TnHunting.Com News & Notes

To say that the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency and private game rancher David L. Autry don’t like each other would be an understatement. The history of civil discourse between the 2 parties stems from before the days when Tennessee began moving elk to the Cumberland Plateau. But the elk restoration program is just one more reason for distrust between the 2.

Last year, TWRA was prepared to import more than 100 elk from Elk Island Natonal Park in Alberta, Canada, before the U.S.D.A. stepped in and halted the transfer. Whether Autry, an elk breeder and owner of H&A Farms in Lexington, TN, was able to influence the U.S.D.A.’s decision was never confirmed by the federal agency. However, it was learned shortly thereafter that Autry had vowed legal action against the U.S.D.A. if the agency had permitted TWRA to import the elk. Just days later, the feds blocked the shipment of elk from Elk Island, sufficiently strangling Tennessee’s most bountiful supply for elk.

With Elk Island off limits, TWRA then turned to Land Between the Lakes in southwestern Kentucky, with plans to transport several dozen elk from the 700-acre elk compound there to the Cumberland Plateau. But Autry and other game ranchers again combatted TWRA’s efforts, and Kentucky ultimately ruled that elk could not be transported from LBL until certain disease testing protocols had been met there. Again, it wasn’t clear whether the game farmers’ lobbying was behind the state’s decision, but the timing seemed to indicate it might be.

TWRA and LBL had since met testing protocols set forth by the federal government for tuberculosis, but Autry still was opposed to TWRA importing the elk. Three days before the elk were scheduled to be released at Royal Blue, Autry filed a lawsuit in Davidson County Chancery Court in Nashville, seeking an injunction. He cited CWD concerns, but the judge rejected his argument, allowing the release to move forward as planned.

This time, at least, TWRA came out on top. The next round may find Autry with the upper hand once again. For that, only time will tell.

Autry is the executive director of the Tennessee Elk Breeders Assocation, and the director of both the North American Elk Breeders Assocation and the Non-Traditional Farmers & Ranchers Coalition.

A bill to ban dove hunting has been shot down in Minnesota, but will likely be back next year, as lawmakers attempt to ban dove hunting, which has been legal there since 2004.

The legislators are backed by animal rights groups, including the Humane Society, according to news accounts. Never under-estimate the HSUS’s true intentions, and do not believe them when they say they have no intentions of going after law-abiding hunters here in Tennessee.

Dove hunting in Minnesota was outlawed in 1946, but legalized again in 2004. Unlike in the South, where dove hunting is often family tradition, it is a highly controversial sport in some parts of the country. Its detractors say the dove is a bird of peace and should be protected. Other opponents of the sport say that doves mate for life, making dove hunting biologically unsound.

An effort that could ultimately give Tennesseans a constitutional right to hunt and fish is headed back to the House of Representatives, after it was amended slightly by the State Senate.

The bill passed the Senate unanimously yesterday, and now heads back to the House — where it had previously passed by a unanimous vote with one Representative declining to vote. Assuming the House accepts the Senate’s version, the bill would then lie at rest until the next legislative session (no earlier than January 2009). It would then go back before the General Assembly, where it would have to pass both houses by a two-thirds majority vote. If that happens, it would then go before the people in the form of a referendum vote on the ballot. That could happen in 2010.

In an Associated Press story, Sen. Doug Jackson [D - Dickson] says that the bill would protect hunters from efforts by the Humane Society of the United States to ban hunting. The story quotes the Tennessee director of the HSUS, Leighann McCollum, as saying that her organization is not working to ban hunting, but only the “practices we find most egregious.”

Such practices include baiting. It would be interesting to know what the HSUS considers baiting. Under state law, baiting is hunting over a pile of corn, but not over a salt block; it’s hunting over a jar of peanut butter but not over Deer Caine, or block toppers. If I were a betting man, I’d bet that the HSUS’s definition of baiting is all-encompassing.

I also wonder, if the HSUS were successful at seeing the “most egregious” practices — such as baiting, canned hunts and game ranches — outlawed, would they then turn their attention to the most egrigious practices, such as hunting with rifles and dogs? Considering that the group recently worked tirelessly against black bear hunts in Maine and New Jersey (calling black bear hunters in Jersey “extremist trophy hunters”), I think we can pretty well assure ourselves that the HSUS would like nothing better than to see all hunting banned. Should there be any doubt, the HSUS itself says that it is against hunting polar bears, allowing kids to hunt (”because it teaches them animals are nothing more than a live target”), hunting anything with dogs (even rabbits), and Sunday hunting.

And, oh, that baiting thing? The HSUS has protested the use of food plots on canned hunts . . . which tells me that they consider food plots baiting. Let’s make no mistake about where the HSUS stands. They attempt to come across as less radical than the nutty organizations such as PETA; doing so allows them better standing (and more influence) amongst the non-nutty world. But let’s call a spade a spade. And, remember: When the Brady Campaign was formed, Sarah Brady said that she only wanted to tighten restrictions on handguns. Now the Brady Bunch is targeting “sniper rifles,” which includes such guns as the .30-.06, .270 and .308. It’s a “foot in the door” mentality. Never under-estimate the HSUS and similar groups, and never under-estimate the need for a bill like the Right to Hunt constitutional amendment.

Chattanoogan.Com has a story from the Mobile Register detailing how deer hunters who employ dogs on their hunts could well soon find their sport outlawed.

The Alabama Department of Conservation & Natural Resources listened to both sides of the deer dog debate recently, but there is apparently a growing number of people in Alabama who want to see the practice ended.

Already, it appears that an effort will be made to put stiffer restrictions on hunting deer with dogs in a select few Alabama counties, which could open the door for more counties to do the same. A member of the state’s Conservation Advisory Board has vowed to introduce a motion to limit hunting deer with dogs in Coffee, Butler and Pike counties.

As you may know, if you’ve checked out the TnHunting.Com Issues page, there is an effort underway in the State Legislature to disband the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, and to move authority of wildlife management in the state to the control of the Department of Environment & Conservation.

Credit Bob Hodge of the Knoxville News Sentinel for being vigilant enough to read the bill (read the bill for yourself) and to catch an obvious gaffe by the bill’s sponsors.

Deep into the bill — Section 7, to be exact — reads the following paragraph: “Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, upon the effective date of this act all duties, responsibilities, and functions of the state board of education are hereby transferred to the department of education.”

Obviously, the Department of Education has nothing to do with the TWRA, which means that the bill’s “authors” obviously just cut-&-pasted the bill from somewhere else (don’t bother Googleing to try and see where from . . . I tried it and that language doesn’t turn up on any website that has been scanned by Google. But you can bet that somewhere within the bowels of the Internet, there is a state legislature somewhere with a bill just like this one, except dealing with education instead of wildlife management).

Hodge also points out that Tennessee could stand to lose all its federal matching funds if it were to pass the bill:

The budget-busting aspect of Jones’ and Marrero’s bill can be found under Section 4 of the proposed legislation: “All moneys received by the division of wildlife resources (TWRA’s would-be new name) in payment of licenses, advertising, contraband, fines, penalties, and forfeitures arising from the wildlife resources laws of this state shall be deposited in the general fund.”

That means the money TWRA gets from license buyers that goes to wildlife officers, wildlife management areas, fishery habitat work, etc., could then be spent on all the other things the legislature likes to spend money on. But even that isn’t what would make TWRA, er, the Division of Wildlife Resources, a big financial loser.

As soon as legislators begin dumping the former TWRA’s money into the trough all federal matching funds stop.

A large chunk of the money TWRA receives from the feds is based on license sales. The agency only receives the money when the license dollars are dedicated to wildlife, fisheries, boating and related areas.

House Resolution 1022 is federal legislation introduced by New York Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy in the 110th Congress (2007). Entitled the “Assault Weapons Ban & Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007,” the legislation seeks to basically renew the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, which expired in 2004 when it was not renewed by Congress amid much controversy from the gun control movement. The bill would essentially outlaw a number of rifles typically used by hunters, including the AK-47, AR-15, SKS, and any semiautomatic shotgun with a folding or telescoping stock.

Rep. McCarthy initially had no cosponsors for her legislation, but had signed on 34 within a couple of months. After the Virginia Tech massacre last spring, her bill picked up even more cosponsors. By the end of 2007, the list of cosponsors had grown to 60.

Thankfully, none of Tennessee’s Congressmen or women (so far) have signed on to sponsor the bill. It has not moved since it was assigned to the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism & Homeland Security, a subcommittee of the House Committee on the Judiciary, in March 2007. But, this is a bill that should be carefully watched to make sure that it doesn’t begin picking up momentum.

In all likelihood, the bill will lie stagnant for the rest of this year, due to the presidential election scheduled for November. No candidate is particularly eager to address gun control to a large degree, as the 1994 Republican sweep to power in the House of Representatives — credited in a large degree to the original AWB and the Brady Bill — is recent enough to weigh on the memories of most politicians.

However, it’s likely we’ll have a candidate who supports a ban on at least some assault weapons. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have stated their support for an assault weapons ban. And although John McCain voted against renewing the AWB in 2004, he had previously said that he supported a ban on “some” assault weapons.

The list of cosponsors to the bill includes:

Rep. Neil Abercrombie [D-HI]
Rep. Gary Ackerman [D-NY]
Rep. Howard Berman [D-CA]
Rep. Earl Blumenauer [D-OR]
Rep. Lois Capps [D-CA]
Rep. Yvette Clarke [D-NY]
Rep. William Clay [D-MO]
Rep. Joseph Crowley [D-NY]
Rep. Diana DeGette [D-CO]
Rep. William Delahunt [D-MA]
Rep. Rahm Emanuel [D-IL]
Rep. Anna Eshoo [D-CA]
Rep. Sam Farr [D-CA]
Rep. Chaka Fattah [D-PA]
Rep. Bob Filner [D-CA]
Rep. Barney Frank [D-MA]
Rep. Raul Grijalva [D-AZ]
Rep. Jane Harman [D-CA]
Rep. Alcee Hastings [D-FL]
Rep. Mazie Hirono [D-HI]
Rep. Rush Holt [D-NJ]
Rep. Michael Honda [D-CA]
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee [D-TX]
Rep. Henry Johnson [D-GA]
Rep. Patrick Kennedy [D-RI]
Rep. Dennis Kucinich [D-OH]
Rep. James Langevin [D-RI]
Rep. Barbara Lee [D-CA]
Rep. Zoe Lofgren [D-CA]
Rep. Nita Lowey [D-NY]
Rep. Carolyn Maloney [D-NY]
Rep. Edward Markey [D-MA]
Rep. Betty McCollum [D-MN]
Rep. James McGovern [D-MA]
Rep. Martin Meehan [D-MA]
Rep. Bradley Miller [D-NC]
Rep. James Moran [D-VA]
Rep. Jerrold Nadler [D-NY]
Del. Eleanor Norton [D-DC]
Rep. John Olver [D-MA]
Rep. William Pascrell [D-NJ]
Rep. Edward Pastor [D-AZ]
Rep. Steven Rothman [D-NJ]
Rep. Janice Schakowsky [D-IL]
Rep. Adam Schiff [D-CA]
Rep. Brad Sherman [D-CA]
Rep. Albio Sires [D-NJ]
Rep. Louise Slaughter [D-NY]
Rep. Hilda Solis [D-CA]
Rep. Ellen Tauscher [D-CA]
Rep. John Tierney [D-MA]
Rep. Niki Tsongas [D-MA]
Rep. Christopher Van Hollen [D-MD]
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz [D-FL]
Rep. Diane Watson [D-CA]
Rep. Melvin Watt [D-NC]
Rep. Henry Waxman [D-CA]
Rep. Robert Wexler [D-FL]
Rep. Lynn Woolsey [D-CA]
Rep. Albert Wynn [D-MD]

A lengthy process to establish a constitutional right to hunt and fish in Tennessee got just a bit longer today in the General Assembly.

The state senate was to have considered the 3rd reading of a bill to amend the state’s constitution. Instead, it considered (and passed) the 1st reading of a new amendment introduced by Sen. Mae Beavers [R - Mt. Juliet].

The amendment only slightly changes the previous wording, and doesn’t threaten another major disagreement, such as the one that had previously stalled the legislation before the National Rifle Association and Tennessee Wildlife Federation came to terms on how the amendment should read.

Beavers’ amendment:

The citizens of this state shall have the personal right to hunt and fish, subject to reasonable regulations and restrictions prescribed by law. The recognition of this right does not abrogate any private or public property rights, nor does it limit the
state’s power to regulate commercial activity. Traditional manners and means may be used to take non-threatened species.

What the amendment had previously read:

The citizens of this state shall have the personal right to hunt and fish, subject to reasonable regulations and restrictions imposed by law. The declaration of this right does not abrogate any private or public property rights, nor does it limit the state’s power to regulate commercial activity.

It will still be 2009 before the General Assembly can host final consideration of the legislation, an 2010 before the general public can vote on the amendment; none of that has changed.

One of the nation’s most prestigious outdoors journalism positions has a new face.

Andrew McKean has been named the hunting editor at Outdoor Life magazine.

McKean previously served as an information officer for the Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Commission. He replaces Jim Zumbo, the popular outdoors writer who resigned from Outdoor Life last year in the face of overwhelming criticism after he referred to “assault” rifles as terrorist weapons. Zumbo had been a long-time hunting editor at Outdoor Life. The position had remained vacant since his resignation.

If wolves are high on your list of trophies you’d like to pursue, you just might get your chance soon.

With the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service expected to take wolves off the federal endangered species list today, the Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Commission acted quickly yesterday to establish a wolf hunting season.

The hunt, once it actually occurs, will be an American first. While there were some bounties on wolf hides before their numbers became small and they were placed under federal protection, no state has ever had an official wolf hunting season.

The decision to delist wolves is expected to be challenged in court, which means that hunters won’t likely get the chance to pursue wolves for some time. Nevertheless, Montana established a season to run from Oct. 26 through Dec. 31 this fall.

Hunting them might not be easy, though. The use of dogs and bait will be prohibited, as could be expected. But also prohibited will be the use of 2-way communication devices and electronic calls. And while provisions were made for trapping wolves, no permits will be issued in either 2008 or 2009.

The Right to Hunt constitutional amendment could pass another milestone tomorrow, when it is scheduled to go before the state senate for a 3rd reading. It passed its 2nd reading on Valentines Day.

On the 3rd reading, the bill can be voted on by the full Senate and complete its preliminary steps. It has already passed the House unanimously. The next step would be returning before the General Assembly next session (early 2009), where it would be required to pass by a two-thirds majority vote. After that, the proposed constitutional amendment can go before the public in the form of a referendum vote.