[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 125 (Wednesday, August 1, 2007)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1671-E1672]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    INTRODUCING THE TEDDY ROOSEVELT BRING BACK OUR PUBLIC LANDS ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. DUNCAN HUNTER

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, July 31, 2007

  Mr. HUNTER. Madam Speaker, in 1909, when President Theodore Roosevelt 
signed the last piece of legislation successfully creating over 42 
million acres of national forest, the American outdoorsman came into 
his own. Our great ``outdoor President,'' with a stroke of his pen, 
dedicated more land to American citizens for hunting and fishing than 
all the royal estates of Europe combined.
  From the Adirondacks and the Blue Ridge of the East to the Sierra 
Nevada of California, every outdoorsman could now be the master of 
enormous sporting opportunities. The only price was a stretch of the 
legs and an investment of time and a modicum of woodsmanship.
  Because of Teddy Roosevelt's leadership and efforts, the public land 
of the Federal

[[Page E1672]]

Government became truly the ``estate'' of the average American.
  A carpenter in Indiana or Iowa could saddle up the old Chevy pick-up 
and take his sons elk or deer hunting on a long weekend in Colorado. A 
steel worker in Pennsylvania could drive ``straight through'' with his 
pals to that certain Aspen grove in western Wyoming where big bucks 
always abounded on opening morning. Thus, until a few years ago, the 
outdoor legacy of Teddy Roosevelt and the birthright of outdoor 
Americans were secure.
  Not any more.
  Today, bureaucracies in State governments are closing down the 
outdoor opportunities for average Americans. They are slamming the door 
on outdoor families the old-fashioned way: with outrageous fees for 
non-resident hunters, even when the hunting is done exclusively on 
Federal land.
  For example, the out-of-State license fee in Wyoming is $281 for 
deer, $481 for elk; in Colorado it is $301 for deer, $501 for elk; in 
Montana, it is $643 for both. In New Mexico, if two sons decide to take 
their dad on a weekend getaway, they each face fees of $355 for deer 
and $ 766 for elk.
  What makes these high prices so unfair is that they are applied to 
out-of-State American outdoorsmen who hunt exclusively on Federal 
property. The 190 million acres of national forest and 258 million 
acres of BLM are the birthright of all Americans. The notion that they 
are viewed as the domain of State legislatures runs against the 
principle of public usage of Federal property.
  Certainly, individual States have the right to regulate the private 
land and state-owned property within their boundaries. No one quarrels 
with that. But placing prohibitive fees on hunting that is conducted on 
Federal public lands quickly becomes a method of exclusion.
  What happens, for example, if New Mexico should raise its out-of-
State fees to $2,000 for bull elk? This increase would have the same 
effect as a locked gate for thousands of average Americans who want to 
hunt elk on any of the six national forests in New Mexico, over 11 
million acres of federally owned land.
  The bill I am introducing today will restore acres for all American 
hunters to Theodore Roosevelt's ``Great Estate'' of national forests 
and other public land. I acknowledge that some small amount of States' 
wildlife resources are expended on federally owned and managed lands. 
Therefore, it is only right that out-of-State hunters share in this 
minimal expense.
  My bill, therefore, says this: No State may charge more than $200 for 
a big game license, specifically, elk, deer, antelope or bear, for 
hunting that is carried out exclusively on national forest or BLM 
Federal land.
  The $200 fee strikes a balance between two interests. The first 
interest is the State's legitimate need to recoup the few dollars that 
it expends in the management of Federal land. The second, and most 
important, is the interest of helping that father with two teenagers 
who does not have the $2,300 the State of New Mexico will charge this 
year for a family of three to hunt on national forest for bull elk.
  In most cases, even a $200 fee will be a windfall for States, far 
out-pacing any help they give the Federal Government for wildlife 
management in national forests. Any American, from any State, should be 
allowed to earn a fall morning hunting elk in the Rockies with a 
healthy hike and a good shooting eye, regardless if he has a large bank 
account. My bill restores that opportunity.

                          ____________________