The Sportsmen's Heritage Act (H.R. 4089) passed the U.S. House of Representatives by a vote of 274 to 146 on April 17. Many groups are now pushing for action in the Senate, however, the bill's momentum has created a rift among some conservation organizations. While many sportsmen's groups are touting the bill's importance to entrench hunting, fishing and shooting on federal public lands, others claim the bill is unnecessary and could undermine wilderness protection, reports the Wildlife Management Institute.

A compilation of several individual bills, H.R. 4089 has four main components:? Title I recognizes hunting, fishing and recreational shooting as recognized activities on National Forests and Bureau of Land Management Lands; Title II protects recreational shooting on National Monuments; Title III would allow hunters to import polar bears from Canada that were legally harvested before the species was listed under the Endangered Species Act; and Title IV clarifies that the Environmental Protection Agency cannot regulate traditional lead ammunition and fishing tackle.

The Senate has separate bills covering most of the individual titles within the bill (S. 2066, S. 1066, and S. 838), but there isn't a similar compilation bill. As a result, a group of 41 sportsmen's groups sent a letter to Senate leadership on May 7 urging the chamber to take the House-passed bill and move it forward.

"H.R. 4089 is a significant first step in recognizing the importance of and facilitating the expansion and enhancement of hunting and recreational fishing and shooting," the groups wrote. "We urge you to take up H.R. 4089 and quickly move a strong, pro-sportsmen's package in the Senate. With your support, we can help overcome the obstacles facing sportsmen and women today and further the sportsmen's tradition so that it can be handed down for generations to come."

However, the bill has attracted?opposition from some groups ? ranging from?mainstream environmental organizations to the Backcountry Hunters and Anglers - that believe it will open up wilderness areas for motorized recreation and potential industrial development. A Congressional Research Service memorandum sent prior to the House vote stated the original bill language was "imprecise" and that "The language could be construed as opening wilderness areas to virtually any activity related to hunting and fishing, even if otherwise inconsistent with wilderness values." The House agreed to a manager's amendment to clarify the language stating that the bill is not intended to permit motorized recreation or mineral extraction.

Another concern to some groups is that the House approved an amendment offered by Rep. Virginia Foxx that would require monument designations under the Antiquities Act to be approved by state legislatures and governors where the proposed monument is located.

The committees with jurisdiction in the Senate, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee or the Environment and Public Works Committee, have not taken up any of the bills that are the stand-alone companions to provisions within H.R. 4089. In addition, Senators are beginning to hear from both sides of the debate on the merits of the proposal. Whether they can address the concerns and if they can make that happen during the remaining months of this Congress is still in question. (jas)