State Legislatures ‘Need to
Leave Management
Decisions to the
Experts’ as
Anti-Hunting Bills Intensify
Leave Management
Decisions to the
Experts’ as
Anti-Hunting Bills Intensify
It seems as if 2021 and the first month of the new year have played host to an unprecedented number of attacks on hunting and traditions. Although some could argue this, the truth is, the number of anti-sportsmen bills—a term used by the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation (CSF)—are within the average range.
The readiness of state legislatures to push forward anti-sportsmen bills, however, is anything but normal.
“CSF tracks legislation nationwide as it relates to hunting, fishing, trapping, recreational shooting, and science-based wildlife management, which usually equates to between 4,000 and 5,500 bills per year,” said Ellary Tucker-Williams, CSF’s Rocky Mountain States Senior Coordinator and Internal Marketing Communications Liaison. “Comparing the exact number of anti-sportsmen bills from one year to another is a bit misleading given that the total bill volume varies significantly between odd- and even-numbered years based on legislative cycles. We prefer to look at these figures through the lens of the relative percentages of the bills that fall into the anti-sportsmen category compared to pro or neutral.
“Looking back at our records to 2017, the percentage of those introduced bills that were unfriendly towards sportsmen and women typically varies between roughly 14 percent and 19 percent, with 2021 being a little over 15 percent. Although the relative percentage of bills in the anti-category has remained relatively stable, there has been a demonstrated increase in the earnestness with which the legislatures work to advance them, and the pro-sportsmen percentage has been dropping off. Collectively this has resulted in many conservation organizations having to devote increased time, energy, and resources to playing defense in state capitols across the nation.”
Tucker-Williams was at the forefront of the fight against Colorado SB22-031 for CSF, a bill that was defeated late Feb. 2. But SB22-031, introduced Jan. 12 by State Senator Sonya Jaquez Lewis, would have prohibited hunting or trapping bobcat and mountain lion, and would preemptively prohibited hunting or trapping Canada Lynx—designated as endangered by the state in 1973 and as threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2000. The move to add the lynx into the bill likely came from a 2018 recommendation by the USFWS to consider delisting the species due to recovered populations. Not only will the bill put the kibosh on a much-needed season, it will also put an end to a long-standing tradition of hounding.
Though the bill was killed, there still have been other pieces of anti-hunting and anti-sportsmen legislation introduced around the country such as the failed New Hampshire House Bill 1308 and two stalled bills in Vermont, H. 172 and 316, which warrant a discussion about state governments’ role in hunting seasons, bag limits, and more.
This hasn’t been a recent development
When pressed further about what has emboldened state legislatures to press anti-sportsmen legislation, Tucker-Williams explained that, despite the stability of the percentage of bills, the intents are much more “insidious and aggressive.”
“Instead of trying to take one apple at a time they seem to be coming for the entire tree,” she said. “I also want to highlight that these attacks don’t just happen within state legislatures, they are also happening during the regulatory process with the state Game and Fish Commissions and through ballot initiatives. Last year we lost trapping on public land in New Mexico thanks to SB 32. Oregon Initiative Petition 13 would, if successful, ban all hunting and fishing in the state and the proponents are currently gathering signatures to drive it to the ballot. Washington State canceled their 2022 spring bear season through the rule-making process. We also are focused on California’s bear hunting ban petition, antis bombarding the Arizona Game and Fish commission calling for an end to predator hunting in the state, and Colorado’s Senate Bill 22-031. These are just a few of the issues we’re dealing with in the western region, and my colleagues across the nation are likewise focused on many more.
“The anti’s have been playing the long game on all these issues. They have been testing the waters, reaching out to friendly or potentially friendly legislators and commissioners, building relationships, presenting their case, spreading misinformation, pulling at people’s heartstrings, and waiting for the right time to push their agenda. With a growing population that is unaware to how wildlife conservation works, increasing urban representation in our state legislatures, a growing rural-urban divide with fewer people participating in outdoor sporting activities, the antis are trying to take more than ever before, because they think they can win. We can’t let them win.”
Charles Whitwam, founder of the pro-hunting organization Howl For Wildlife, noted the need to organize in the face of these attacks is imperative.
“If we don’t think it’s important, we’re going to lose, eventually, all hunting privileges in the United States,” Whitwam said. “I think we need to be activists. We can see how successful the activists against hunting have been, and there are so many more of us but we’re not organized. We haven’t been activists.”
Still, despite SB22-031 looking as if it’s been slowed, Whitwam stated hunters need to continue to push back against the bill until it’s killed.
“There’s still one sponsor,” he said. “There were four original sponsors and three pulled their names; there’s multiple reasons for that. Much of that certainly had to do with the grassroots effort, they just got inundated. So that’s a success. So why it’s still important—we don’t have an official ruling yet. It’s important to continue to make your voice heard and it’s important for them, whoever they are, to see what is happening; to see ranchers, hunters, fishermen, and people from all over to support a management system that’s backed by data and science.”
Science versus emotion
The rule-making process aside, for now, it should be noted that state legislatures and the U.S. Congress have been highly effective when passing legislation aimed at funding conservation, killing Sunday laws, and more. And, while this should be supported and touted by hunters, that’s an entirely different side of the legislative coin. Conservation-funding bills are backed by science, whereas the concept of outright banning hunting is not. Not only have hunters have contributed billions of dollars to conservation for nearly a century, but they are also at the forefront of population control.
Consider the effects of banning black bear hunting in New Jersey. A decades-long rollercoaster, data supports that hunters have a positive effect on controlling bear populations and thus predator-human interactions. When hunting was lasts reinstated in 2010, there were a total of 3,035 activity reports; in 2017, a year before Gov. Phil Murphy banned hunting bears on public land, there were 971 total reports.
Predators, just like deer, mice, birds, and other animals, are incredibly adaptive. Tucker-Williams provided data to support that an outright ban on mountain lion hunting would negatively affect Colorado’s wildlife and growing human population. First is a 2019 study that showed cougars can adapt to urban areas well, and that “39 percent of mountain lions sampled during feeding site investigations of GPS collar data were found to consume domestic prey items.” Second, a study conducted by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife published in January showed 43 percent (54 out of 125) of calf elk mortality was attributed to mountain lions. Finally, a study published in 2017 in the Journal of Wildlife Management reported that “mountain lions are currently considered to be the primary proximate cause of mortality for many bighorn sheep populations,” which is directly related to “the cessation of 70 years of intensive predator control.”
State legislatures should leave it to the experts
What was an emotional appeal by Murphy to anti-hunters and those who may not be fully versed on the nuances of wildlife management was also a signal of the changing, figurative landscape.
An example of this is, as Tucker-Williams noted, the ever-growing urban-rural divide. According to Census data collected in 2020 and broken down by USA Today, “Overall, metropolitan areas grew by 9% compared with only 1% growth for smaller areas. Less than half of the nation’s 3,143 counties saw any population increases over the past decade while 81% of metropolitan areas grew.” This is important for redistricting purposes, and will ultimately affect state legislatures. If state representatives aren’t informed or simply refuse management-based science, this will impact the severity—and possibly the number of—anti-sportsmen bills.
Tucker-Williams asserted its best that wildlife management decisions be left to the state game agencies and experts, while monetary support comes from statehouses. Essentially, not only will legislative action on topics like season dates, bag limits, and huntable animals be a slippery slope, but it will also create barriers to alter future management decisions.
“Legislators are just like you and I; they are everyday people with a wide breadth of subject matter expertise,” Tucker-Williams said. “Unlike many of us, they made the honorable decision to serve the people of their state by running and being elected to office. Some are lawyers, some are dentists, some are teachers, and some are business owners. Now, who do you want making wildlife management decisions? The legislature that may have a few people who understand the complexity and nuance of wildlife management or the state fish and wildlife agency that consists of nothing but wildlife management experts who have access to the most recent and best available data to be able to make science-based decisions—like seasons and bag limits—to ensure the sustainability of species for future generations?
“The absolute best thing the legislature can do is make sure their state agency is provided with adequate funding to be able to effectively manage wildlife in their state and let the experts take it from there. Now, it is important to note that states may approach wildlife management issues differently depending on their state statute and the established process. However, without getting into the state-by-state specifics, in general, we support allowing the state wildlife agencies to make wildlife management decisions. Additionally, wildlife management needs to remain adaptive as more data come available. If wildlife management decisions are made by the legislature, managers lose much of that critical flexibility. Should such an occasion arise we would then need to work to pass a bill to change bag limits and season dates, which can be a time-consuming endeavor, particularly in states where the legislature doesn’t meet every year, or they are solely focused on the budget one year and on other matters the next.”
Colorado is the proving ground
Tucker-Williams added that Colorado is essentially the proving grounds for anti-sportsmen legislation, stating that if SB22-031 is successful, other western states will enter the crosshairs. And, while the motivations behind SB22-031 are easy to see, what lies beneath the surface is part of a long battle with animal rights groups.
“SB22-031 is part of a larger effort by the animal rights establishment to build momentum and chip away at the outdoor sporting and conservation community nationwide,” Tucker-Williams said. “Today it’s big cats, tomorrow it could be duck hunting or rabbit hunting. Pressure from the anti-hunting and animal rights establishment is behind this effort. They have a long history in Colorado dating back to before 1996 when the citizens of the state voted in support of amending the state constitution to ban the use of leghold traps, instant-kill body-gripping design traps, poisons, or snares. SB22-031 is just the current battle in a long war over science-based wildlife management in the state.”
Whitwam concurred, further noting, “We all need to come together, and when you see it in a different state, you have to look at that as happening in your state. If it’s successful there, it will be successful wherever it is you are and whatever species it is you’re hunting.”
Whitwam was also highlighted that hunters need to be educated on the legislative process, something his organization provides.
Overall, the defense of hunting and traditions is not an easy fight, and the ramifications of the passage of SB22-031 or any other anti-hunting and anti-sportsmen bills are destructive.
“Through the purchase of a cougar and bobcat hunting and trapping license, sportspeople are paying the state to play a major role in managing the species and mitigating their respective impacts (livestock depredation, public safety, impact on prey species, etc.),” Tucker-Williams said. “If CPW were to be stripped of its management authority over mountain lions and bobcats, instead of taking advantage of a group of people who are willing to pay for the opportunity to harvest a mountain lion or bobcat, SB22-031 would force CPW and Wildlife Services to take personnel and funding away from other conservation priorities to replicate their impact. To add insult to injury, 75 percent of CPW’s wildlife budget comes from sportspeople dollars through the American System of Conservation Funding. So, sportspeople would continue to foot the bill for problem animal removal without the opportunity to do it themselves.
“Furthermore, by declassifying mountain lions as a big game species, CPW would no longer be able to compensate ranchers, farmers, and landowner’s for damages caused by mountain lions through the states Game Damage Program, potentially leading to a drop in social acceptance of the animal on the landscape.”
In the end, unless hunters band together to educate their government leaders, the attacks will continue to ramp up.
Published on projectupland.com
Impacts of
Pipeline Projects
on Upland
Game Birds
Pipeline Projects
on Upland
Game Birds
From the negative impacts of pipeline projects on sage grouse to the short-term gains for ruffed grouse, how do we balance energy and conservation?
GREAT FALLS, Mont. — Upland birds are the bread and butter of the hunting and conservation world, but they’re also some of the species that are first to be stomped on by extractive industries. After what seems like a long series of battles to protect different subspecies of grouse from the current administration’s rolling back of environmental protections, the last three months have seen a series of victories for the birds, including the iconic sage grouse.
First, in April, TransCanada Energy’s Keystone XL pipeline project took another major blow, as U.S. District Court Judge Brian Morris put a hold on Nationwide Permit 12, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers water-crossing authorization, for failing to identify the impacts the project would have on endangered species. The Supreme Court would later reverse the permit blockage, allowing the ACOE to continue with its permit for the construction of new pipelines, but didn’t include the Keystone XL project in its ruling.
“It’s an important moment for those of us that are trying to stop these fossil fuel projects that are endangering people and wildlife,” Center of Biological Diversity lawyer Jared Margolis said of the Morris decision. “It showed me as a lawyer that the rule of law will be followed – that there are requirements that need to be met. The Trump Administration has been adamant about trying to avoid those legal requirements, and it’s great to see a court call them out on it and say, ‘No, you know what you need to do and you’re not doing it.'”
The KXL project, which has faced roadblocks for a decade, extends from Alberta, Canada, through Saskatchewan and into the United States. Things get hairy when it crosses the international border, as the proposed line would run through Montana, South Dakota and Nebraska. Further, the stretch through Montana would dissect the state’s Greater sage-grouse range, a population that has been hurting as numbers from 2016-19 showed a 40 percent decline of the state’s population. Further, it’s been reported that, since the late 1800s, over 90 percent of the original population is gone.
The effects of pipelines on sage grouse
Today, there’s a laundry list of issues leading to accelerated habitat loss. First, massive overgrazing in the early 1900s led to the expansion of invasive grasses and, now, those grasses coupled with climate change – which opponents say the pipeline would contribute to – along with conifer intrusion – is fueling hotter-burning wildfires. Construction of the pipeline would likely add to more birds being driven out of their already fragmented range. According to National Geographic, with the pipeline slated to run within a few miles of many leks, experts are concerned that noise from the construction, roads and pumping stations could seriously disturb the birds and thus hurt breeding. And like conifers, certain structures like power-line towers, will give raptors places to scout out easy sage grouse meals.
Margolis believes the grouse would see the most negative impacts from that construction, too.
“You have construction vehicles that can scare birds away and crush eggs, lots of people, noise and lighting. All those things have huge impacts,” he said. ” the fragmentation of habitat by heavy vehicle traffic, the existence of the pipeline itself and the right-of-way being maintained – they use herbicides to keep weeds out of the right-of-way. So there are lots of ways upland habitat and habitat for sage grouse, in particular, can be affected.”
Margolis also sees the bird as the unfortunate representative of the list of species imperiled by the oil and gas industry.
“They don’t want to highlight that and bring it to the forefront, so they ignore for that reason. But the big reason is that it’s not listed,” he said. “The oil and gas industry got away with this scheme to avoid the species from being listed, and because it doesn’t have that listing under the Endangered Species Act they are able to ignore the impacts to the species. They have to consider it and at least discuss it a little bit under NEPA, but NEPA is a procedural statute, whereas the Endangered Species Act is much more substantive. And because the ESA doesn’t apply, you don’t have those important protections in place that force these companies and agencies permitting the projects to consider the impacts to those species. It’s going to drive that species closer toward extinction and it will be interesting to see how the Fish and Wildlife Service responds to that.”
Ruffed grouse and Eastern pipelines
Seemingly a reversal from the issues the KXL project carries for western grouse species, the 600-mile long Atlantic Coast Pipeline project had a lot of support from West Virginia outdoorsmen for its commitment to maintaining ecosystems it would disrupt. Bigger names supporting the ACP included Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and West Virginia Division of Natural Resources Director Stephen McDaniel.
While Manchin, the ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, focused on the jobs the project would create, McDaniel believed that the project owned by Virginia-based Dominion Energy and North Carolina-based Duke Energy would provide essential early successional habitat for ruffed grouse. He noted that the 125-foot right-of-way and the reclamation work that would follow construction would boost the WVDNR’s efforts in creating prime habitat that the Mountain State has desperately needed for the last 30 years. The pipeline was set to run through two counties that are essential to the remaining grouse population in the state.
“We have to make sure that from a state wildlife management and public lands we protect the environment,” McDaniel said. “Dominion gone above and beyond what we’ve required them to do. They’re a good company. They’ve also provided millions of dollars in voluntary mitigation monies which we have used to add to date over 40,000 acres of new public land where we’ll be able to set aside forest land. They also do a really good job of maintaining the right-of-way, and at the end of the day, we’re getting an energy source out of West Virginia which helps everyone. It’s not just an economic impact; it’s a good impact all the way around.
“If you talk to a hunter, as soon as these right-of-ways are done that’s where they’re going to hunt,” McDaniel noted. “That’s where wildlife is going to be because, let’s face it, West Virginia hasn’t done a great job of managing its forests over the last 30 years. We don’t have enough early successional habitat in West Virginia for small game and grouse and things like that.”
But the project was scrapped on July 5, the decision coming just weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a U.S. Fourth Circuit Court Judge’s decision from 2018 which stated the U.S. Forest Service’s granting of a special use permit to the project violated the National Forest Management Act and NEPA. There was also concern surrounding the pipeline running under the Appalachian Trail and how sediment erosion would affect important streams.
In a joint statement, Duke and Dominion chief executives cited the KXL decision as a death blow, and noted that it increases “legal uncertainty that overhangs large-scale energy and industrial infrastructure.” The extra risk of litigation also extended the project’s timeline and raised the cost to $8 billion.
The Atlantic Coast Pipeline website noted a series of steps that the companies would take to protect the environment, including restoring land to pre-construction contours and applying seed mixes. They also planned on planting tree saplings in national forests where older trees would be cut out.
The decision to end the project came with celebration from environmental groups fighting the proposed construction, citing climate impacts.
While climate change leads to hotter-burning wildfires in western sagebrush country, it also has the potential to enable West Nile Virus-carrying mosquitoes to reach higher elevations in the Appalachian Mountain range calling into question the short-term gains of a pipeline against long-term downfalls of fossil fuel consumption. Specifically, in West Virginia, the Allegheny Mountains and Monongahela National Forest are the last strongholds for the declining ruffed grouse populations decimated by WNV and habitat loss.
Although the right-of-ways would have provided exceptional habitat for the species, the WVDNR is collaborating with organizations and agencies such as the Ruffed Grouse Society and the USFS to continue to create early successional habitat in these high-elevation areas of the state.
This individualized work is something Margolis thinks should be the go-to for habitat creation – not leaving it up to the oil and gas industry to create it as part of a pipeline project.
"It's a linear feature, so it’s somewhat limited in terms of potential for dispersion of the species and genetic diversity,” he said. “You have to take into account that it’s not just a small amount of habitat for ruffed grouse that could be created; you have to balance that against the loss of habitat for other species.
“There’s the potential to create habitat somewhere else. There are other mitigation measures that can be taken rather than relying on pipeline right-of-way to create habitat. It’s one of those things that I think is best left to the experts – the state-level experts – to make the decision. It shouldn’t be a political decision.”
Florida’s
Battle
for
Public Land
Hunting
Battle
for
Public Land
Hunting
Florida is the “canary in the coal mine” in battle between development versus public land hunting
In 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt created the first National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), Pelican Island, off the coast of Florida. Seventy-three years later, the J.N. ‘Ding’ Darling NWR was established in Lee County, named after the father of the federal duck stamp.
Now, there’s a battle among Florida waterfowl hunters and developers, with the Florida Wildlife Conservation (FWC) Commission stuck in the middle. FWC has submitted a proposal to change the rule for establishing Restricted Hunting Areas, leading to pushback from hunters like Travis Thompson, host of the Cast and Blast podcast, and a full-time waterfowl guide.
“In Florida, we don’t have agriculture like they do in the Midwest, so we don’t have the ability to go lease soybean fields or anything like that,” Thompson said. “What we do have is a crap ton of lakes. They’re everywhere. It’s a super traditional waterfowl area, but people began building houses on those , so now we have a conflict between homeowners and waterfowlers. So, I’ve been hunting this lake for 27 years, and all of a sudden you put a dock there. Just because you put a dock there doesn’t mean the ducks stopped coming but it means I have to stop hunting now.”
Thompson continued: “I’m a North American Conservation Model guy so that lake is public trust no matter what. doesn’t give you more right over that waterway than anyone else.”
Thompson went on to explain the current process that FWC has in place, the one they’re trying to change, as one where municipalities would request to establish a bird sanctuary—something regularly denied. Then, years ago, a commissioner established rules to create a Critical Wildlife Area to protect imperiled species. Those parcels are incredibly small—not a big effect on hunters—and, according to Thompson, municipalities were unable to establish those, too. Eventually, Belle Isle, a small city near Orlando, sued FWC after many complaints of duck hunters utilizing Lake Conway and Little Lake Conway, according to the Orlando Sentinel. FWC’s lawyer determined that they were going to lose, so the agency issued a Restricted Hunting Area (RHA) after coming to an agreement with the city in June 2018. The agreement stated that hunters were “mostly prohibited from shooting at wildlife” within 200 feet of the shoreline in the city. According to Thompson, this suit was spurred by negligent hunters. Regardless, this set up a system for other municipalities to do the same.
In January 2019, the city of Casselberry filed a similar suit. A densely populated city in Seminole County, Casselberry’s lakes being hunted were less than 50 acres, which, according to city officials in the Orlando Sentinel article, “means ducks are basically in the backyards of all the homes around the lakes, and hunters thereby create noise and public safety concerns.” According to the article, Casselberry was previously determined to be a bird sanctuary city to protect peacocks and other birds from harm, but state wildlife officials told the city that state law prohibits them from banning hunting within city limits. Further, in a letter to the city, FWC Director of the Division of Hunting and Game Management Morgan Richardson noted, “the establishment of a bird sanctuary or restricted hunting area would result in the denial of reasonable and lawful hunting opportunity in undeveloped wetland areas.”
So, naturally, Casselberry followed the Belle Isle suit’s example and FWC settled and gave the city an RHA. As this pattern repeats, and to counter the precedent now established by Belle Isle’s suit, the agency is trying to create basic rules for municipalities to apply for an RHA.
The proposed changes would eliminate the option for municipalities to create bird sanctuaries while establishing language to specify how a jurisdiction can apply to create an RHA. In a webinar presentation, FWC said, “As written, the requirements for establishing an RHA are subjective and open to interpretations that hinge on an evaluation of public safety. This leads to questions and confusion among those communities and jurisdictions interested in applying for an RHA and for people who hunt those areas. In addition, we have experienced increased hunting-related complaints and interest in RHAs in recent years as Florida continues to be developed and homeowners and hunters interact more often. To maintain acceptance of hunting and to address the growing concerns of homeowners and local government officials, we are proposing changes to the rule language to provide clear, objective criteria for establishing a Restricted Hunting Area. This draft rule change also would increase efficiency in evaluating requests for Restricted Hunting Areas.”
The problems Thompson sees arising from this new rule come from the five criteria that municipalities need to meet to establish an RHA.
“The first thing they have to do is have a dwelling density minimum of one house per acre in the municipality,” he said. “The city I live in has 12,000 acres of land 14,000 dwellings. I think Winterhaven has 88 lakes within the city limits. There are some of those lakes that are super developed, but there are three or four of them on the edge of town, and one half of the lake is developed and the other half is not – I’m talking a 300-500 acre lake. For a boat or two to go out there and hunt on that other half should not be an issue.”
But FWC’s language in their presentation does not state the dwelling density is per municipality. Rather, it says that the proposed restricted hunting area must have an average of one dwelling per acre per state law (F.S. 790.15). Further, it states a resolution must be passed that clearly states the governing body is seeking an RHA and that all residents within the proposed area have been contacted and invited to at least one public meeting to discuss the resolution before its passing. There also must be detailed maps and legal descriptions of the proposed RHA and a list of local law enforcement agencies or an agency that has agreed to enforce the rules governing the RHA.
But Thompson says that isn’t the case.
“They have to have a public meeting with stakeholders in the community where the RHA will occur,” he said. “My problem with that is, this is an abdication of public trust by FWC. They are the holder of the resource for me. Do you hunt in your hometown every time you go hunting? I don’t know anyone who does that. Generally, I’m driving 45 minutes in any direction at the minimum. I may hunt from Tampa to Orlando down to Lake Okeechobee; that’s all fair game to me. I’m not included as a stakeholder in any of those conversations but I should be included as a stakeholder at the state level.”
So why is there a discrepancy? Thompson comes around to explain he believes an entire county—his example being Pinellas County which borders Tampa and hosts St. Petersburg—could apply to become an RHA but only post signs where they don’t want you to hunt. A stipulation in the new rule would be that signs must be posted along the RHA’s border in intervals of no more than 500 feet. Thompson continued to claim he believes the county would only post signs in an area where they don’t want hunters, not the county, something FWC lawyers have allegedly told Thompson wouldn’t hold up in court.
“We can’t set up a model where hunters have to go to court to prove they didn’t do anything wrong,” he said. “That seems like a really silly way to go about this.”
When asked to clarify whether an entire municipality could apply to become an RHA, FWC contact Tammy Sapp noted this was a possibility.
“Yes, if all the criteria are met including the requirement to post signs along the entire RHA border at intervals of no more than 500 feet and that can be seen easily from any point of ingress or egress,” Sapp said. “In addition, RHAs will not include any FWC or federally owned or managed lands; nor will the 300-foot buffer extend onto these areas. Local law enforcement would have sole responsibility for enforcing RHA rules.”
Sapp noted that FWC can’t speculate on future court decisions or outcomes when asked about Thompson’s claim about municipalities not putting up signage around the entire border of the municipality.
Clearly a nuanced issue, there are a few major points to explore such as how confusing game laws hurt the R3 movement and why the FWC creating such a stringent rule is an underestimate of the local populace.
Underestimating the populace and how convoluted game laws hurt hunter recruitment, retention, and reactivation
Aside from RHAs potentially hurting hunter recruitment and retention in the waterfowl community, Thompson believes FWC is underestimating the people that live in Florida now.
“In FWC’s defense, they believe that this rule—they’re trying to make it so hard a municipality won’t want to do it,” he said. “From a Floridian’s perspective who works his ass off for conservation on the daily, they are drastically underestimating the amount of we have here that are members of PETA, Humane Society of the United States, Audubon, whatever, some that are even OK with hunting as long as go to Montana and shoot your elk. They don’t want you to shoot a duck in their lake.”
Thompson points out another problem. He drew a circular lake and put five houses on the northern end of the lake. Noting the population density rule, he says the entire shoreline would be considered an RHA, while the water wouldn’t be if it was truly submerged sovereign land. But the ruling states in an RHA, hunting within 300 feet of a dwelling is prohibited, not from the shoreline or the end of a dock. Further, RHAs will not include any FWC or federally owned/managed lands, nor will the 300-foot buffer extend into those areas. Finally, the proposed changes will still allow hunting in undeveloped areas within an RHA or anywhere that’s more than 300 feet from a dwelling, as well as on private lands with the landowner’s written consent, and only applies to sovereign submerged lands (SSLs).
“Certainly, Florida’s growing population is a factor in availability of places to hunt, hike, horseback ride, and a host of other outdoor activities. Florida has one of the largest wildlife management area systems in the country at nearly 6 million acres,” Sapp said. “FWC is the lead manager or landowner on over 1.46 million acres and works in partnership with other governmental or private landowners on another 4.54 million acres. Also, Florida has many large lakes and rivers that in their entirety would not meet the criteria for establishing an RHA, even if development occurs.”
This then raises the question: what does the state consider an SSL? According to the state Bureau of Public Land Administration, “Sovereign submerged lands include, but are not limited to, tidal lands, islands, sandbars, shallow banks and lands waterward of the ordinary or mean high water line, beneath navigable freshwater or beneath tidally influenced waters.”
And when asked about undeveloped land, which resides in an RHA, and SSL, which does not, Thompson noted, “No one is going to understand that.”
“We talk about R3 and resources and how we’re going to get more people hunting; when we make a thing this confusing, ,” he said. “The number one question I get when doing is, ‘I’m scared to do this because I’m afraid I’m going to shoot the wrong duck,’ and, ‘I’m scared to do this because I’m worried I don’t know where I can hunt legally.’ If we introduce this rule you’re putting duck hunting in the state of Florida.”
Further, to make matters more complicated, although the legal shooting distance is 300 feet from a dwelling and not from the shoreline, if a house is 50 feet from the shore, then hunters cannot hunt within 250 feet of the shore, and so forth.
“If I’m a developer, and I want to build out the rest of the lake and I don’t want hunting on the lake, then I’m going to put my houses 200 feet from the shore,” Thompson said. “Then, I’m eliminating your use of cover within 100 feet of the shoreline, which is where all the cover is. I think this is where people are missing the conversation who support the rule. Today, the effects are going to be very minimal. Five years from now the effects are going to be felt. Ten years from now, the rules are going to be felt heavily and the rule is going to be modified in favor of development.”
It’s no surprise that hunter numbers have been steadily declining over the last four decades, and Florida is no exception to that. Licensed hunters have dropped 25% in the Sunshine State since 1980, falling more than 60,000. This is in addition to Florida being one of the fastest-growing states, as the population has more than doubled since 1980 from 10.19 million to 21.48 million per data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
But, to fix this, Thompson has an idea.
Where to go from here
Some may think someone in Thompson’s position would want to nix the rule entirely, but rather, he wants a caveat added to the rule—one he sees would help hunters immensely.
“Florida is the ‘gun-crazy state,'” Thompson said. “Probably 10 years ago, they created a law, a Florida statute, 790.15. It’s the rule that’s protected us up to this point. It’s called the backyard gun range rule colloquially. It basically says, ‘These are the places you can’t shoot a gun,’ and it has this disclaimer as you go down the statute and it gets weaker and weaker, and gets to a point and it says, ‘If under the circumstances the discharge does not pose a reasonably foreseeable risk to life, safety or property, or to the person who discharges the firearm, you’re fine.'”
This holds up. The statute’s actual language reads, starting in subsection 4, “Any person who recreationally discharges a firearm outdoors, including target shooting, in an area that the person knows or reasonably should know is primarily residential in nature and that has a residential density of one or more dwelling units per acre, commits a misdemeanor of the first degree … This subsection does not apply: (a) To a person lawfully defending life or property or performing official duties requiring the discharge of a firearm; (b) If, under the circumstances, the discharge does not pose a reasonably foreseeable risk to life, safety, or property; or (c) To a person who accidentally discharges a firearm.”
With this, Thompson argues FWC should adopt a rule with a directional component.
“Statewide we want a 300-foot rule from any dwelling unless under the circumstances the discharge doesn’t pose a foreseeable risk to life, safety, or property,” he said. “Easy peasy. You don’t have to file for permits, have crossover between local and state law enforcement who has jurisdiction over what, you don’t have signs, and from a hunter’s perspective I can now teach people, ‘You need to know where your projectile is going.’
“I’d say Lake Tohopekaliga is historically one of the most significant waterfowling lakes in the state. I’d say it’s in the top five. I’d say on a given day during duck season it accommodates 30 hunters on a Saturday and Sunday. Let’s extrapolate that out and say there are 10 weekends you can hunt, that’s 300 opportunities. That’s not even talking Monday-Friday hunters. The 10-year plan for Lake Tohopekaliga calls for every inch of shoreline to be built out. At some point we’re going to have to reach a tipping point as a state where we’re either going to say, yes you can keep building houses here but you’re going to have to be OK with people hunting in front of them, or we’re going to have to do away with hunting. There’s going to have to be a solution where we coexist or one wins.”
And what did Sapp say about the proposed rule?
“F.S. 790 addresses firearms and discharge, while the proposed changes to Commission rules only apply to the take of game with a firearm. Commission rules would complement F.S. 790 to promote safety and provide clear expectations for hunters and homeowners,” Sapp said. “We always actively seek input on proposed draft rule changes and will continue to do so. Stakeholders are invited to view the proposed rule changes and provide their feedback. Draft rule amendments regarding RHAs will be considered at the FWC’s February 2021 Commission meeting.”
If Thompson could leave folks with one last thing, however, it is this:
“I feel we are marginalizing hunting in this state, and hunters are stewards of and they’re the type of people you want on the landscape,” he said. “My worry is that the most endangered species in a state of panthers and manatees are hunters. That’s a sad thought to me. Things like this, within that context, they’re hard for me to get past because I don’t see a way back.”
“I took a girl to my junior prom and she reconnected with her ex-boyfriend there. That sucked. She used me for the ride, the ticket and that was it. That’s what it feels like as a hunter in Florida. On the daily, I get degraded. I get hammered in wildlife refuges that my duck stamp dollars purchased and told I shouldn’t go in there. I’m like, I’m the one that drove you guys to the dance. Not just me, but my dad, grandfather, and great-grandfather drove you to the dance and you’re saying, ‘Nah, I don’t want to hang out with you anymore.’ That’s a sucky feeling when there’s such disregard for this thing I hold dear, whether it’s hunting or the North American Conservation Model. When you start pulling pieces out of that, it falls apart.”
A Waterfowler's
Best Friend:
The Beretta
A300 Outlander
Best Friend:
The Beretta
A300 Outlander
A truly remarkable semi-automatic shotgun, the Beretta A300 Outlander offers versatility, quality, and affordability in one package
I’ll never forget the first time I took my Beretta A300 Outlander on a hunting trip.
As we taxied out to the duck blind less than 200 yards off the northern tip of an island in coastal Maryland, we knew the odds were against us for a good day and full bag limit.
With the sun rising over the Old Line State’s hills and staring directly into a bitter, west wind that occasionally spit the light January rain onto the exposed parts of our faces, I remember looking over at one of my hunting partners, sharing a look that only two people who have been in this position before know:
“This isn’t going to be a good one,” we said to each other, non-verbally.
An hour later, legal light was well behind us. The only birds we saw were flocks of cormorants migrating above us when the honk of an incoming Canada goose shattered the cold air. Within seconds the big-bodied fowl flew directly over my spot in the blind.
“It’s yours,” my buddy said to me, the other guys not yet reacting.
I quickly shouldered the Outlander, a 3-inch Federal Black Cloud shell primed, and knocked the bird out of the air with ease—no more than a 25-yard shot.
While the rest of the hunt went as my buddy and I expected, we ended up leaving the blind with that goose and three blue bills—not terrible for taking overhead and crossing shots on birds that didn’t want to land in the spread.
And though it had been a disappointing day, I was much more excited about how the A300 performed and felt throughout the morning.
A quality autoloader, but on the heavy side
By all means, the A300 Outlander is the nicest shotgun I’ve ever owned. For measure, I grew up with Mossbergs or older single-shots, and for my first two years hunting ducks I used a Browning BPS Field pump, so moving to a gas semi-automatic was a big jump for me.
Since that first outing on the Eastern Shore, I’ve taken it out plenty, mostly during West Virginia’s spring turkey season and to pattern different shot in the off-season. With 3-inch mag shells, it shoots much softer than other comparable shotguns—one of Beretta’s selling points—but is highly out-competed in this category by its A400 Upland cousin. Aside from that, the lean design makes it easy to bring to shoulder and quickly acquire the target and, weighing in at seven pounds, it isn’t terrible on the arms or shoulder during a long day in the blind. Additionally, it’s customizable, allowing the shooter to adjust the drop and cast.
Speaking of weight, it certainly isn’t the lightest shotgun in Beretta’s lineup—the A400 XPlor 12- and 20-gauge models range between 5.5 and 6.9 pounds—but after a day-long hunt chasing gobblers through the hilly country of my home county, I didn’t feel taxed carrying it and my hunting pack around.
Chokes, patterning and price
The A300 comes with three Mobilchoke internal choke tubes—modified, cylinder, and full—and with a 28-inch barrel, bird hunters won’t have issues with reach. In preparing for duck season, I recently ran BOSS No. 3/5, 2 3/4-inch shells with a modified choke and still maintained tight patterns at 45 and 50 yards.
Only available in 12-gauge with a 3-inch chamber, the A300 Outlander MSRP is just under $900 but can be found at some dealers for under $800. It’s also available in different camouflage patterns and the standard wood/black depending on where you buy it.
Final thoughts on the Beretta A300 Outlander
The A300 Outlander presents an affordable option for someone diving into the semi-automatic world or someone looking for a quality backup that can at times be swapped out as their main gun.
Personally, I can’t wait to put many more miles on and create many more memories with mine.