Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Why Register?
Signing up could earn you gear (click here to learn how)! It also keeps offensive content off our site.

Exclusive Interview: Sponsor of Sportsmen's Act Tells Us Why It Should Be Law

Recent Comments

Categories

Recent Posts

Archives

Syndicate

Google Reader or Homepage
Add to My Yahoo!
Add to My AOL

The Conservationist
in your Inbox

Enter your email address to get our new post everyday.

October 02, 2012

Exclusive Interview: Sponsor of Sportsmen's Act Tells Us Why It Should Be Law

By Hal Herring

Montana’s U.S. Senator Jon Tester is committed to seeing his bill, The Sportsmen’s Act of 2012, passed this coming year. In Tester’s words, The Sportsmen’s Act is “The biggest advance in sportsmen’s issues in a generation,” a 19-part bill that covers issues from the seemingly micro (i.e. allowing hunters to import polar bear trophies that were taken before the ban in 2008) to the huge: freeing up millions of acres of public land currently blocked by private holdings, and reauthorizing the critical North American Wetlands Conservation Act for another five years. American fishermen, hunters, and shooters truly need to understand the potential positive impacts of this landmark effort.

I became acquainted with Senator Tester, a Democrat, when he teamed up with Congressman Mike Simpson [R-ID] to write, and fight for, the common-sense bill that would delist the wolf in Montana and Idaho and let our wolf-hunting seasons go forward as planned.

Tester is a plain-spoken farmer from the eastern Montana town of Big Sandy, population 595, known for its unique cantaloupe and musk melon crops, and known to me because it’s the jump-off point for the 45 miles of washboard road leading to one of my favorite catfish holes, Judith Landing on the Missouri River, with its luxurious public lands campground in the big cottonwoods. Not far from Big Sandy is the tiny town of Carter, home of Lones Wigger, U.S. Olympic shooting champion. It’s a farming, ranching, hunting and fishing world. Senator Tester seems to be one the few members of Congress who understands just how vitally important it is that these traditions, and the economic powers they generate, survive and thrive in an increasingly urban-centric nation.

Tester called my office on Thursday last week to talk about the Sportsmen’s Act, and why he bulldogged it through a Senate that seemed perfectly willing to let it die:

Senator Jon Tester: I’ll tell you why I did it. We’d run this up the flagpole back in June with the Farm Bill. After we brought it through all the procedural hoops, we had an 84 vote margin in support. We saw that it could actually be done--we couldn’t do it then, but we could bring it back, and actually pass it. Now is the time.

Hal Herring: What is the history of the bill?

JT: I’m the Chairman of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus, and these are all ideas that have come out of our work there. When I got to be the chairman, I said I wanted to get something big done, something real. And this is it. This is a bunch of solutions that really make sense, and that can impact the whole country in a positive way. You read it, and you say, ‘This makes sense.’ That’s why we have such a broad base of support--56 different groups have signed on to support it, everybody from the NRA on. Eighty-four Senators have voted in support. You get that because it’s the right thing to do, at the right time.

HH: The House of Representatives passed a sportsmen’s bill, too [The Sportsmen's Heritage Act], that a lot of conservationists were worried about with its anti-wilderness components, and some other language that just didn’t seem like it was necessarily pro-sportsmen. How is the Sportsmen’s Act different from that one?

JT: That House bill only had five parts. We kept the good stuff out of it, and got rid of some of the other. We didn’t want any poison pills hidden in our bill, we wanted something real. The shooting ranges and target practice, NAWCA [North American Wetlands Conservation Act], the access components, these are real things that affect sportsmen. And they are going to pass.

HH: What are the most important elements of the Sportsmen’s Act?

JT: You and I have talked about the access issues before. That’s the issue here that is closest to my heart--making public lands accessible to the public. Our studies showed something that was hard to believe: 35 million acres of public land that are locked up, just blocked in, no legal access, 3.2 million acres in Montana alone. Montana and North Dakota have about 1.5 million acres of public land managed by the Bureau of Land Management that have no access to the public. We are asking for an allocation of 1.5 percent from the Land and Water Conservation Fund to address these access issues, and to make sure that sportsmen and everybody else who owns these lands can enjoy them.

I’d add that the marksmanship and target practice component of the bill is extremely important to me. Senator Mark Udall [D-CO] has been pushing for this for a long time--to use some of the Pittman-Robertson tax money to build and maintain shooting ranges on public lands. We’ve lost a lot of our places to shoot over the years, and this is about making sure people have a place to teach and learn how to use the tools.

HH: I know you have the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act in motion, too, which is a public lands bill linking recreation, wilderness and watershed protection and a steadier supply of timber for logging. Do you see the Sportsmen’s Act as a kind of companion piece to that?

JT: It is a companion piece, but on a national scale. We know that fishing, hunting, or just hiking, is good for business. It’s a quality of life issue, it’s a business and economics issue. What we have with the Sportsmen’s Act recognizes what we know, and acts on it. I’m not surprised at the level of support it has. I do think that the fact we’ve gotten so far with it is extraordinary. We have this opportunity, right now, to make the biggest advance in sportsmen’s issues in a generation at least. That’s exciting and that is why I think it is going to pass, all of it.

 

Comments (11)

Top Rated
All Comments
from Roderick K. Purcell wrote 1 year 28 weeks ago

I hope Mr. Tester is right. This is an important piece of legislation. I hope election-year politics do not get in the way.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from krwheeler wrote 1 year 28 weeks ago

The problem with the sportsman's bill is that is bad for small farmers. If you have a small farm, but you like to hunt and fish, how do you vote on this?

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Savageshot wrote 1 year 28 weeks ago

kr wheeler please explain.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from rock rat wrote 1 year 28 weeks ago

I was down at the range today. During the season anyone can go for $10, rest of the year it's impossible to even get a membership. Same all over, no where to shoot, no where for kids to learn to shoot. I was talking about the lack of shooting opportunities with one of the members there and I mentioned this bill and Mark Udall's piece of it.

I sure wish the best of luck to Senator Tester.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from wisc14 wrote 1 year 28 weeks ago

why can't we get more politicians like this? in wisconsin we have dale shultz who has been very good but that is about it

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ed Fishhead wrote 1 year 28 weeks ago

Sportsmans Legislation, access to millions of acres of public land, shooting ranges, such common sense......I read the bill and i saw nothing that could be a negative to anyone and alot that sporting people could rejoice over. How can this not pass you ask? Surely our representatives can get this done. Thank you Jon Testor

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ben Clary wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

One bill that advocates more roads in public land with a companion bill that advocates more logging? Seems a little sketchy....

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ben Clary wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

Not to mention second bill advocates "wilderness protection"; wouldn't allowing roads in wilderness lands be the opposite of that?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from hal herring wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

Ben, read the bills, and decide for yourself- conservation has never been "either-or" it has always been about using land and resources so that we leave them to future generations in as good or better condition than we found them. Take a look at the legislation.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ben Clary wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

I plan to, Hal. And I should have before I made the above comments. Thanks for bringing this issue to light.

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

from Roderick K. Purcell wrote 1 year 28 weeks ago

I hope Mr. Tester is right. This is an important piece of legislation. I hope election-year politics do not get in the way.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Savageshot wrote 1 year 28 weeks ago

kr wheeler please explain.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from rock rat wrote 1 year 28 weeks ago

I was down at the range today. During the season anyone can go for $10, rest of the year it's impossible to even get a membership. Same all over, no where to shoot, no where for kids to learn to shoot. I was talking about the lack of shooting opportunities with one of the members there and I mentioned this bill and Mark Udall's piece of it.

I sure wish the best of luck to Senator Tester.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ed Fishhead wrote 1 year 28 weeks ago

Sportsmans Legislation, access to millions of acres of public land, shooting ranges, such common sense......I read the bill and i saw nothing that could be a negative to anyone and alot that sporting people could rejoice over. How can this not pass you ask? Surely our representatives can get this done. Thank you Jon Testor

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from wisc14 wrote 1 year 28 weeks ago

why can't we get more politicians like this? in wisconsin we have dale shultz who has been very good but that is about it

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ben Clary wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

One bill that advocates more roads in public land with a companion bill that advocates more logging? Seems a little sketchy....

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ben Clary wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

Not to mention second bill advocates "wilderness protection"; wouldn't allowing roads in wilderness lands be the opposite of that?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from hal herring wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

Ben, read the bills, and decide for yourself- conservation has never been "either-or" it has always been about using land and resources so that we leave them to future generations in as good or better condition than we found them. Take a look at the legislation.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ben Clary wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

I plan to, Hal. And I should have before I made the above comments. Thanks for bringing this issue to light.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from krwheeler wrote 1 year 28 weeks ago

The problem with the sportsman's bill is that is bad for small farmers. If you have a small farm, but you like to hunt and fish, how do you vote on this?

-1 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment