Purpose: This bill would require that federal wildlife agencies manage public lands by promoting and enhancing recreational hunting and trapping opportunities. In addition, federal public lands would be managed so that there would be “no net loss of land area available” for hunting and trapping. These agencies would be required to submit annual reports detailing any federal lands that are closed to hunting and trapping as well as the reasons for the closure and the public lands that were opened to hunting and trapping to “compensate” for the closure.
[teaserbreak]
Status: Referred to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 109-347.
Action: OPPOSE. Please contact your two U.S. Senators and urge them to oppose S. 1522. Tell your Senators that the federal management of wildlife on public lands should not fall prey to special interests. S. 1522 fails to take into account the fact that 95% of Americans do not engage in hunting or trapping — and yet under this legislation the interests of hunters and trappers on taxpayer-funded federal lands would be given preference over the interests of 95% of citizen taxpayers. Public lands belong to ALL Americans and they should be managed accordingly, retaining the ability of citizens to speak directly to a particular wildlife management issue through their elected officials.
Talking Points for your letter:
- If enacted into law, S. 1522, the Hunting Heritage Protection Act, would require that federal wildlife agencies manage public lands by promoting and enhancing recreational hunting and trapping opportunities. In addition, federal public lands would be managed so that there would be “no net loss of land area available” for hunting and trapping. S. 1522 also would create Congressional “findings” that recreational hunting and trapping are an “essential component of effective wildlife management,” and that they are “environmentally acceptable” activities that can be conducted on federal public land “without adverse effects on other uses of the land.”
- This legislation is out of step with the interests and activities of the vast majority of U.S. citizens. According to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, in 2001 more than 66 million Americans participated in some form of wildlife-watching recreation, pumping $38.4 billion into the U.S. economy. In stark comparison, according to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, less than 1% of Americans trap animals for fur and less than 5% of Americans hunt. Trapping license sales have dropped substantially during the last two decades, with less than 150,000 licenses sold nationwide last year. The percentage of hunters also has declined steadily. From 1985 to 2001, the number of hunters in the U.S. suffered a decrease of 22%.
- The federal management of wildlife on public lands should not fall prey to special interests. S. 1522 fails to take into account the fact that 95% of Americans do not engage in hunting or trapping — and yet under this legislation the interests of hunters and trappers on taxpayer-funded federal lands would be given preference over the interests of 95% of citizen taxpayers. Public lands belong to ALL Americans and they should be managed accordingly, retaining the ability of citizens to speak directly to a particular wildlife management issue through their elected officials. Wildlife should not be managed in pre-set methods according to the dictates of 5% of the citizenry.
- Congressional “findings” claim that recreational hunting and trapping are an “essential component of effective wildlife management,” and that they are “environmentally acceptable” activities that can be conducted on federal public land “without adverse effects.” Hunters, trappers, and some wildlife managers likewise claim that trapping removes “surplus” animals from the wild, thereby preventing species from overpopulating and destroying their habitat. In nature, however, animals regulate their own populations based on available food and habitat: There is no such thing as a “surplus” animal. Moreover, hunters and trappers attempt to target the healthiest animals — not the ill, aged, infirm, or very young animals that typically would be subject to natural selection.
- While some species can compensate for population reductions caused by trapping or hunting, these activities can severely impact other species — some of which are sensitive species threatened with extinction — that cannot naturally compensate for externally caused population reductions.
- Sustained lethal control can have a substantial negative impact on the health of the environment. Biologists have found that “keystone species” play a pivotal role in maintaining ecological integrity and preserving species diversity. The disappearance of a keystone species triggers the loss of other local species, and the intricate connections among the remaining residents begin to unravel. Species losses cascade and multiply throughout the ecosystem in a “domino effect.” Thus, trapping and hunting cannot be applied in the manner dictated by this legislation without environmental and wildlife repercussions.