Republicans’ big stand for hunters

They are pushing legislation that would give people more access to land owned by the government, an issue that drove a group of militants last week to occupy a building in a federal wildlife refuge in eastern Oregon. The bill would also allow hunting, fishing and sportshooting on federal lands unless the managing agency bans those activities.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, is hoping the third time is the charm for the Sportsmen’s Act, a bill she introduced in February that cleared the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in November. It has been introduced twice but has failed to make it through Congress due to various political side disputes.

The bill brings together a number of disparate concerns for outdoor enthusiasts under one piece of legislation, but the heart of it is improving access to U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands. Murkowski said the biggest provision is what she’s calling “open unless closed,” which dictates that federal lands are open to the public unless the Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management has a reason to close them.

Murkowski said the federal government too often closes off its land temporarily for no real reason or closes it with an eye toward permanent closure. Her legislation would end that practice, she said.

“As a result, our sportsmen and sportswomen will have increased access to public lands,” she said in a floor speech last month.

Access to federal land became a national issue after a group of militants seized the headquarters of the Malhuer National Wildlife Refuge in eastern Oregon. The group, led by the sons of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who engaged federal authorities in a high profile standoff in 2014, opposes the federal control of large swaths of the West.

The federal government owns huge portions of most Western states. It owns more than 60 percent of Alaska, 45 percent of California, 36 percent of Colorado, 61 percent of Idaho, 85 percent of Nevada, 53 percent of Oregon, 48 percent of Wyoming and almost 65 percent of Utah, according to the Congressional Research Service.

The bill would allow states to manage some of the federally owned lands and would set new guidelines for federal purchases of land. While the anti-government extremists do not recognize the authority of the federal government on the government-owned lands in the West, they often do recognize state authority.

“We should pair increased funding for state-based programs with increased authority for states to manage public lands,” Murkowski said, “and we should consider giving governors a say on federal land acquisition.”

Other provisions in the bill include preventing the closure of federal lands for more than six months, reducing red tape for film crews and requiring the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service to take public comment on all potential closures of their lands. Currently, those two agencies do not have to hear from the public before closing federal lands to recreational use.

Mike Leonard, the ocean resource policy director at the American Sportfishing Association, said the legislation also takes the step of redirecting funds in the Land and Water Conservation Fund from land purchases to conservation.

He said the bill would be a formal signal from Congress to the Obama administration that hunters and anglers should be prioritized when it comes to running federal lands. Many hunters and anglers also would be happy to have a more stable habitat for the game they hunt and fish.

“It really improves access for hunters and anglers, and makes sure they have clean and healthy fish and wildlife resources to go after,” he said.

The bill also would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from banning lead fishing tackle, which is a top priority for Leonard’s organization.

Instead, the measure would leave it up to the states to make decisions about whether lead tackle, commonly used in sinkers, lures and other baits, needs to be banned.

“It’s a natural resource issue and where there are localized issues from discarded tackle, that should be a local issue,” he said.

The Sportsmen’s Act has appeared in various forms for the last five years, but supporters are hoping there’s enough positive momentum to push it through Congress this year.

Senate Democrats have previously blocked similar legislation by attaching gun-control legislation to it, which Senate Republicans found unpalatable when they were in the minority. In 2012, the legislation died because one provision would have caused new spending, which Senate Republicans blocked.

The bill is being considered by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which has jurisdiction over certain provisions in the bill. Democrats on the committee, who include some of the most environmentalist senators in the party, may move to block the bill again. A spokesman for committee Democrats declined to discuss which portions of the bill could be at issue.

The Democrats and Republicans on the committee are at odds on some pieces of the bill but are trying to work out their differences before a hearing on the measure, according to a committee aide.

A Republican Senate might give this iteration of the Sportsmen’s Act a better chance. Mike Tadeo, a spokesman for the Republicans on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said they feel there’s more of a positive feeling around the legislation this time.

“[Murkowski] has spent a lot of time trying to educate her colleagues about it and it passed out of the committee with a bipartisan majority,” he said.