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.
In most states, fish and wildlife agencies are the entities best equipped to address fish and wildlife management issues within their respective borders. Recent efforts have been made to undermine state fish and wildlife management authority by placing greater authority under federal or local jurisdiction poses a serious threat to the future of state-based scientific fish and wildlife management, as well as hunting, fishing, and trapping.
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.
- 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.”
- Congresswoman Ileana Ross-Lehtinen (FL) introduced the Preserving Public Access to Public Waters Act, in 2015 which would require state collaboration and agreement between the Secretaries of Interior and Commerce before any marine reserve or protected area could be implemented in state or territorial waters.
- Passed in 2011, Arizona SB 1334, 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 – Became law in 2019 and requested 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.
- 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 SB 2409, 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.
Sportsmen Legislators should remain vigilant against attempts to curtail state fish and wildlife management authority by working with both agency staff and sportsmen stakeholder groups to discourage local regulation of hunting fishing, and trapping. This will mitigate issues that arise from local interference and 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 state fish and wildlife agency will retain management authority, and that municipal governments are not able to regulate hunting, fishing and trapping at the local level.
For more information regarding this issue, please contact:
Kent Keene; 202-430-0655; firstname.lastname@example.org
Share this page
Your opinion counts
Recently, two Montana state representatives have proposed more aggressive legislation addressing the state's gray wolf population. These bills range from the addition of a wolf tag into big game combination tags, to year-round sanctioned harvest without a license, use of snare traps, and private reimbursement of wolf harvest. Currently, the wolf population in Montana sits at 850 wolves, which is 700 over the state’s minimum recovery goal of 150 wolves. Which of the below options for wolf management do you support? (Select all that apply)Vote Here
- Regulated hunting under the management of the state fish and wildlife agency during a specific season (22.92%)
- Year-round hunting of wolves without a license (14.58%)
- The use of snares (trapping) without hunting allowances (2.08%)
- A combination of hunting and trapping during specific seasons regulated by the fish and wildlife agency (37.50%)
- The establishment of a bounty program to incentivize harvest during specific seasons (2.08%)
- Other (0.00%)
- I do not support the take of wolves (20.83%)