African Species Importation Bans, Prescribed Fire, Sunday Hunting: What Can We Expect in Sporting Conservation Policy this Year?
BY JEFF CRANE, PRESIDENT OF THE CONGRESSIONAL SPORTSMEN’S FOUNDATION
T
hat’s a big question. Sporting conservation policy ranges on a broad spectrum, especially when it comes to the many nuances that might arise in various states in the year ahead. Some of the same policies are reintroduced year-to-year with an attempt to finally be enacted, while others might be new ideas that require the sporting conservation community to stay on its toes. The Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation (CSF) States Program Team (SPT) has been hard at work pushing back against or advocating for – depending on what is in the best interest of sportsmen and women and conservation – legislation and regulatory proposals in states across the country. With the collective force of policy experts that make up our SPT and through our working relationships with conservation partners like Houston Safari Club, CSF looks forward to furthering our mission to protect and advance hunting, angling, recreational shooting, and trapping in the halls of government. Representing the sporting conservation community in state capitols across the nation, our States Program Team works on hundreds of bills impacting sportsmen and women and tracks more than 10,000 regulatory bills and proposals each year. Below are just a few examples of some key policy proposals that will affect – for better or worse—America’s sportsmen and women in 2021.
NORTHEAST
Over the past several years, trophy import bans on African species have been a recurring theme in the Northeast region. Introduced this past January, Connecticut Senate Bill 62, New York Assembly Bills 716 and 805, and New York Senate Bill 2814, seek to prohibit the import, transportation, sale, and possession of certain African species. Whether intentionally misleading or due to sheer ignorance, these bills commonly misrepresent the “Big Five” species, ignoring the Cape buffalo and instead including white and black rhinoceros separately, as well as giraffes. These proposed bans fail to consider the consequences of undermining the source of funding for anti-poaching programs and the many rural African communities that rely on the much needed hunting-related tourism dollars. Legislators who propose and support these bills do not understand (or don’t care) that revenue generated by licensed, regulated safari hunting is the single most important source of funding for conservation and anti-poaching efforts in Africa. In many Southern and Eastern African countries, this revenue is the primary source of management, conservation, and anti-poaching funds for national wildlife authorities. These bills would also unnecessarily harm the economic development of these nations. For background, New Jersey enacted similar legislation (Senate 28 HUNTER'S HORN™ SPRING 2021
Bills 977 and 978) in 2016 that targeted lawfully harvested hunting trophies and banned the importation and possession of items from “Big 5” species by residents of the State. A lawsuit was promptly filed under the argument that the ban was preempted by Section 6(f ) of the Endangered Species Act. That same year, a judgment was entered against the State, thus overturning the ban. Similarly, in 2018, California’s former Governor Edmund G. Brown vetoed legislation that attempted to institute the Iconic African Species Protection Act. In the former Governor’s veto message, he stated that despite sharing “the sentiments of the author, this bill, if enacted, would be unenforceable.” Other concerning bills to look out for in the northeast include Connecticut House Bill 5031 (prohibition on the sale of fur products), Maryland Senate Bill 200 (ban on hunting contests for coyotes, foxes, and raccoons), and New York Assembly Bill 1518 (adds rhinoceroses and giraffes to the list of species of which the sale, barter, and trade of their parts, or products containing their parts, is prohibited). Bills such as these propagate misguided sentiments about hunting and trapping, and they serve no purpose other than to advance anti-sportsmen’s agendas in the northeast region. They are based purely on emotion, rather than scientific principles, and if enacted, would restrict opportunities that further our nation’s sporting heritage while negatively impacting the economy.
MIDWEST
Missouri House Bill (HB) 369 and Senate Bill (SB) 301 each seek to establish a Prescribed Burning Act to define liability standards for landowners and certified prescribed burn managers, certified by the Missouri Department of Conservation, who use prescribed fire as a management tool on private property. Liability concerns are often cited as a primary reason that many landowners are hesitant to utilize prescribed fire as a management practice. However, prescribed fire, when used appropriately, is an effective tool for managing wildlife habitat, promoting growth and regeneration of native plant communities, mitigating the risk of destructive wildfires, and benefitting overall forest health. CSF is working with partners in support of the Prescribed Burning Act to ensure that Missouri’s private landowners can successfully use all appropriate management tools for the benefit of the state’s wildlife resources. Indiana SB 49, sponsored by Indiana Legislative Sportsmen’s Caucus Co-Chair Senator Jim Tomes, provides that it is an unlawful discriminatory practice for a financial institution or government entity to refuse to do business with or discriminate against a person because the person supports or is engaged in the lawful commerce of firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition. This bill relates to the Firearms Industry Nondiscrimination (FIND) Act, as it would protect the lawful commerce of firearms and ammunition businesses. It is unacceptable to discriminate against businesses simply because they
