(Call for Panelists – If you would like to be considered for the 2021-2022 Voice of Leadership Panel please email me directly at jay@theoutdoorwire.com.)
By Cyrus Baird, Manager of Government Relations, Safari Club International
Sportsmen and women are acutely aware of trends and patterns around them compared to other segments of the population. From patterning a big buck during the peak of the rut or tracking trends in the weather and migration routes for migratory waterfowl, a successful hunter is one that can pick up on these common occurrences and act on them.
As the calendar year flipped from 2020 to 2021 and hunters around the country closed out and reflected on their hunting seasons, there is another area that hunters should be patterning if they want to have a successful season next year…the public policy arena.
Public policy can have a tremendous impact on hunting. From bills that expand hunting access and promote or enhance, conservation funding, to legislation to ban common forms of hunting styles and ban the hunting of certain game species, hunters should pay just as much attention to their local, state and federal elected officials as they should that big cold front during the rut.
If you were not able to follow along through the first 100+ days of 2021 and key in on certain themes and patterns, here is a quick rundown of the state capitols and Washington, D.C.
Anti-Hunting
On January 26th, California state Senator Scott Wiener introduced legislation, Senate Bill 252, to completely ban bear hunting statewide. Senator Wiener did not mince words with his announcement in introducing this legislation – he is attempting to ban legal, regulated bear hunting in California. “It’s time we stop this inhumane practice once and for all.”
Wiener’s official press release lists the Humane Society of the United States as an official sponsor and supporter of the legislation. Wiener falsely claimed in his press release that recreational hunting of black bears in California has led to a decrease in population when in fact, Northeastern California has seen an increase in black bear abundance over the last 25 years. The statewide population in California is estimated to be well over 30,000 bears. This population growth has led to increased human-wildlife conflicts and public safety issues.
Soon after its introduction, news of the bill began circulating on social media and spread like a digital wildfire throughout the hunting community. The ensuing days saw a wave of scientific and fact-based advocacy roll through the state, eventually washing away the legislative mud that Senator Wiener and the Humane Society of the United States were throwing at both hunters and the California Department of Fish & Wildlife.
Less than a week after it was originally introduced, and after increased outreach and direct lobbying from groups like Safari Club International, the bill was quietly withdrawn from Wiener.
In Connecticut, Senate Bill 925 is a re-introduction of a bill pushed by Senator Majority Leader Bob Duff that is seeking to ban the import and possession of commonly hunted game species from Africa. While hunters who have no plans to add hunting in Africa on their bucket list might think this bill doesn’t impact them, the underlying theme of the bill is inherently anti-hunting and should concern anyone who values science-based wildlife management.
For one, this legislation would preempt the federal Endangered Species Act, a similar argument groups like Safari Club International have argued to state legislatures in the past, including to California lawmakers regarding the Iconic African Species Protection Act in California in 2020, a bill that was successfully defeated.
Contrary to representations by the bill’s supporters, the species listed in the bill are healthiest in the very countries where they are hunted and subject to lawful international trade. It is documented fact that the world’s largest populations of African elephant, leopard, lion, black and white rhino, and giraffe inhabit Botswana, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe—the countries with regulated hunting programs that generate income and other incentives and result in more secure habitat and lower rates of poaching. In addition, these countries have developed successful conservation programs to encourage the rural communities who live side-by-side with wildlife to invest and protect these species, instead of competing with them.
Predator Contests
Another common theme in the early months of 2021 is one that has been gained national momentum in recent years – predator hunting – more specifically, predator hunting contests. In the last 12 months, a number of state legislatures have considered bills to ban the participation in, or promotion of, contests that have the goal of killing the highest number of, or largest animal of, certain predator species.
Spearheaded by the Humane Society of the United States and Project Coyote, several bills have already passed in some fashion including in Maryland, Vermont, and New Mexico, while other state fish and wildlife agencies, including Colorado, Virginia, and Massachusetts, have considered regulatory measures to pushed by anti-hunting advocates. California was the first state to prohibit these killing contests, instituting a ban in 2014.
Anti-hunting advocates typically argue that these contests undermine wildlife management”, violate ‘hunting ethics” and even “put threatened or endangered wildlife species in peril.” It is worth stressing that hunting contests follow all applicable local, state, and federal rules and regulations set forth by wildlife agencies and can serve as a useful tool in wildlife management and prevent predator-human conflict and even predator-livestock conflict.
30x30
Before the Biden administration even stepped foot into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, the concept of large-scale land conservation and protection was something campaign officials touted to help win over conservation minded voters. Dubbed “30x30”, the idea at its core is a simple one – aim to protect 30 percent of the United States lands and waters before the year 2030 – but the first 100 days of the new presidential administration has left hunters with more questions than answers. Top of the list of those questions is simply “will hunters have a seat at the table” when these conversations are had, and plans rolled out?
As hunters, we know that we are the original conservationists, and we have continually supported efforts to conserve our nation’s wildlife and wild places for more than a century, but if hunting is not involved in the discussions, will large tracts of land be put under lock and key to access and outdoor recreation in the name of “protecting” biodiversity?
Organizations like the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, Safari Club International, among others, have drawn a proverbial line in the sand on this issue, drafting a resolution expressing support for the overall idea of 30x30, with the caveat including the “recognition of the positive role that hunting and fishing play in conservation.
Questions on the details of 30x30 became a common theme from Senators during the confirmation process of Interior Secretary, Deb Haaland, and Deputy Secretary Nominee, Tommy Beaudreau. In those hearings, little was offered up in the way of a detailed plan on what classifies as “conserved lands” or the underlying goal of the initiative.
Constitutional Right to Hunt
As hunters across the country continue to face attacks from anti-hunting groups, more and more state legislatures are looking to further enshrine increased protections and rights to hunt, fish and trap in their state constitutions. Currently there are more than 20 states that have constitutional protections including the most recently Utah in 2020. In 2021, a handful of states legislators introduced constitutional right to hunt bills, including in Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, New York, and Iowa.
In Montana, House Bill 367, introduced by Representative Paul Fielder (R), cleared the Montana House by a wide margin 68-32, before ultimately failing to garner enough support to clear the two-thirds majority threshold needed from both chambers to place it on the ballot in 2022. To move forward, Montana hunters would need to gather enough signatures required to place the constitutional amendment on the ballot through a citizen lead initiative, a very costly and time-consuming route.
In Missouri, several bills were filed in both chambers at the beginning of their legislative session. After some consolidation and language tweaks, House Joint Resolution 23, introduced by Representative John Black (R) emerged as the clear favorite. After clearing the House 125-18, and passing through a Senate Committee, it now awaits a full floor vote before it will be placed on the ballot in 2022 for Missouri residents to approve in an up or down vote.
Non-Resident vs. Resident
A rather unusual theme that developed out of the first 100 days of 2021 was the fight over big game tag allocations in western states pitting resident of vs non-residents hunters. A topic that has been brewing within the western hunting community for years finally boiled over into several bills in places like Montana, Colorado, New Mexico, and Wyoming being introduced seeking to limit the number of tags offered up to non-resident big game hunters.
In New Mexico, lawmakers debated Senate Bill 312, legislation that would have increased the minimum percentage of draw licenses for big game that must be issued to New Mexico residents from 84% to 90%. It would have also eliminated a provision requiring 10% of licenses be set aside for hunters who use a guide or outfitter. As a result, around 1,000 more tags would have been available for state residents, while at the same time decreasing the number of tags provided to the guides and outfitters community. The bill was ultimately failed to get out of its first committee after it was introduced on February 1st, due in large part to the guide and outfitting community.
In Colorado, Senate Bill 21-150, introduced on March 1st, would prohibit the division of parks and wildlife from awarding more than one-third of big game hunting licenses to nonresidents in a limited license draw, but would not apply to leftover tags. The bill was postponed indefinitely in the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources later in March, but not before making its rounds in the hunting circles in Colorado and elsewhere across the west.
Finally, in Wyoming, Senate File Number SF0103 aimed to cut the nonresident tag allocation for big game licenses to less than 10% from the historic norms of around 20%, depending on the species, while at the same time increasing the price of non-resident big game tags by as much as 76% of their current price. The bill died a quick death in committee shortly after being introduced in early March.
These bills proved to be a lightning rod for of online commentary from the hunting community with both sides represented. Non-resident hunters provide a massive economic boon to state fish and wildlife agencies, and local communities as well. In Wyoming, non-residents account for over 75% of the total license revenue the state agency brings in on a yearly basis. Decreasing non-resident tags would likely leave a large financial hole in the agency. In New Mexico, the loss of 1,000 tags may not seem like a big deal, but the guide and outfitter community were quick to point out that the change could likely cost the state over $4 million in outfitter revenue and $500,000 in direct license fee revenue annually to the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. At the same time, some resident hunters feel that they have been sold out by their state fish and wildlife agencies, passed over in lieu of their non-resident counterparts.
This wrap up of the first 100-plus days isn’t meant to be a comprehensive list of bills that impact sportsmen and women across the country. Instead, it’s meant to illustrate common themes of bills around the country that hunters should be engaged on.
2020-2021 The Hunting Wire Voice of Leadership Panel
The Voice of Leadership Panel is an appointed group of outdoor industry leaders who have volunteered to contribute their voices on key hunting and outdoor recreation issues to inform, inspire, and educate participants within our community.
Facilitators: