| Marketplace | Services | Contact Us | Community | Arts & Entertainment | Local Guides | |||
|
|||
|
David Sikes David Sikes, Caller-Times outdoors writer specializes in hunting and fishing. David's columns are published Thursdays and Sundays. David also compiles a fishing report on Saturdays. He can be reached at sikesd@caller.com. Thursday, March 1, 2001 Proposed bills may change sportsman's way of lifeCongressional lingo possibly a clever disguise for legislation unpopular with area outdoorsmen
I believe that to truly grasp the underlying motivations, shrewd schemes and unholy alliances at the core of the political machine, most people must cross the politico line. Countless well-meaning political journalists, once bent on objectivity and the watchdog ethic, have cracked the political nut, only to join the other side. I applaud the ones who remain true. Regarding the others, my guess is that admiration and a thirst for power replaced idealism, cynicism and suspicion. Or perhaps they grew weary of the endless battles. Certainly, they are outgunned. What I'm getting at is my utter disdain for the secret language - including the between-the-lines stuff - in Austin and Washington. But I must deal with it. And today's column is my attempt. Several bills that, if passed, could affect your way of life as sportsmen have been proposed in the 77th Session of the Texas Legislature. Across my desk pass volumes of literature on these potential laws, regulation changes and amendments to the Texas Constitution. I am overwhelmed. But with the help of Alan Allen, a political watchdog with Sportsmen Conservationists of Texas, I have narrowed the list of bills that might be of interest to you. This is not a comprehensive list. Animal protection Let me first dispense with the so-called PETA bill proposed by Texas Rep. Manny Najera of El Paso. As so many potentially dangerous proposals, House Bill 653 appears innocuous, even noble at first glance. It purports to protect animals from mistreatment. But, as submitted, the bill would reduce the legal standard of evidence required in cases of suspected animal cruelty to the point of making it illegal for anglers to keep fish on a stringer or in a live well. A savvy and zealous prosecutor would only have to prove an angler negligent, not willful, in his or her cruelty to their catch. Sound absurd or too ridiculous to pass, let alone enforce? Stranger things have happened. The bill also would make such offences a state jail felony or worse. Currently, animal cruelty is a Class A misdemeanor. Hollow thought Another proposal receiving much attention from the outdoors community is one that would add to the Texas Constitution this phrase: "Every person has the right to hunt and fish in this state in accordance with the laws of this state." The list of esteemed writers, sportsmen, hunting and fishing organizations and conservative politicians supporting this is long and impressive. There is no point in me explaining author Rep. Barry Telford's obvious intent here. So allow me to provide another point of view being circulated by Rick Story, vice president of the Wildlife Legislative Fund of America, a national non-profit watchdog group that protects the rights of hunters, anglers and trappers. Story argues that this proposal has no teeth and that Texas sportsmen might be better served without such language in the constitution. Hear him out. He has a point. Story warns that the constitutional amendment promising perpetual protection for hunting and fishing could instead instill complacency in sportsmen, who might otherwise remain diligent and watchful against threats to their way of life. Let me reiterate this is not my argument. I'm simply providing an interesting perspective. He said that the words "in accordance with the laws of this state" essentially make the amendment hollow. This clause leaves the door open to restrictive laws that could ban many forms of hunting and fishing, without technically violating the constitution. To support his argument, Story points to a lack of opposition from anti-hunting organizations to identical amendments proposed and later passed in several other states. Others to consider To truly protect our way of life as sportsmen, maybe the proposal should be reworded to include traditional definitions of hunting and fishing to lock in the status quo. Story suggests that sportsmen's groups might better direct their funds toward this end instead of putting money into a campaign to pass the proposal as written. To contact The Wildlife Legislative Fund of America, call (614) 888-4868; e-mail info@wlfa.org or visit its Website: www.wlfa.org. I'll quickly cover four more proposed bills, and then I have to go lie down. The Shrimp Bill (HB 937), would severely limit the ability of Texas Parks and Wildlife to close waters to shrimping, and allow such closures for only a limited number of reasons and to only a few certain areas. This bill would not allow TPW to limit shrimping to protect young flounder, to reduce bycatch or to protect sea grass, unless the state legislature had previously designated the area a fish sanctuary or if the area is a man-made or nature pass from the gulf to a bay. Rep. Jim Solis of Harlingen introduced this one. Another bill that deals with shrimping was introduced by Texas Sen. Eddie Lucio Jr. of Brownsville. SB 810 would effectively undo TPW's new shrimping rules, aimed at reducing over shrimping, curbing the harmful effects of shrimping in certain areas at certain times and, by doing so, improve sport fishing opportunities. The rules also are meant to increase profits for shrimpers by encouraging shrimpers to catch larger higher-priced shrimp, according to Hal Osburn, TPW director of Coastal Fisheries. Lucio proposes to take away from TPW the authority to regulate shrimping and either requires new rules to pass legislative scrutiny, as was the case prior to 1989 or place that regulating responsibility on the federal government. Essentially, this bill would handcuff TPW. Also proposed is HB 1482, by Rep. Joe Deshotel of Port Arthur, which would eliminate the requirement of a fishing license for anglers 65 and older. Seniors who turned 65 after Sept. 1, 1995 currently pay a reduced rate for the privilege. Those born before Sept. 1, 1930 pay nothing. And then there's HB 1778, by Rep. Kim Brimmer. This bill would require the hunter education course only for prospective hunters that are 12 to 17 years old. Hunters who don't take to the field until they turn 18, would never have to take the course. Currently, all hunters, including adults who turned 18 on or after Sept. 2, 1971, and children of at least 12 years old must take the course for certification before they can legally hunt. I've taken the course and I like the current system, which has resulted in fewer hunting accidents in Texas, despite more hunters in the field. In 1971, before hunter safety certification began, there were 9.4 accidents per 100,000 licensed hunters. The most recent records show this ratio had dropped to 3.8 accidents per 100,000 hunters. Outdoors writer David Sikes' column appears Thursdays and Sundays. He can be reached at 886-3616 or by e-mail at sikesd@caller.com 
© 2000 Corpus Christi Caller Times, a Scripps Howard newspaper. All rights reserved. |
 |
 |
[an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] |