previously too when republicans will vote for something then when more light is shown they back off - they are politicians after all which is a low form of life. But most days I think democrats attack our way of life and most days republicans will support our way of life. I have zero trust of the NRA since they are actively trying to steal one of my public bow only areas and introduce rifles which will destroy our 30 year investment in hunt quality. The NRA has also fought conservation and safety minded hunters in WV by blocking us from requiring shotguns only for spring gobbler hunting. The NRA is my enemy and I am a lifelong hunter who always votes for gun owners rights without compromise - which the NRA has compromised on this issue before.  

Pulling Together: OK with that I support Polar Bear hunters rights to bring back their bears and rifle hunters to shoot normal ammunition - the line STOPS when muzzleoaders use archery season days to create seasons for them instead of the more obvious use of gun hunt days to create muzzleloader days. Bait in flyfishing streams gut hooks fish and diminishes fish stock abundance. We don't have many bow zones or fly only streams - for the ones we have hunt and fish like us to support this or hunt and fish elsewhere.

Everyone be on the watch so Democrats do not raid our succesful Pitt/Rob tax - they will steal it and blow it like they have done with everything else. And for the record I am against using pittman robertson $$ for rifle ranges or whatever - these $$$$ are for conservation and the proliferation of wildlife. This program has been a huge success and any effort to steal our money should be fought completely - gun range give me a break.