Buck Hollow Sporting Goods - click or touch to visit their website Midwest Habitat Company

Senate Bill 1655

R

River Rat

Guest
Bill to Federalize Wildlife Laws
Scheduled to be Heard
in Senate Committee

Immediate Action Needed by Sportsmen!

Legislation that could federalize hunting laws and jeopardize game programs across the country will be heard on Thursday, November 14 in the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. Senate Bill 1655 would put a one size fits all policy on wildlife management activities that ignores Americas diverse hunting culture. Sportsmen across the nation must contact their U.S. Senators in opposition to this bill.

Senate Bill 1655 purports to ban the hunting of exotic animals in enclosures. Titled the Captive Exotic Animal Protection Act, it also allows the federal government to define fair chase, ignoring the hunting culture, as it exists in different states. It opens the door for the federal government to begin regulating hunting and fishing. Until now, it only intervened on wildlife issues that concerned endangered or migratory species.

For example, congressmen from California and Massachusetts would have a voice in the management of wildlife in South Dakota or Tennessee. This is not the duty of Congress - it is the responsibility of state wildlife agencies, which exist to manage wildlife in their own states.

Senate Bill 1655 was originally written to ban all hunting in enclosures, but the bills sponsors could not muster support for legislation that would ban hunting on some of the largest ranches in the country. It was scaled back, and now applies only to exotic mammals, such as lions.

The antis are relying on sportsmen to concentrate on the notion that the bill will simply ban hunting of exotic animals within enclosures. They hope that hunters will overlook the dangers Senate Bill 1655 presents to the future of hunting. Senate Bill 1655 must be defeated in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Call your two U.S. Senators today! Contact them by calling (202) 224-3121 and asking to be connected to their offices or by going to the Legislative Action Center at www.ussportsmen.org. Ask each of your senators to vote against Senate Bill 1655 because it undermines wildlife conservation across the country. Also, if you are a resident of any of the states below, contact your member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and ask him or her to vote against Senate Bill 1655 because it is vague and would adversely affect sportsmen.

The members are:

Patrick Leahy (D-VT) 202-224-4242

Chairman

Joseph Biden (D-DE) 202-224-5042

Sam Brownback (R-KS) 202-224-6521

Maria Cantwell (D-WA) 202-224-3441

Mike DeWine (R-OH) 202-224-2315

Richard Durbin (D-IL) 202-224-2152

John Edwards (D-NC) 202-224-3154

Russell Feingold (D-WI) 202-224-5323

Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) 202-224-3841

Charles Grassley (R-IA) 202-224-3744

Orrin Hatch (R-UT) 202-224-5251

Edward Kennedy (D-MA) 202-224-4543

Herb Kohl (D-WI) 202-224-5653

Jon Kyl (R-AZ) 202-224-4521

Mitch McConnell (R-KY) 202-224-2541

Charles Schumer (D-NY) 202-224-6542

Jeff Sessions (R-AL) 202-224-4124

Arlen Specter (R-PA) 202-224-4254

Strom Thurmond (R-SC) 202-224-5972
 
I'm one the wall on this one. When western states such as Wyoming limit sportsmen’s access to federal lands and charge $900.00 for an elk tag I start to wonder if it isn’t time for the US fish and wildlife service to take over game management on federal lands?

I know that the USFWS service is somewhat involved in hunting and fishing in Alaska due to the large amounts of federal lands and refuge systems. However, I don't claim to know all the details/issues on the subject.
 
Here is what Senate bill 1655 is actually about:
(note the date)

107th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 1655
To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit certain interstate conduct relating to exotic animals.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

November 8, 2001
Mr. BIDEN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Captive Exotic Animal Protection Act of 2001'.

SEC. 2. TRANSPORT OR POSSESSION OF EXOTIC ANIMALS FOR PURPOSES OF KILLING OR INJURING THEM.

(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 3 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 48. Exotic animals

`(a) PROHIBITION- Whoever, in or substantially affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly transfers, transports, or possesses a confined exotic animal, for the purposes of allowing the killing or injuring of that animal for entertainment or for the collection of a trophy, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

`(b) DEFINITIONS- In this section--

`(1) the term `confined exotic animal' means a mammal of a species not historically indigenous to the United States, that has been held in captivity for the shorter of--

`(A) the greater part of the life of the animal; or

`(B) a period of 1 year;

whether or not the defendant knew the length of the captivity; and

`(2) the term `captivity' does not include any period during which an animal--

`(A) lives as it would in the wild, surviving primarily by foraging for naturally occurring food, roaming at will over an open area of not less than 1,000 acres; and

`(B) has the opportunity to avoid hunters.'.

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The analysis for chapter 3 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`48. Exotic animals.'.
 
Thanks for posting the text of the bill. I was curious and checked it out as well.

First, let me say that I believe that game management is best done at the state and local level, with the exception of migratory species.

However, for me, this is a bill that SPORTSMEN should endorse. What's sporting about some rich guy paying thousands to shoot an exotic that's been caged most of it's life. I get really sick of hearing so-called hunters support the continued sale of assault rifles, Saturday night specials, etc, and anything else that in anyway can be construed to infringe on the "right to bear arms."

It seems to me that as sportsmen, we owe it to our sport, the animals we hunt, and the public in general to take a positive stand in support of measures that promote responsible and ethical practices. Based on most of the posts I see on this site I think most of us follow the ideals of fair chase and realize that we're in it for the thrill of the hunt and not just killing.

Blindly opposing any anti-gun/hunting legislation is sticking your head in the sand. If we don't start taking some responsibility for what really matters to us, why should the anti-gun/ anti-hunting groups see us as any different than the extremist with a stockpile of assault rifles or the rich slob hunter shooting an animal that's been drugged. For me, I'd rather give up hunting than be lumped in with those groups anyway.

My two cents.
 
Thanks Sludge,

I just copied and posted this from another hunting site without checking the text myself first. I apologize for that. I looked through the bill and personally don't find anything that I'd be against. as for where it says that it would jeopardize game programs I'm unclear. This bill for a change is short and sweet and doesn't touch on this issue.

Thanks agin for the clarity.
 
???

Threebeards

What do you have against anyone exercising their rights? It is elitist hunters like you that give all hunters a bad rap. So what if some one wants to buy an AR15 what the heck difference does it make to you? Are you blind enough to think that when all semi-automatic rifles are outlawed that it will stop there? Do you realize that in one of the latest updates by HCI (the Brady group) she proposed that all pump weapons should be banned since they are too dangerous and meant to spray out rounds!

"People willing to give up freedom for a little safety, deserve neither freedom nor safety."
--Ben Franklin.

Kind of fits here! You are willing to give up some gun rights thinking that it will help ensure that yours are not taken away.

On the other hand I do agree with most of the rest of the post! Fair chase is very important in hunting and shooting at a practically domestic animal is not hunting in the least.

p.s. Also, an AR15 or any other semiautomatic weapon IS NOT AND WILL NEVER BE AN ASSAULT WEAPON! By definition an assault weapon is one that is fully automatic. Try to not use the democRAT PC terminology!

Jamie
 
Exactly right Jamie! Pretty hard to pick the bad apples out of the basket without bruising the good ones.

G6
 
Well said, Jamie. Threebeards...I don't blindly oppose all anti-gun legislation, with few exceptions I just oppose it all (not blindly) because it's a bunch of hooey. ps. I'm a sportsman and veteran.
 
If any of you have ever hunted a game preserve or used pen raised birds to shot over dogs in training, you may want to think about this one. Pheasants are non-native, and may fall under such a bill. Just a thought...
 
I figured I'd rile up some folks with this one.

Actually, Franklin's quote is:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. " Can you honestly call the right to own assault rifles an essential liberty? Franklin was also speaking about serious personal rights being denied colonists by Great Britain ... it hardly applies equally to this sitation.

If you know anything about Franklin the statesman and philosopher, he was also big on compromise and the art of negotiation. (when he wasn't chasing skirts). You can call me naive and elitist if you want, but to me common sense says we ought to be reaching out on a few issues such as the one in this bill and building a broader base with the overall public, rather than opposing every single bill that hints of gun/hunting control and being viewed ever increasingly as extremists and isolationists.

An example I'd use is the success of urban deer hunts to control deer populations. Through education and use of ethical practices (proficiency testing), the BROADER public in areas where these hunts are allowed have come to appreciate the role hunting has in game management. Sure, there are still the Bambi lovers who will always resist it, but you'll never convert those people anyway. Just like I'll never convince most of the fanatical gun owners.

All I'm saying is that as probably the largest segment of gun owners, hunters should be working to build broad support so that we can keep and grow our sport. Otherwise we may very well lose ALL guns because of the smaller number of those at the extreme. Would I sacrifice the guy who gets his kicks playing soldier and emptying clip after clip to keep my hunting rights? In a minute!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom