spectr17
05-21-2003, 01:21 AM
North Carolina Bear Legislation Has National Implications
LARRY SELF/Outdoor Writer, The Greeneville Sun
05-17-2003
What is said to have begun with a confrontation between Tennessee and North Carolina bear hunters on a narrow Carolina forest road could affect hunting nationwide. Legislation being reviewed in the North Carolina General Assembly to limit the number of bear and boar hunters with dogs allowed into the state each season could have a domino effect drawing the attention of hunters across the country. And worst of all, provide ammunition to animal rights activists.
Background
Back in April of last year, bear hunters from four clubs and 10 East Tennessee counties made up of Tennessee Bear Hunters Association (TBHA) members came together for an urgent meeting to discuss rumors of proposed legislation being drawn up in North Carolina that could alter the number of non-resident bear hunters licensed each season. That concern is no longer a rumor with the introduction of Senate Bill 793 in the North Carolina General Assembly.
At least twice in the past, proposals have come forward to restrict the number of non-resident bear hunters licensed in North Carolina but failed. Another proposal brought up before was to align the Tennessee bear season with that of North Carolina to eliminate some of the influx of Tennessee hunters. The North Carolina Bear Hunters Association (NCBHA) said last spring if they made a decision to pursue legislation to limit the number of non-residents it would happen within 14 months to allow time to have any change reflected in the 2003 bear season. That time has come despite calls for hunters on both sides of the border to unite.
Senate Bill 793
Senate Bill 793 was sponsored by North Carolina Senator Joe Sam Queen on April 3, 2003, and is entitled “An Act To Establish A Nonresident Bear/Wild Boar Dog Hunting Special Hunting Activity License.” The Bill was referred to the Agriculture/Environment/Natural Resources Committee where it sits at the present time. The Bill introduces the new license required to be possessed by nonresident hunters in the state of North Carolina at an additional cost of $150 to existing licenses. The license will be required to hunt bear or boar with dogs if passed. The licenses will be limited to 1,500 per calendar year and will be issued in the order applications are received.
In a phone interview, Senator Queen said he was asked to sponsor the Bill by members of the NCBHA and had met with NCBHA President Jim Noles and member Wallace Messer. Queen said he was making the bill to support North Carolina bear hunters. He added the Bill is in committee now and is midways through the process. Queen said if they can get a good Bill out of it, they would pass it. If not, it would probably die on the vine.
“My interest is in the preservation of bear habitat and our bear population,” said Queen. “We need to monitor and have some control over our out-of-state hunters.
It’s a proactive, pro-management Bill that I don’t see as heavy handed.” Queen also added the legislation would raise money for wildlife coffers with the additional license fee. Currently, a nonresident hunter already spends $260 for licenses required to hunt bear in North Carolina.
When asked about the chance of repercussion from other state agencies or legislation proposed by hunters in other states in response to the North Carolina limitations, Senator Queen said the committee would look at such concerns. Of the question regarding a loss in revenue, Queen said the issue had never been brought up but he welcomed those concerns. Although more revenue could be generated with the new licenses, overall revenue from the influx of hunters that spend money on lodging and meals could be sacrificed if hunters decide not to come to North Carolina. Senate Bill 793 had no action as of April 24, 2003 deadline which was extended to May 1, the crossover date for it to be handed over to the House. Since Bill 793 is a Finance Bill it did not die on the table with the passing of the later deadline and can remain active until the end of the session in July.
“I’m trying to do the bear hunters’ will,” said Queen in sponsoring the Bill he said was written by North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) Chief Deputy Director Richard Hamilton. Senator Queen was unsure if the new Bill would include lifetime license holders in the 1,500 hunter limitation. Hunters that bought lifetime licenses before 1994 are already licensed to hunt bear in North Carolina.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Stance
When contacted, NCWRC Chief Deputy Director Richard Hamilton stressed the Commission had not taken a stance in support of Bill 793 and were not the originators of the Bill. As is often the case, the NCWRC is called upon to assist in the writing of legislation effecting wildlife. Hamilton said he wrote the Bill at the request of Senator Queen.
Hamilton also believes the legislation grew out of the opening day competition in the area known as the 12-Mile Strip where Tennessee and North Carolina hunters confronted each other over a blocked road. “We’re blessed to have bears,” added Hamilton. “We all need to just work together”. Hamilton’s records show there were 699 non-resident bear permits sold in 2001 and 707 in 2002.
That would ease some concern with the 1,500 hunter limit, but since he confirmed the non-resident lifetime license holders were not exempt—there is a potential problem. The language of the Bill does include these lifetime non-resident license holders in the limitations of which there are 1,420. With the first come, first serve licensing format, there would be non-resident hunters left out of the season.
“We’re stepping back from this,” said Assistant Chief of Wildlife Management Brad Gunn. He said the legislation isn’t something from their agency and their stance is not to get involved. Gunn said he didn’t want to get in a licensing price war with Tennessee or other states which is often what happens in these situations. He noted there is similar situation out West where another state limited non-resident hunters and lawsuits have evolved. One of Gunn’s concerns is the Bill affects federal land for public use. Gunn is also concerned about animal rights organizations getting involved in a situation when hunters can’t get along. “We spend so much time fighting each other we’re losing the battle for habitat,” said Gunn.
One of Senator Queen’s reasons for sponsoring Senate Bill 793 was to protect North Carolina’s bear resource and control the effects of out-of-state hunters. Mark Jones, the Commission’s black bear biologist, doesn’t see a problem. “There’s no evidence that there’s a problem,” said Jones. He added the number of non-resident hunters is not having an impact on North Carolina’s bear population. “It’s a social problem, not a biological one,” added Jones. He also noted the bear population in North Carolina keeps growing by leaps and bounds. That’s something Senator Queen said he would have to confirm.
Hunter Reaction
At a second meeting dedicated to this situation in April 2003, TBHA members expressed their concerns again. This time, Tennessee bear hunters were sure their rights to hunt on federal land were being infringed upon by the North Carolina legislation associated with Senate Bill 793.
“We’re done,” said TBHA member Brad Collins. “I can’t feed dogs for just a two week Tennessee season.” Many live right on the State line with North Carolina, which has a substantially longer season with over eight weeks of bear hunting. The majority of Tennessee bear hunters are members of the NCBHA. Collins fears the North Carolina legislation could have a domino effect. Other states may follow suit in retaliation.
Tennessee hunters don’t believe North Carolina officials are looking at the whole picture. Volunteer hunters and hunters from states all over the country already pay $260 to bear hunt in North Carolina annually. The fee covers a Non-Resident Bear/Boar Permit, Game Lands Permit, Non-Resident State Hunting License, and Non-Resident Big Game Permit. Tennessee hunters believe the increase of $150 and the limitation to 1,500 hunters would cause a loss of revenue to North Carolina. Hunters spend huge dollars not for licenses alone but for lodging, meals, and especially gasoline. Hunters from Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia also lease a lot of land on the North Carolina Coast for its bear hunting.
“It just turned personal in my opinion,” said Rodney Burris, a Polk County Commissioner and Tennessee bear hunter. Burris is a member of the TBHA and past member of the NCBHA. He thinks North Carolina is opening a “big can of worms” trying to limit hunting on federal land and fears it could lead to lawsuit after lawsuit in regards to lifetime non-resident license holders. Burris has talked with South Carolina hunters ready to pursue legislation restricting non-resident deer hunting in the Palmetto State if the legislation on bear hunting passes in North Carolina.
Burris said the incident that stirred the border state controversy has two sides to the story. North Carolina hunters accused Tennessee hunters of blocking the road on U.S. Forest Service land during the 2001 season. He said there were lot of bears that year and hunters were jockeying for positions. Things got crowded and where Tennessee hunters pulled off on the narrow road it was blocked. Whether you see it as intentional or not, Tennessee hunters were on a bear and not eager to move their vehicles.
The big question in Burris’ eyes is whether non-resident hunters can afford the North Carolina increase. He said the $410 fee is another hardship on the average man. He’s also worried about the effect on future hunting. Burris said, “If a Daddy wants to take his kid hunting, he won’t be able to afford it.”
“We all need to stick together,” said Roy Stiles, a NCBHA member who runs his bear dogs in Tennessee during the training season. Stiles is also president of the American Plott Hound Association. At this point, Stiles isn’t taking a stance for Senate Bill 793 but sees pros and cons for it.
“I hate to see any legislation that would cause confrontation between hunters from different states,” said Stiles, a highly respected bear dog man. Personally, he said he doesn’t see the issue itself as a big problem. His conversations with NCBHA President Jim Noles lead him to believe the underlying issue is to get the Tennessee and North Carolina bear seasons coordinated to run at the same time to ease overcrowding. Attempts to reach Noles have been unsuccessful. Stiles believes this would clear up the conflict, limit the congregation of hunters in certain areas, and stop overcrowding.
Stiles said the negative effects of the current legislation as more detrimental than the pros he can see. He added anytime you create animosity between hunters it’s fuel for animal rights activists. His other main concern is retaliation from other states. He’s had a number of calls from hunters from South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. Stiles said he tries not to support anything that would infringe upon another hunter’s rights.
Bobby Harris is president of the Albemarle Houndsmen Association (AHA) on the North Carolina Coast. He said he’s worked with the NCBHA on issues in the past, but this is one he and his organization aren’t supporting. His biggest problem is the Bill discriminates against the dog hunter, and local hunters aren’t for it. Harris recognizes many out-of-state hunters are leasing land in North Carolina. That’s a lot of revenue for small communities on the coast with hunters coming from far away as Maine and Wisconsin. Harris’ other concern is other states will retaliate by increasing their non-resident fees. He said the North Carolina non-resident license costs are already higher than everybody else’s.
Harris says the AHA is about keeping the right to hunt, and then keeping the right to hunt with dogs. He’s opposed to anything that negatively effects hunting and believes Senate Bill 793 will die in Committee.
Unite
There are a lot of issues at stake and still in the air with this situation, but one thing is for sure. If North Carolina hunters resent Tennessee hunters crossing the border based on the competition factor or is warranted due to unethical practices, situations like these are what animal rights activists feed on. Hunters in opposition are all the ammunition they need. This issue needs to be resolved. Sportsmen cannot win if we cannot unite across state borders.
LARRY SELF/Outdoor Writer, The Greeneville Sun
05-17-2003
What is said to have begun with a confrontation between Tennessee and North Carolina bear hunters on a narrow Carolina forest road could affect hunting nationwide. Legislation being reviewed in the North Carolina General Assembly to limit the number of bear and boar hunters with dogs allowed into the state each season could have a domino effect drawing the attention of hunters across the country. And worst of all, provide ammunition to animal rights activists.
Background
Back in April of last year, bear hunters from four clubs and 10 East Tennessee counties made up of Tennessee Bear Hunters Association (TBHA) members came together for an urgent meeting to discuss rumors of proposed legislation being drawn up in North Carolina that could alter the number of non-resident bear hunters licensed each season. That concern is no longer a rumor with the introduction of Senate Bill 793 in the North Carolina General Assembly.
At least twice in the past, proposals have come forward to restrict the number of non-resident bear hunters licensed in North Carolina but failed. Another proposal brought up before was to align the Tennessee bear season with that of North Carolina to eliminate some of the influx of Tennessee hunters. The North Carolina Bear Hunters Association (NCBHA) said last spring if they made a decision to pursue legislation to limit the number of non-residents it would happen within 14 months to allow time to have any change reflected in the 2003 bear season. That time has come despite calls for hunters on both sides of the border to unite.
Senate Bill 793
Senate Bill 793 was sponsored by North Carolina Senator Joe Sam Queen on April 3, 2003, and is entitled “An Act To Establish A Nonresident Bear/Wild Boar Dog Hunting Special Hunting Activity License.” The Bill was referred to the Agriculture/Environment/Natural Resources Committee where it sits at the present time. The Bill introduces the new license required to be possessed by nonresident hunters in the state of North Carolina at an additional cost of $150 to existing licenses. The license will be required to hunt bear or boar with dogs if passed. The licenses will be limited to 1,500 per calendar year and will be issued in the order applications are received.
In a phone interview, Senator Queen said he was asked to sponsor the Bill by members of the NCBHA and had met with NCBHA President Jim Noles and member Wallace Messer. Queen said he was making the bill to support North Carolina bear hunters. He added the Bill is in committee now and is midways through the process. Queen said if they can get a good Bill out of it, they would pass it. If not, it would probably die on the vine.
“My interest is in the preservation of bear habitat and our bear population,” said Queen. “We need to monitor and have some control over our out-of-state hunters.
It’s a proactive, pro-management Bill that I don’t see as heavy handed.” Queen also added the legislation would raise money for wildlife coffers with the additional license fee. Currently, a nonresident hunter already spends $260 for licenses required to hunt bear in North Carolina.
When asked about the chance of repercussion from other state agencies or legislation proposed by hunters in other states in response to the North Carolina limitations, Senator Queen said the committee would look at such concerns. Of the question regarding a loss in revenue, Queen said the issue had never been brought up but he welcomed those concerns. Although more revenue could be generated with the new licenses, overall revenue from the influx of hunters that spend money on lodging and meals could be sacrificed if hunters decide not to come to North Carolina. Senate Bill 793 had no action as of April 24, 2003 deadline which was extended to May 1, the crossover date for it to be handed over to the House. Since Bill 793 is a Finance Bill it did not die on the table with the passing of the later deadline and can remain active until the end of the session in July.
“I’m trying to do the bear hunters’ will,” said Queen in sponsoring the Bill he said was written by North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) Chief Deputy Director Richard Hamilton. Senator Queen was unsure if the new Bill would include lifetime license holders in the 1,500 hunter limitation. Hunters that bought lifetime licenses before 1994 are already licensed to hunt bear in North Carolina.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Stance
When contacted, NCWRC Chief Deputy Director Richard Hamilton stressed the Commission had not taken a stance in support of Bill 793 and were not the originators of the Bill. As is often the case, the NCWRC is called upon to assist in the writing of legislation effecting wildlife. Hamilton said he wrote the Bill at the request of Senator Queen.
Hamilton also believes the legislation grew out of the opening day competition in the area known as the 12-Mile Strip where Tennessee and North Carolina hunters confronted each other over a blocked road. “We’re blessed to have bears,” added Hamilton. “We all need to just work together”. Hamilton’s records show there were 699 non-resident bear permits sold in 2001 and 707 in 2002.
That would ease some concern with the 1,500 hunter limit, but since he confirmed the non-resident lifetime license holders were not exempt—there is a potential problem. The language of the Bill does include these lifetime non-resident license holders in the limitations of which there are 1,420. With the first come, first serve licensing format, there would be non-resident hunters left out of the season.
“We’re stepping back from this,” said Assistant Chief of Wildlife Management Brad Gunn. He said the legislation isn’t something from their agency and their stance is not to get involved. Gunn said he didn’t want to get in a licensing price war with Tennessee or other states which is often what happens in these situations. He noted there is similar situation out West where another state limited non-resident hunters and lawsuits have evolved. One of Gunn’s concerns is the Bill affects federal land for public use. Gunn is also concerned about animal rights organizations getting involved in a situation when hunters can’t get along. “We spend so much time fighting each other we’re losing the battle for habitat,” said Gunn.
One of Senator Queen’s reasons for sponsoring Senate Bill 793 was to protect North Carolina’s bear resource and control the effects of out-of-state hunters. Mark Jones, the Commission’s black bear biologist, doesn’t see a problem. “There’s no evidence that there’s a problem,” said Jones. He added the number of non-resident hunters is not having an impact on North Carolina’s bear population. “It’s a social problem, not a biological one,” added Jones. He also noted the bear population in North Carolina keeps growing by leaps and bounds. That’s something Senator Queen said he would have to confirm.
Hunter Reaction
At a second meeting dedicated to this situation in April 2003, TBHA members expressed their concerns again. This time, Tennessee bear hunters were sure their rights to hunt on federal land were being infringed upon by the North Carolina legislation associated with Senate Bill 793.
“We’re done,” said TBHA member Brad Collins. “I can’t feed dogs for just a two week Tennessee season.” Many live right on the State line with North Carolina, which has a substantially longer season with over eight weeks of bear hunting. The majority of Tennessee bear hunters are members of the NCBHA. Collins fears the North Carolina legislation could have a domino effect. Other states may follow suit in retaliation.
Tennessee hunters don’t believe North Carolina officials are looking at the whole picture. Volunteer hunters and hunters from states all over the country already pay $260 to bear hunt in North Carolina annually. The fee covers a Non-Resident Bear/Boar Permit, Game Lands Permit, Non-Resident State Hunting License, and Non-Resident Big Game Permit. Tennessee hunters believe the increase of $150 and the limitation to 1,500 hunters would cause a loss of revenue to North Carolina. Hunters spend huge dollars not for licenses alone but for lodging, meals, and especially gasoline. Hunters from Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia also lease a lot of land on the North Carolina Coast for its bear hunting.
“It just turned personal in my opinion,” said Rodney Burris, a Polk County Commissioner and Tennessee bear hunter. Burris is a member of the TBHA and past member of the NCBHA. He thinks North Carolina is opening a “big can of worms” trying to limit hunting on federal land and fears it could lead to lawsuit after lawsuit in regards to lifetime non-resident license holders. Burris has talked with South Carolina hunters ready to pursue legislation restricting non-resident deer hunting in the Palmetto State if the legislation on bear hunting passes in North Carolina.
Burris said the incident that stirred the border state controversy has two sides to the story. North Carolina hunters accused Tennessee hunters of blocking the road on U.S. Forest Service land during the 2001 season. He said there were lot of bears that year and hunters were jockeying for positions. Things got crowded and where Tennessee hunters pulled off on the narrow road it was blocked. Whether you see it as intentional or not, Tennessee hunters were on a bear and not eager to move their vehicles.
The big question in Burris’ eyes is whether non-resident hunters can afford the North Carolina increase. He said the $410 fee is another hardship on the average man. He’s also worried about the effect on future hunting. Burris said, “If a Daddy wants to take his kid hunting, he won’t be able to afford it.”
“We all need to stick together,” said Roy Stiles, a NCBHA member who runs his bear dogs in Tennessee during the training season. Stiles is also president of the American Plott Hound Association. At this point, Stiles isn’t taking a stance for Senate Bill 793 but sees pros and cons for it.
“I hate to see any legislation that would cause confrontation between hunters from different states,” said Stiles, a highly respected bear dog man. Personally, he said he doesn’t see the issue itself as a big problem. His conversations with NCBHA President Jim Noles lead him to believe the underlying issue is to get the Tennessee and North Carolina bear seasons coordinated to run at the same time to ease overcrowding. Attempts to reach Noles have been unsuccessful. Stiles believes this would clear up the conflict, limit the congregation of hunters in certain areas, and stop overcrowding.
Stiles said the negative effects of the current legislation as more detrimental than the pros he can see. He added anytime you create animosity between hunters it’s fuel for animal rights activists. His other main concern is retaliation from other states. He’s had a number of calls from hunters from South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. Stiles said he tries not to support anything that would infringe upon another hunter’s rights.
Bobby Harris is president of the Albemarle Houndsmen Association (AHA) on the North Carolina Coast. He said he’s worked with the NCBHA on issues in the past, but this is one he and his organization aren’t supporting. His biggest problem is the Bill discriminates against the dog hunter, and local hunters aren’t for it. Harris recognizes many out-of-state hunters are leasing land in North Carolina. That’s a lot of revenue for small communities on the coast with hunters coming from far away as Maine and Wisconsin. Harris’ other concern is other states will retaliate by increasing their non-resident fees. He said the North Carolina non-resident license costs are already higher than everybody else’s.
Harris says the AHA is about keeping the right to hunt, and then keeping the right to hunt with dogs. He’s opposed to anything that negatively effects hunting and believes Senate Bill 793 will die in Committee.
Unite
There are a lot of issues at stake and still in the air with this situation, but one thing is for sure. If North Carolina hunters resent Tennessee hunters crossing the border based on the competition factor or is warranted due to unethical practices, situations like these are what animal rights activists feed on. Hunters in opposition are all the ammunition they need. This issue needs to be resolved. Sportsmen cannot win if we cannot unite across state borders.