2 Cool Fishing Forum banner

Exotic Hunting Ban

5K views 35 replies 23 participants last post by  FormerHR 
#1 ·
Brought to my attention on another board....don't know if its been posted here yet or not if it has ....sorry...cuz I haven't seen it. Definately needs attention.

H.R. 3829: To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit certain interstate conduct relating to exotic...
Bill Status

Introduced:Oct 15, 2007Sponsor:Rep. Steve Cohen [D-TN]Status:IntroducedGo to Bill Status PageYou are viewing the following version of this bill:

Introduced in House: This is the original text of the bill as it was written by its sponsor and submitted to the House for consideration.

Text of Legislation

HR 3829 IH

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 3829To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit certain interstate conduct relating to exotic animals.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

October 15, 2007

Mr. COHEN (for himself and Mr. WHITFIELD) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILLTo amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit certain interstate conduct relating to exotic animals.

  • Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  • This Act may be cited as the `Sportsmanship in Hunting Act of 2007'.

SEC. 2. TRANSPORT OR POSSESSION OF EXOTIC ANIMALS FOR PURPOSES OF KILLING OR INJURING THEM.

  • (a) In General- Chapter 3 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 49. Exotic animals

  • `(a) Prohibition- Whoever, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly transfers, transports, or possesses a confined exotic animal, for the purposes of allowing the killing or injuring of that animal for entertainment or for the collection of a trophy, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

    `(b) Definitions- In this section--
    • `(1) the term `confined exotic animal' means a mammal of a species not indigenous to the United States, that has been held in captivity--
      • `(A) the majority of the animal's life; or

        `(B) a period of 1 year; and
      `(2) the term `captivity' does not include any period during which an animal lives as it would in the wild--
      • `(A) surviving primarily by foraging for naturally occurring food;

        `(B) roaming at will over an open area of not less than 1,000 acres; and

        `(C) having the opportunity to avoid hunters.'.
    (b) Conforming Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 3 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
    • `49. Exotic animals.'.
 
See less See more
#2 ·
ut oh! that's going put a hurting on some big ranch owners. I wonder how that slipped in?

And just curious about the captive part. Would high fence be looked at from these guys as captive?
 
#3 ·
Big ranch owners would be fine, it's people with high fenced ranches under 1000 acres that wouldn't be allowed to sell exotic hunts... the way I read it. A and C are easily met on nearly all ranches.

But, I'd like to know what exactly "in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce" means. And it seems like if the animal was taken for food, and you could prove it was eaten, then taken for entertainment or a trophy would then not apply.

Sounds like they are trying to prevent the caged lion hunts.
 
#7 ·
capn said:
Big ranch owners would be fine, it's people with high fenced ranches under 1000 acres that wouldn't be allowed to sell exotic hunts... the way I read it. A and C are easily met on nearly all ranches.

But, I'd like to know what exactly "in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce" means. And it seems like if the animal was taken for food, and you could prove it was eaten, then taken for entertainment or a trophy would then not apply.

Sounds like they are trying to prevent the caged lion hunts.
I agree Capn.....I don't believe in the "caged" hunts myself but if I had 200 acres that was high fenced and wanted to shoot one of my axis for food like you said.....would I be considered a criminal....I don't think the government needs to be making that decision.
 
#8 ·
This doesn't qualify as for collection of "trophy"
Borderbandit said:
I agree Capn.....I don't believe in the "caged" hunts myself but if I had 200 acres that was high fenced and wanted to shoot one of my axis for food like you said.....would I be considered a criminal....I don't think the government needs to be making that decision.
 
#10 ·
the way i see it,, It's is a step to jack with huunting period! I agree that letting a lion out and shootiing it is way wrong. But these guys read stuff different than the normal person.
 
#12 ·
speckle-catcher said:
I'd like to know specifically what animals there are defining as "exotics animals"
An animal not native to the United States...i.e.: an animal that was introduced from another area of the world...

Sounds like if you'd eat what you kill, you wouldn't have a problem. By the wording, I understand it to say only if its killed for entertainment or as a trophy. If you kill it for food its okay.

Also sounds like he's attempting to end the argument about the minimum amount of land that should be high fenced before its considered a "canned hunt". By the wording, I read 1,000 acres or more is his interpretation of an animal living in the wild.

What it really sounds like though is another one of those slippery slope tactics used by democrats...
 
#13 ·
Borderbandit said:
I agree Capn.....I don't believe in the "caged" hunts myself but if I had 200 acres that was high fenced and wanted to shoot one of my axis for food like you said.....would I be considered a criminal....I don't think the government needs to be making that decision.
I think you're misinterpreting it slightly (actually, we all probably are). It wouldn't say anything about YOU killing an animal on your land. It would have to do with selling an animal to be killed. So the problem could arise with you selling me a hunt for an exotic on your 200 acres of land.

But when it only lists interstate and foreign commerce, I wonder if that would only keep you from selling a hunt to an out of state hunter or foreign citizen? I don't know about that.

And killing the animal for food may be a purposeful exemption - meaning that the law is really implied to prevent the hunting of "dangerous game" in cages that are for trophy purposes only and not for eating. Otherwise the hunter would have to eat the lion - Axis deer hunters will gladly eat their game and be unaffected.
 
#15 ·
The 1000 acres is the one that gets me. 1000 acres with not a tree one isn't very sporting, where 500 acres with tons of thick brush could be very sporting. Putting an acreage limit is a poor interpretation IMO.

Seems like it could be a decent idea if you just took B out of it, and left it to a jury to decide if the animal survived by naturally occuring food and had a chance to evade hunters. Most of us would probably agree with that definition of sporting. Then add something that spells it out that defines eating the animal as not being an entertainment or trophy only hunt.
 
#16 ·
capn said:
I think you're misinterpreting it slightly (actually, we all probably are). It wouldn't say anything about YOU killing an animal on your land. It would have to do with selling an animal to be killed. So the problem could arise with you selling me a hunt for an exotic on your 200 acres of land.

But when it only lists interstate and foreign commerce, I wonder if that would only keep you from selling a hunt to an out of state hunter or foreign citizen? I don't know about that.

And killing the animal for food may be a purposeful exemption - meaning that the law is really implied to prevent the hunting of "dangerous game" in cages that are for trophy purposes only and not for eating. Otherwise the hunter would have to eat the lion - Axis deer hunters will gladly eat their game and be unaffected.
Even though I don't have the land.....I hate "canned" hunters and hunts.....I just do not care for the government making that decision for me.
 
#17 ·
No more t-bones

OK here's a odd twist to all of this it specifically speaks of indigenous animals

`(1) the term `confined exotic animal' means a mammal of a species not indigenous to the United States, that has been held in captivity--
  • `(A) the majority of the animal's life; or
A far stretch perhaps but Cattle are not indigenous to the US they where brought here by the spanish as I understand it, so say good by to T-bones.

In ecology, an indigenous species is an organism which is native to a given region or ecosystem. Indigenous species contrast with introduced species. An introduced species, also known as a naturalized or exotic species, is an organism that is not indigenous to a given place, but has been transported there as a result of human activity.

An indigenous species is not necessarily endemic. In biology and ecology, endemic means exclusively native to the biota of a specific place. An indigenous species may occur in more than one locale.

The terms endemic and indigenous do not mean that an organism necessarily originated or evolved where it is found
 
#18 ·
As a benefit, it would take a tool out of the anti's hands, and would make canned hunt participants better labeled as "poachers" than "hunters." It could actually benefit hunters by improving our image to non-hunters

I don't know what I really think about it just yet, just trying to look at from different angles and understand what the actual intent is.
 
#20 ·
Semantics LW. Until you understand the intent in the first place, you can't tell what consequences are intended or unintended. If you understand the intent, you can work to tweak it in such a way as to negate as many unintended consequences as possible.
 
#22 ·
This is a HSUS sponsored bill, and its not the first time its been introduced. Its failed before but that doesn't mean it will this time. HSUS doesn't like exotic hunts..period, this is the first step in banning all hunting.
 
#23 · (Edited)
The way it reads would prohibit interstate transport, meaning across state lines, and not intrastate transport. It also says that there has to be an intent of injuring or killing them along with their transport... not that you could not cross state lines, shoot one and bring it back dead as a trophy. You can't kill or injure a dead animal.

Looks like they are trying to not only prohibit caged hunts, like tigers, bears, deer sold just for the purpose of a hunter killing them but also prohibit the commerce of breeders between states and countries.

It is a poorly written bill and does not have much chance of being passed as it is written IMO.
 
#24 ·
I'm not a fan of canned hunts, but, I don't want the government introducing any legislation that might negatively affect hunting or landowner rights. Here's the parts that I think are really slippery:
`(b) Definitions- In this section--

  • `(1) the term `confined exotic animal' means a mammal of a species not indigenous to the United States, that has been held in captivity--
    • `(A) the majority of the animal's life; or

      `(B) a period of 1 year; and
    `(2) the term `captivity' does not include any period during which an animal lives as it would in the wild--
    • `(A) surviving primarily by foraging for naturally occurring food;

      `(B) roaming at will over an open area of not less than 1,000 acres;
Sounds like if the animal was born and raised on a ranch less than 1000 acres for more than 1 year, then sold to another ranch, it could not be hunted.
 
#25 ·
I don't like this for the same reason that I was against the ban on uzi's because the wording said fully automatic weapons. That is the first step to banning any automatic weapon which includes a lot of peoples shotguns and deer rifles. If we let them ban any kind of hunting, it is the first step to banning all hunting, which is the REAL goal of the antis. The way to stop lion hunts in 1 acre pens is for no one to buy themand deny anyone who does the respect they were seeking. I don't have the stats but I would bet they are exceedingly few and far between even right now. That is a worst case scenario touted by the antis as graphic proof that we are all bloodthirsty barbarians who can't control our bloodlust.
This deserves a call, or fax, to your representative to voice your opposition to it. Mine will sure get one. You would be surprised how few people it takes to get a politicians attention. Sadly, it is because so few people take the time to really make their displeasure known. It is so easy to voice our displeasure and leave it at that. Not good enough to make a difference I'm afraid.
 
#26 ·
Never look at what the intended purpose of a piece of legislation is, look at what some kook can do with it in the US court system. Remember federal judges ain't always the sharpest tool in the tool chest.
And I can see PETA and other organizations trying to use this to stop a whole bunch of things they don't like.
For instance: No cattle are indigenous to this country before the Spaniards brought them here a little less than 500 years ago, They are confined in small pens called feed lots, and a big juicy T-bone steak is sure entertaining, it may even be considered a trophy by some one that ain't had one in a while.
So this little law, could have a whole lot of what is known as unintended consequences.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top