Jump to content

Sportsmens Bill Clears Senate


Recommended Posts

OK, well the plot thickens here quite a bit. The use of duck stamp funds are very specific and could not legally be applied to this bill. Even if you increase the fee and apply the "extra money" - the act of congress which authorizes duck stamps written in the 1930s would have to be ammended - LOL! And such an ammendment would change the purpose of the duck stamp! Do you know how succesful the duck stamp act has been? We should screw that up?

A federal ban from the EPA would occur much quicker than grinding it throught the legislature of each individual state. This is an issue that has been well studied and the consensus is that lead shot and tackle are serious impacts - as you can see by watching just one video. Despite undisputable evidence, lobbying at the state level has blocked sound policy in most states, although some states have managed to enact greater restrictions than the federal waterfowl regs. The lawyers and the organizations who solicit our donations would love to keep this going as long as possible...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the purpose of the stamp is and how the price is authorized to be adjusted is in the law, here it is:

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (16 U.S.C. 718-718j, 48 Stat. 452), as amended -- The "Duck Stamp Act," as this March 16, 1934, authority is commonly called, requires each waterfowl hunter 16 years of age or older to possess a valid Federal hunting stamp. Receipts from the sale of the stamp are deposited in a special Treasury account known as the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund and are not subject to appropriations.

Funds appropriated under the Wetlands Loan Act (16 U.S.C. 715k-3 - 715k-5; 75 Stat. 813), as amended, are merged with duck stamp receipts and provided to the Secretary for the acquisition of migratory bird refuges under provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 715 et seq.; 45 Stat. 1222), as amended, and since August 1, 1958, (P.L. 85-585; 72 Stat. 486) for acquisition of "Waterfowl Production Areas."

The original price of the stamp was set at $1, and the price was increased to $2 by an August 12, 1949, amendment (63 Stat. 599) and to $3 by P.L. 85-585, approved August 1, 1958 (72 Stat. 486). Public Law 92-214, December 22, 1971, (85 Stat. 777) raised the price to "a sum not less than $3 and not more than $5 as determined by the Secretary of the Interior" based on land values and needs of the migratory bird resource.

Public Law 95-552 (92 Stat. 2071), signed October 30, 1978, authorized an increase to $7.50 if all sums appropriated to the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund in the proceeding fiscal year and those monies deposited from the sale of stamps in the preceding fiscal year have been obligated.

The Postal Service prints, issues and sells the stamp and is reimbursed for its expenses from money in the fund. Public Law 94-215, approved February 17, 1976, (90 Stat. 189) amended the Act to allow, among other things, the sale of stamps at places other than post offices and authorized consignments to "retail dealers." The 1976 amendment also changed the name of the stamp from "Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp" to "Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp."

A contest is held each year by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to select the design of the stamp. Public Law 97-307 (96 Stat. 1450), approved October 14, 1982, amended the Act to credit contest entrance fee revenues to the account which pays for administering the contest, rather than to the General Fund.

Public Law 98-341 (98 Stat. 311), approved July 3, 1984, designated the week of July 1-8, 1984, as National Duck Stamp Week and commemorated 1984, the 50th year of the program, as the Golden Anniversary Year of the Duck Stamp.

Public Law 98-369, signed July 8, 1984, amended the 1934 Act to authorize reproductions of the duck stamps and require that all resulting proceeds be deposited into the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund. It required that color reproductions be less than three-fourths or at least one and one-half times the linear size of the actual stamp.

Public Law 99-625 (100 Stat. 3502), November 7, 1986, and P.L. 99-645, Title II, 202 (100 Stat. 3586), November 10, 1986, amended the Duck Stamp Act to ensure that Gramm-Rudman deficit reduction requirements do not result in the price of the stamp being rolled back to $5

The Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (P.L. 99-645; Stat. ) enacted November 10, 1986 authorized an incremental increase in the price of the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp to $10 in the years 1987 and 1988, $12.50 in 1989 and 1990, and $15 in each hunting year, thereafter.

Public Law 100-653 (102 Stat. 3827), enacted November 14, 1988, authorized the Service to recoup from sales of duck stamp reproductions the marketing and promotional costs of the duck stamp licensing program.

Public Law 105-269 (111 Stat.2381), enacted October 19, 1998, authorized the Service to expend up to $1,000,000 of Duck Stamp sale receipts to promote additional stamp sales, subject to approval of the marketing plan by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission.

Edited by mike rossi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait a second, let me finish.

Congress has been asked a few times, and rejected the requests, to increase the price - which would require changing this part:

The Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (P.L. 99-645; Stat. ) enacted November 10, 1986 authorized an incremental increase in the price of the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp to $10 in the years 1987 and 1988, $12.50 in 1989 and 1990, and $15 in each hunting year, thereafter.

Probably only because it is poorly written - does that mean in 2012 the stamp would cost $330? Offcourse not, but you know how lawyers are with "interpretations". Get the language clear in the first place - like the Second Amemdment...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, and of the $15 the federal government retains $14.70 for wetlands acquisition and conservation. It's been over 20 years since the price was raised. This bill would raise that by $10 and put that additional money towards conservation efforts.

Toward the wetland conservation efforts outlined in the duck stamp act? I dont read that in the sportsmans act. The duck stamp is thriving just ok, all the diverse objectives of the sportsmans act dont enhance it - they can only take from it. At best this is a poorly thought out scheme to court sportsman, at worst it was a ploy to leach off of a sucessful program.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Toward the wetland conservation efforts outlined in the duck stamp act? I dont read that in the sportsmans act. The duck stamp is thriving just ok, all the diverse objectives of the sportsmans act dont enhance it - they can only take from it. At best this is a poorly thought out scheme to court sportsman, at worst it was a ploy to leach off of a sucessful program.

I disagree There is nothing in the bill that wants to change what the money from the duck stamp is earmarked for. It raises the fees to keep up with the cost of lands and habitat over the last 20 years. That is laid out pretty well in the bill. The hunting organizations that helped draft this have no interest in ruining this successful program.

Subtitle B--Duck Stamps

SEC. 221. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--

  • (1) Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamps (commonly known as ‘duck stamps’) were created in 1934 as Federal licenses required for hunting migratory waterfowl;
    (2)(A) duck stamps are a vital tool for wetland conservation;
    B) 98 percent of the receipts from duck stamp sales are used to acquire important migratory bird breeding, migration, and wintering habitat, which are added to the National Wildlife Refuge System; and
    C) those benefits extend to all wildlife, not just ducks;
    (3) since inception, the Federal duck stamp program--
    (4)(A) since 1934, when duck stamps cost $1, the price has been increased 7 times to the price in effect on the date of enactment of this Act of $15, which took effect in 1991; and
    B) the price of the duck stamp has not increased since 1991, the longest single period without an increase in program history; and
    (5) with the price unchanged during the 20-year period ending on the date of enactment of this Act, duck stamps have lost 40 percent of the value of the duck stamps based on the consumer price index, while the United States Fish and Wildlife Service reports the price of land in targeted wetland areas has tripled from an average of $306 to $1,091 per acre.
    • (A) has generated more than $750,000,000;
      B) has preserved more than 5,000,000 acres of wetland and wildlife habitat; and
      is considered among the most successful conservation programs ever initiated;

(I can't remove the emoticons for some reason)

Edited by d-bone20917
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somebody (I thought it was you) said that the additional duck stamp money was to be used to "pay for the bill" when we were discussing the fact the rebublicans rejected the bill on the grounds it violated the budget act. I am for an increase on the stamp, but not to expand the scope of the duck stamp act.

There are like three different stories on what seem to be official senate websites about this. I just got a reply from Schumer and it sounded like he voted against the bill - but thats not what I read elsewhere. I think we need to let the smoke clear.

Seems the aides just route letters - an anti pile and a hunter pile? Since I opposed the letter on the lead provision I got the anti form letter reply. Something about him agreeing with something I never said and that he thinks its unsafe for non hunters bla, bla bla. Keep in mind, he is known to be antigun, but on his website he has a hunting link which is pro hunting... Maybe I will post his reply, gotta think about that though...

Edited by mike rossi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are right, I did say that. I should have been clearer. I was discussing why the bill was blocked, which was because of the duck stamp increase, and didn't mean to imply that that money would be used for anything other than what the stamp was intended for.

Hopefully they can come to agreement and get this passed. I think to many people confuse pro-gun with pro-hunting and they are not the same. Although the Republicans are the pro-gun party they continue to show that they are also the anti-hunting party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe, but at this point I am either confused , they are all liars, they dont know what they are doing, they DO know what they aer doing, or all of the above.

I read Shumer's email again and noticed he was refering to the Sportmans heritage act, not the sportsmans act - that may have been my mistake, or him being cute. I got an email from Fred Neff just know with Schumer criticizing the rebublicans for killing the bill.

According to the email I got, which was a copy of what appeared to be a news article (LOL) The republicans construed the budget act to apply to spending the migratory bird conservation fund, (which is derived from duck stamp sales) - I do not believe that the budget act applies there because it is a dedicated fund which projects & programs are run without need for general funds (though I am sure once in a while some GF money is used).

I am glad the bill was stopped in its tracks, however it was stopped for the wrong reason. At some point the bill will be reintroduced, but in the meantime lets all start getting honest with ourselves about the lead issue and speak out to national hunting organizations and congress about crafting new legistlation in a more responsible manner. Also in the meantime, those of you who hunt small game with shotguns may be very happily surprised if you experiment with the moderate or even low priced steel ammo,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guess the budget act can affect federal conservation funds of all kinds.... Just got this...

Also: Fact sheet:

http://www.fishwildlife.org/files/Budget_Sequestration_Fact_Sheet_AFWA.pdf

If Congress doesn’t pass a budget plan that addresses the deficit as specified by The Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA) automatic cuts, known as sequestration, will come into effect at the beginning of next year. Sequestration will cut many federal spending programs between 7.6and 9.2 percent.

The Wildlife Restoration, Sportfish Restoration and Boating Safety Trust Funds (hereafter Trust Funds) will have 7.6 percent of their funds sequestered, or withheld from distribution, a reduction of $31 million, $34 million, and $9 million, respectively. These funds, raised

through excise taxes on hunting, fishing, and boating equipment and fuel do not go into the general treasury. While the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) collects these taxes from manufacturers, they are required by law to distribute them to the states for specific purposes described in those laws. It is the states, not the federal government, who spend Trust fund money.

The Trust Funds are important sources of funding for state programs in fisheries and wildlife restoration and management; hunter, angler and boater access; and hunter and boater safety education. They are the cornerstone of the user-pay, public benefit system of fish and wildlife conservation. In order to qualify for grants from the Trust Funds, states must guarantee that all hunting and fishing license fees are spent exclusively on fish and wildlife management and restoration.

The BCA was designed to reduce the federal budget deficit by $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years by setting automatic spending caps on federal spending. The law amends the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act of 1985

, but did not amend the exemption for “payments to trust funds from excise taxes or other receipts properly creditable to such trust funds.” That exemption still stands, however, payments from such trust funds do not appear to be exempt. Therefore if sequestration occurs, FWS will continue to collect the full amount of excise taxes, but will be required to withhold 7.6 percent of the funds from distribution to the states unless Congress amends the BCA to also exempt appropriations from the Trust Funds.

This could result in some states losing up to $1 million dollars in 2013 for fish and wildlife restoration and management, and hunting, angling, boating and recreational shooting activities. According to the laws that govern the Trust Funds, such as the Pittman-Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937, states are required to provide 25 percent matching funds to access the 75 percent from the Trust Funds. States without the ability to rollover their matching funds from the FY2013 to FY2014 budgets may have difficulty raising their matching funds when the sequestered funds are released. According to the Pittman-Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937, money in the Wildlife Restoration Trust Fund that has not been used after 2 years reverts back to the FWS to carry out the provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act.

The Trust Funds have distributed over $14 billion to the states since their inception with the (Pittman-Robertson) Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, the Federal Aid in Sportfish Restoration Act of 1950, and its (Wallop-Breaux) Boating Trust Fund Amendment of 1984. The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA) says, “Sequestering the spending authority of these inviolable Trust Funds to states is a breach of faith [original emphasis] and violates the intent of the “user pays-public benefits” system of fish and wildlife conservation and access in the United States.”

Sources: AFWA, Arizona Game & Fish Department Oct 31,2012

Edited by mike rossi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...