Since he won't be vice president, Rep. Paul Ryan can spend more time on his favorite sport, bow hunting. The WI Republican and the public would have easier access to hunting grounds should the Sportsmen's Act of 2012 become law.
The bill avoided a filibuster last week on a 84-12 vote. It's among several pieces of legislation the office of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has said are likely to be considered in the coming weeks, according to POPVOX. The measure, sponsored by Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) is about improving habitat and increasing access for hunters and fishermen on public land.
The legislation integrates some 20 bills, including one each from CO U.S. Sens. Michael Bennet and Mark Udall designed to improve access for bow hunters and provide funding for public shooting ranges, The Denver Post reports. Other notable elements are Sen. David Vitter's (R-LA) Billfish Conservation Act and Sen. Roger Wicker's (R-MS) duck stamp legislation.
If there's a knock on the Sportsmen's Act of 2012, it's the proposed reaffirmation of the law that prohibits the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating lead ammunition and fishing tackle.
ROFLMAO! How do you find this stuff? You must have waaaayyy too much time on your hands! I could hear the radio guy in the background struggling to supress his laughter. And this woman probably votes! Sheesh!
@martydotcom Is that a 5.56 or a 7.62? One of those is illegal to hunt large game with and a 40 round clip is unfamiliar to me, so just to be safe(no body wants a game warden knocking on their door) I would try some type of deer repelant instead of your gun. Maybe I should suggest you invest in some in a shooting range before you take on the wild as well..just for the safety that hunt responsibly!
@kathyparsell was being sarcastic I have no need for a weapon I now live in a gate house guarded 24 hr doorman bldg. on Palm Beach. crime here is domestic and drunk driving Cops will take you home if you call and ask
@woodtick57 If you are talking about "bag limits" you need to actually look at the hunting regulations. Each state has its own wildlife control regulations. And, I tell you this, they are ridgidly enforced. In addition, hunters, fishermen and landowners readily assist in this enforcement. "Outlaw hunters and fishermen" are not part of the mainstream. And, neither is any industry that threatens this resource and its environment.
@seedtick You'd be surprised! i certainly was when i semi-retired and started spending most of my time in the woods up here in northern MN. the number of hunter/fisherman that feel the limits set by our DNR are infringements on their rights and only obey them through the threat of heavy fines, if they obey them at all, really blew away my old opinion of "a few bad apples''.
@dances-weebles Oh My Freakin' God! Grouse opener up here is ridiculous. I end up with AT LEAST a huge garbage bag full after the first weekend. and that is just on the eight miles of road i have to plow and maintain into my property!
Sociological study results: most hunters drink cheap beer....
The most dangerous animals are in places like Camden, NJ. The murder rate is absolutely incredible there. That's what happens when democrats take over a city. It's going to happen to the whole country now I guess..
Yes, I do agree with the legislation. But then I live in Maine. It won't affect us one way or the other. With the exception of Rhode Island, Maine has the least acreage (1.1%) as a percentage the total area of any state under Federal control. More land is privately owned in Maine than most of the states. This is a law for the west. But I still think it should happen. The Feds have entirely too much land posted "No trepassing".
iwas just in Maine for the first time last month! Beautiful. the woods look just like back home here in northern MN. i was very surprised to learn that the timber companies own most of the northern land there.
Eastport is a cute little town..reminded me a lot of Grand Marais MN...
@dances-weebles nobody NEEDS to no, but those that DO are keeping alive essential survival skills that we never know when they may be needed again. Granted, I think a LOT of modern hunters (in the U.S. at least) would be lost without their blinds and camo, modern bows and guns etc.
@dances-weebles - In Maine Hunting and fishing supports wildlife Habitat aquisition, Habitat maintenance, and helps to keep our wildlife populations from getting out of control. As far as Mainers just hunting for the kill, that is just not so. Maybe the hunters from away who pay exorbitant high prices for a Maine license might want that 8 point trophy for over the fireplace, Mainers generally eat their kills. Many poor rural folks here rely on poached meat as a integral part of their diet. Hunting in Maine adds huge dollars to areas that can really use the infusion of cash from hunting guides, camp rentals, boat rentals, and local restaurants. Hunting and fishing are a vital part of Maine's economy.
Actually, hunting isn't allowed on endangered species, and the animals we do hunt here in the U.S. tend to overpopulate, especially the deer. It may be partly due to having killed off or relocated their natural predators, the wolves and the mountain lions, but the deer hunters and the money they spend on licensing, equipment, accomodations and such during hunting season are a boon, not a bane. I'd like to see more restrictions on the sale of alcohol in hunting areas, but that's not likely to happen. Also, the few bow hunters I know don't kill just for the fun of it. They eat their kill, share the bounty with friends and family, and one guy makes some really delicious spicy venison sausage.
@Denizen_Kate yeah, i know all about cooking and eating venison. we did it for years. not only that, but i've heard all the arguments about how we're doing the deer a big favour by killing them and eating them. it would be more to the point to bring back the natural predators. i know that in many areas they are attempting to bring back the wolves... they should bring back the big cats, also.
hunting might be good, not only if the sales of alcohol were sharply restricted, but if the types of weapons and ammunition were also regulated and limited much more strictly than they are now.
As neither a hunter for fisherman I have no real opinion on this pending one way or the other. However I do know a fair number of both and after reading these comments I have to say some people are living in delusion. The very idea that all hunters and fishers are honest, law abiding people who won't tolerate "outlaw hunters" is ludicrous. Society as a whole becomes more and more lawless, more and more polarized and those who bear arms and poles are no different. To claim no one bags over their limit is also laughable. If I know 10 hunters, 5 of them hunt out of season and do not pay attention to legal limits. Both hunters and fishermen drink to excess. That is why I stopped I have no intention of being shot by the likes Dick Cheney or drowned by a drunk running over my boat. And I've seen both. But hey the one side will deny it and that's easier than actually demanding responsibility so it is what it is. Just another law that will be ignored by some.
I would further take issue with the "other side" who says that people only hunt to kill. Those same irresponsible hunters that I know do eat what they kill. And the deer population, if left unchecked will destroy more than you can imagine. Certain species of wildlife must be managed or they will destroy themselves with disease and starvation. Deer is one of them.
@MRMacrum Every population has a maximum sustainable yield. Do you think politicians run the numbers to determine that? Aside from that, lands that are currently restricted to hunters may have a number of other variables to consider. While I do believe that the deer bag limit is far too low at the moment I understand that every piece of land needs to be assessed individually before hunters are allowed on the property. I am confused as to why there are not more scientists, engineers, teachers, etc. helping to formulate public policy. Studying law is not a degree in critical thinking.
@silverflashh - Maine has what I consider a very good program. And yes the pols let the Maine dept of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife determine the rules for fishing and hunting in the state. Different regions have different bag limits, some areas are not open to sport hunters, but are managed by professional hunters directed only to cull because of overpopulation. The whole system is based on science. The laws were tweaked that way to make it so. In our state, we do utilize the best available information to manage the wildlife in our state. I am sure it is not perfect, but at least the pols are removed from the equation.
@MRMacrum That sounds right. Since the last ice age, humans have been the greatest predators of land mammals. This includes deer. Contrary to popular belief, urban sprawl now provides the deer with a more than acceptable environment. They now have food being provided to them all year round. It is our responsibility to keep the deer population within the carrying capacity of the environment. All scientists can do is gather data and come up with an acceptable window. I just do not want politicians or the scientifically uninitiated to have any say in that.
I like the idea of opening up more land for hunters, but don't like the idea of funding for public shooting ranges. There are private ranges already. If people can afford ammunition, they can afford to support private ranges.