{
  "id": "R44102",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "R44102",
  "active": true,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 442792,
      "date": "2015-07-09",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-06T18:49:02.943090",
      "title": "Hunting and Fishing: Analysis of S. 556 and S. 659",
      "summary": "Hunting, fishing, trapping, and recreational shooting, particularly on federal lands, have been the subjects of various bills for several Congresses. In general, federal land management agencies work with state fish and game agencies in setting quotas, bag or size limits, and other specifics of management. Some agencies currently open more than 90% of their acreage to hunting and fishing. Yet there has been criticism in recent years that insufficient federal land is open to hunting. In the 114th Congress, attention has focused on a pair of companion bills, S. 556 and S. 659. While both are entitled the \u201cBipartisan Sportsmen\u2019s Act of 2015,\u201d each addresses different issues. \nS. 556 is intended to create or reinforce an \u201copen until closed\u201d management policy regarding these activities as well as for trapping and recreational shooting on federal lands. The bill describes criteria for federal land management agencies to consider in closing federal lands to fishing, hunting, or recreational shooting, and it directs that management is subject to existing law. Ambiguities in the text leave some doubt as to which federal lands are subject to the bill\u2019s provisions, which may result in the inclusion of lands managed by the Department of Defense, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and Department of Energy. Those agencies typically are not considered land management agencies. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Park Service (NPS), and Forest Service (FS) generally are considered land management agencies. \nS. 556 would change land management practices on some federal lands and require additional or different analyses, reports, or notices. For some agencies and some of the defined activities, modification may only add or change steps in the planning process. In addition, by including trapping under the definition of hunting, the practice of trapping may be added or encouraged on federal lands where it currently is not encouraged or permitted. Other provisions of the bill specify new procedures for small film crews to operate on federal lands, permit the carrying of bows and crossbows in national parks, and set aside a portion of appropriations under the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) for promoting physical access to federal lands for recreationists. The bill also would require reporting of expenditures under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA; 5 U.S.C. \u00a7504) and of payments under the federal government\u2019s judgment fund in litigation against the federal government.\nS. 659 also addresses matters related to wildlife but is less focused on federal lands. It would exempt lead shot and ammunition and fishing sinkers from the provisions of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA; 15 U.S.C. \u00a72602(2)(B)) and allow territories and states to use more of the funds allocated to them under the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. \u00a7669) for projects involving public target ranges for firearms or archery. The bill would allow hunters to import polar bear trophies taken in Canada before the species was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA; P.L. 93-205). In addition, it would redefine what constitutes hunting waterfowl over a baited field and allow the possession of loaded firearms at Army Corps of Engineers projects in areas open to the public. Finally, the bill would reauthorize or amend seven statutes relating to international wildlife conservation.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44102",
          "sha1": "4e1b0b14295188be51fa46f3ca5604bea85bc8f2",
          "filename": "files/20150709_R44102_4e1b0b14295188be51fa46f3ca5604bea85bc8f2.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44102",
          "sha1": "600363d852e979ffa491cc1660c6a2a3998bde12",
          "filename": "files/20150709_R44102_600363d852e979ffa491cc1660c6a2a3998bde12.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 314,
          "name": "Federal Lands"
        },
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 4644,
          "name": "Federal Role in Ecosystem Restoration"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "American Law",
    "Appropriations",
    "Energy Policy",
    "Environmental Policy"
  ]
}