State Fish and Wildlife Management Authority

Summary

In most cases, state fish and wildlife agencies are the entities best equipped to address fish and wildlife management issues within their respective borders. Recent efforts to undermine state fish and wildlife management authority, by placing greater authority in the hands of federal and local managers, pose a serious threat to the future of state-based scientific fish and wildlife management, as well as hunting and angling.

Introduction

State fish and wildlife agencies have long been recognized as the primary, and most well-equipped, managers of fish and wildlife in the United States. Staffed by trained professionals with backgrounds in a wide variety of fields, including biology, law enforcement, lands management, and numerous other disciplines, these agencies carry out on-the-ground conservation efforts, and possess an intimate understanding of their states’ conservation priorities. They interface with constituencies like hunters, anglers, trappers, and recreational shooters to ensure that outdoor recreation opportunities are being maximized for the benefit of the public, which in turn ensures that conservation funding resulting from purchases of licenses and tags, as well as excise taxes paid on hunting and fishing-related expenditures, will continue to flow back to the states through the American System of Conservation Funding. While issues with state management certainly exist, such issues can usually be dealt with via the state’s regulatory or legislative process, with opportunities for input from a state’s citizens.

In recent years, however, attempts have been made to place greater control of fish and wildlife management in the hands of federal regulators. Such attempts include efforts to curtail predator management (which is carried out by states with the aim of aiding populations of game animals) on federal lands managed by the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or certain Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) that include substantial, unscientifically justified closures to recreational fishing, like the Biscayne Bay Marine Reserve (implemented despite objections from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission). The marine reserve created in Biscayne Bay by the National Park Service closed off over 10,000 acres of the park’s most popular and productive waters to angling and boating, despite commitments made by Biscayne National Park officials to work with stakeholders and the state of Florida to explore less restrictive options.

Similarly, local governments (cities, counties, municipalities) have attempted to assert greater control over hunting, angling, and land access within their respective jurisdictions, sometimes interfering with state agencies’ ability to effectively manage fish and wildlife populations using proven, science-based techniques. Ceding authority to these municipal governments, however, poses numerous problems for scientific fish and wildlife management. Local governments are generally not staffed by those trained in fish and wildlife management and are not likely to have the resources necessary to hire such staff. Allowing localities to set rules that impact the ability of the state agency to manage fish and wildlife populations also creates an inconsistent and confusing regulatory patchwork across a state, discouraging hunters and anglers from further participating in their sporting pastimes.

Language

  • The U.S. Department of the Interior overstepped Alaska state authority in 2016 by limiting recreational and subsistence hunting practices on wildlife refuges in the state. Under the Congressional Review Act, Congress is able to overturn federal regulations within 60 days of finalization by passing a joint resolution of disapproval. Congressman Don Young (AK) introduced HJR 69 to do so in 2017, which was later passed and signed into law.
  • Maine HB 7, introduced in 2017, “proposes to amend the Constitution of Maine to provide that the laws of the State governing wildlife management may not be amended by the citizen initiative process.”
  • Alaska HJR 20, introduced in 2015 by National Assembly of Sportsmen’s Caucuses Executive Council member Representative Mark Neuman, urged “…the United States Congress to enact legislation to clarify and recognize each individual state's authority to manage the fish and wildlife within its borders.”
  • California AB 665, introduced in 2015 by California Outdoor Sporting Caucus Co-Chair Assemblyman Jim Frazier, would “…provide that the state fully occupies the field of the taking and possession of fish and game” and that”…the commission and the department are the only entities that may adopt or promulgate regulations regarding the taking or possession of fish and game on any lands or waters within the state.”
  • Introduced in 2015 by Congresswoman Ileana Ross-Lehtinen (FL) during the 114th Congress, the Preserving Public Access to Public Waters Act, would require state collaboration and agreement with the secretaries of Interior and Commerce before any marine reserve or protected area could be implemented in state or territorial waters.
  • Arizona SB 1334, passed in 2011, states that “A political subdivision of this state shall not enact any ordinance, rule or regulation limiting the lawful taking of wildlife during an open season established by the Arizona Game and Fish Commission …” but specifies that local governments may restrict the discharge of a firearm within ¼ mile of an occupied structure.
  • MT SJR 6 - Requesting that the state's congressional delegation work to return management of the state's recovered grizzly bear populations to the state and initiate further review of grizzly bear populations that meet the criteria for delisting
  • TN SB 134 – Extends the authority of the Department of Environment and Conservation.
  • UT HB 315 - Amends provisions of the Municipal Land Use, Development, and Management Act and the County Land Use, Development, and Management Act; defines terms; addresses local authority to adopt local land use requirements and regulations; amends the process to vacate a public street; clarifies local authority regarding a planning commission; amends the authority of a local legislative body regarding zoning.
  • NY AB, newly passed in New York, Amends the Environmental Conservation Law; extends the authority of the Department of Environmental Conservation to fix by regulation measures for the management of crabs.

Moving Forward

Pro-sportsmen legislators should remain vigilant against attempts to curtail state fish and wildlife management authority, working with both agency staff and sportsmen’s interests to discourage local regulation of hunting and angling and to mitigate issues that arise from federal overreach into longstanding and well-established state management authority. Further, state legislators are encouraged to consider introducing preemption legislation that specifically states that their respective state will retain management authority, and that municipal governments cannot adopt regulations concerning hunting and angling. 

Contact

For more information regarding this issue, please contact:
Aoibheann Cline (916) 633-3664; acline@congressionalsportsmen.org

Share this page

Your opinion counts

A key component of the American System of Conservation Funding, the Pittman- Robertson Act directs excise taxes on firearms, ammo, and archery equipment to wildlife conservation. Since its inception in 1937 the Act has generated more than $12 billion towards conservation. However, there has been a loss of 5 million hunters in the past decade. One proposed solution to help fund conservation is to dedicate lottery proceeds for conservation purposes. Would you support this effort in your state?

Vote Here
Get Involved

We work hard to educate elected officials about issues important to you, but we can't do it alone. Find out how you can get involved and support CSF.

Read More