Download e-book Hunting, Fishing, Recreational Shooting, and Other Wildlife Measures: S. 3525

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Hunting, Fishing, Recreational Shooting, and Other Wildlife Measures: S. 3525 file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Hunting, Fishing, Recreational Shooting, and Other Wildlife Measures: S. 3525 book. Happy reading Hunting, Fishing, Recreational Shooting, and Other Wildlife Measures: S. 3525 Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Hunting, Fishing, Recreational Shooting, and Other Wildlife Measures: S. 3525 at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Hunting, Fishing, Recreational Shooting, and Other Wildlife Measures: S. 3525 Pocket Guide.

An initial report would present a plan to assess how objectives for removal of decommissioned outer continental shelf drilling platforms and related structures in the Gulf of Mexico might relate to creation and preservation of offshore artificial habitats that enhance fishing and other recreational activities. A final report would summarize comments and findings relative to these comments, including options to mitigate any habitat damage caused by platform removal. This title was not included in H. On introduction of S. This bill will bring together all of the different groups that have a stake in the health and productivity of our Nation's fish habitats.

  • The Oddball Student Guide: Year 1!
  • Larger Than Life.
  • Featured Programs?
  • Four for a Boy (Death in Byzantium).
  • Hunting, Fishing, Recreational Shooting, and Other Wildlife Measures: S. -
  • Senate running out of time to pass Sportsman’s bill.

Subtitle A of Title II, containing 13 sections, would establish a program to engage state and local governments, conservation groups, fishing industry groups, and related businesses to work together collectively to address the causes of fish habitat decline. This subtitle was not included in H. This legislation is based on the model of the North American Wetlands Conservation Act 37 and seeks to promote action and provide additional funding to improve the quality of aquatic habitat beneficial to fish.

Search the Site

Section defines 12 terms; among these are a a quatic habitat , which would include certain areas adjacent to an aquatic environment; b fish , defined to include both finfish and shellfish; and c fish habitat conservation projects , which are defined as meeting specified procedural criteria and provide for the conservation or management of aquatic habitat.

Section would establish a member National Fish Habitat Board, composed of representatives of federal agencies and various specified constituencies, to coordinate implementation of this act, establish national goals and priorities for aquatic habitat conservation, and make recommendations regarding fish habitat conservation projects. Board members would not be compensated, but would be provided travel expenses, including per diem. Members would generally serve three-year terms, with initial representatives of various constituencies appointed by the existing board that was established by National Fish Habitat Action Plan of April 24, Subsequent vacancies for representatives of various constituencies would be filled by appointment made by the remaining members of the board.

Section would authorize the board to designate Fish Habitat Partnerships, which would coordinate regional implementation, identify strategic priorities for fish habitat conservation, recommend projects that address priorities, and develop and implement projects. Partnership applicants would need to meet seven criteria, including diverse representation, ability to address issues on a nationally significant scale, and demonstration of progress toward development of a strategic plan to address the causes of system decline in fish populations.

Section would require partnerships to submit recommendations for fish habitat conservation projects annually.

The board would then select and recommend projects to the Secretary for approval and funding. No project could be recommended by the board for funding unless it includes an evaluation plan to 1 assess results of activities to be carried out; 2 reflect appropriate changes if project objectives are not being met; and 3 require a report to the board on assessment findings.

More in Sports

No project that involves acquisition of real property could be recommended by the board unless the acquiring entity is obligated to manage the property. Section would require FWS to establish within the agency a National Fish Habitat Conservation Partnership Office and to develop an interagency plan for this office. Subsection b outlines 11 functions of this office, including funding partnerships, facilitating consideration of projects by the board, and coordinating technical and scientific reporting. This office is to be staffed with employees from the Departments of Commerce and the Interior, with additional staffing encouraged from states and Indian tribes.

Subsection d 5 gives the Secretary of the Interior discretion to waive all or part of the nonfederal matching requirement for project funding. Section would require all federal agencies responsible for acquiring, managing, or disposing of federal land or water to cooperate with NOAA and FWS to conserve aquatic habitats. Section would require the Secretary of the Interior to notify and coordinate with state and tribal agencies prior to project implementation.

Section would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to promulgate regulations to implement the act. Additional authorizations are provided for the national office and planning and administrative expenses. Subsection c would authorize solicitation and acceptance of donations. It is also unclear whether the restoration and enhancement envisioned by this subtitle would be conducted in a manner adequate to prevent additional human alterations that harm aquatic habitat. An additional concern is whether creation of an additional program is needed.

About our data

The DJ program has significantly more funding and, as mandatory spending, is not subject to annual appropriations. Also, since , a pilot program has been carried out to test the feasibility of the sale of duck stamps through the Internet; eight states now participate in the pilot program. In other states, stamps continue to be available at U.

Section would allow the Secretary of the Interior to set a new price of duck stamps at three-year intervals beginning in Funds would be collected and expended provided that all amounts in the MBCF from the sale of duck stamps in previous years have been obligated. Section would allow the Secretary, in consultation with the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, to waive the requirements for purchase of a stamp for certain individuals, provided there would be only a minimal effect on collections for the MBCF. Section would permanently authorize the electronic issuance of duck stamps.

States would apply to the Secretary for authority to issue the electronic stamps, under a procedure specified in the section. Provisions for revocation of state authority to issue electronic stamps are included. Under the JVP, FWS would provide technical and financial support for regional migratory bird conservation partnerships.

Eligible partners, according to Section a 2 , include federal, state, and tribal agencies; regional or local governments; landowners; nongovernmental organizations; and others. Each partnership agreement under the JVP would establish a management board that includes relevant and diverse stakeholder representatives. Under Section c , each management board, in consultation with FWS, would appoint a coordinator for the implementation plan developed by the board.

Implementation plans must be approved by the Director of FWS, and must include a strategy for migratory bird conservation, provisions for communication among members of the group, and a long-term strategy for community outreach and education. Federal employees of any agency could be detailed to a board. For conservation actions under approved plans, the Director may award financial assistance to the parties taking the actions.

No specific dollar figure is given. Section would require management boards to submit annual reports, and FWS would be required to prepare a comprehensive review of the JVP at five-year intervals; the review would be open to public comments. Section further specifies that the JVP would not preempt other laws nor the authorities of state fish and wildlife laws. In this list, all the laws cited are simply reauthorized through FY, with three exceptions that also would amend current law.

Among other things, the section would increase the number of directors on the board of the foundation from 23 to 28 and decrease the number of criteria used for their selection, and would make those criteria more generalized.

  • Willoughby: Sportsmen’s Act of helpful to hunters, anglers – The Denver Post;
  • Ubuy Kuwait Online Shopping For s.h in Affordable Prices.?
  • A Dogs Life?

Terms would be set at six years. The section would authorize the foundation to accept restitution and community service payments and other amounts resulting from legal, administrative, or regulatory actions, provided that the amounts further the conservation of fish, wildlife, and plants. The section would also provide specific procedures for the acceptance of amounts from federal agencies, and would allow the foundation to collect fees for management of these amounts. Federal agencies entering into agreements with the foundation could waive competitive processes normally required by the agency if the waiver would address an environmental emergency and also reduce administrative expenses; when or if this authority is invoked, the foundation's annual report would need to include a description of the activity and waiver.

source url

Senate running out of time to pass Sportsman’s bill | Las Vegas Review-Journal

The section would direct that the public must have a choice of five semipostal stamps, each stamp depicting a different species whose conservation is supported under the Multinational Species Conservation Fund. FLTFA was designed to allow proceeds from the disposal of public land to be used to acquire inholdings and other lands to improve federal land management. Under Section of the current law, proceeds from the "sale or exchange of public land identified for disposal under approved land use plans" are to be put in the Federal Land Disposal Account FLTFA fund.

Section a of FLTFA states that "notwithstanding any other law [except for laws requiring proceeds to go into state trust funds] the gross proceeds of the sale or exchange of public land under this Act shall be deposited in a separate account in the Treasury of the United States to be known as the 'Federal Land Disposal Account. To that list, Section would add lands in the following bills whose sales revenue would not accrue to the FLTFA fund:. The Maryland population has been drastically reduced through the program, as has the Louisiana population, although re-invasion is a greater problem in that state.

To protect more coastal wetland habitats, where the species has been very destructive, this provision of the Senate bill would expand the program to other coastal states where the species has been found. For more on H. Forest Service, June 7, Units may be completely open to hunting or fishing, or these activities may be permitted only in portions of the unit.

NPS regulations do not specifically address recreational shooting. The extent to which physical access is an obstacle to hunting or fishing on federal lands is unclear, though the issue is cited by supporters of this measure. A bill affecting only polar bear imports, S.

Bow Fishing for Tuna Fish

Center for Biological Diversity v. Kempthorne , No. C , WL N. April 28, The bill breaks 16 U.

Senate calls a foul on Sportsmen’s Act

Section b 5 contains a provision stating that a state "may pay up to 90 percent of the cost of acquiring land for, expanding, or constructing a public target range. There is no committee report to clarify of the intent of the provision. Also, there may be a conflict between the proposed deletion of "construction" from 16 U. Section h-1 a 2 limits states to "the amount described in Section g b See also H.

Environmental Protection Agency," by [author name scrubbed] March 16, , available from the author. Trumpeter Swan Society v. Environmental Protection Agency , No.