On Monday, May 13 President George W. Bush signed
the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 into law. The
2002 Farm Bill had passed the House on Thursday May 2 by a vote of
280-141 and the Senate passed the conference agreement by a vote of
64-35 on May 8.
Thanks in large part to the efforts of the Congressional
Sportsmen's Foundation, working with its conservation partners in
the hunting community and the involvement of the Congressional
Sportsmen's Caucus, the agreement included substantial increases in
funding for conservation programs. Members of the Congressional
Sportsmen's Caucus played a key role in ensuring that programs of
importance to sportsmen such as the existing Conservation and
Wetlands Reserve Programs and the Wildlife Habitat Incentives
Program, as well as a new Grasslands Reserve Program, were a
priority. In addition, language promoted by the Humane Society that
would have severely limited state authority to manage bears and bear
hunting was not included in the final bill while language that would
help improve Bobwhite Quail conservation was added. Unfortunately
one provision that was strongly supported by sportsmen that would
have provided federal funds for the processing costs of donated game
meat for food banks was removed during the
conference.
Conservation R
eserve Program (CRP) - CRP provides
incentives to producers to set aside lands that are marginal for
production for conservation purposes. This program has been critical
to improving habitat for upland gamebirds as well as migratory
waterfowl and other wildlife. The final 2002 Farm Bill package
increased the cap of acres eligible for enrollment in the program
from 36.4 million acres to 39.2 million acres and funds the
program at $1.517 billion through 2007. Congressman Collin
Peterson (D-MN) led an effort in conference to ensure that
priority areas, crucial for protecting vital wildlife habitat,
remained a part of the CRP. The agreement also expands a pilot
program for wetlands conservation under CRP to 1 million acres and
allows all states to participate in the program.
Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) - The WRP program is
another voluntary program that provides financial incentives to
landowners protect, restore and enhance wetlands on their property,
special emphasis is placed on improving habitat for migratory birds.
The 2002 Farm Bill more than doubles the WRP acreage ca
p to 2.2 million acres and funds the program at
$1.5 billion through 2007.
Grasslands Reserve Program - While CRP has
made significant headway in conserving grassland habitat, the
program requires that the enrolled acres have cropping history for
two of the previous five years. This often results in the tilling of
native grasslands so that they can be enrolled in the program. A new
conservation program in this year's Farm Bill will provide $254
million to enroll up to 2 million acres of virgin grasslands in
voluntary easements.
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program - The WHIP program
provides financial incentives for landowners to improve habitat for
fish and wildlife on their property. Since its creation in the 1996
Farm Bill, over 1.6 million acres have been improved using only
$62.5 million. The 2002 Farm Bill agreement increases funding for
this key program from $25 million to $700
million.
Bobwhite Quail Conservation - At the urging of the
Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, the conferees included report
language in the final version of the Farm Bill to support the
Northern Bobwhite Conservation Initiative (NBCI). The language urges
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and its agencies to "give
full consideration to and, to the extent practicable, to capitalize
on all opportunities in the 2002 Farm Bill's conservation programs
to promote voluntary establishment of suitable wildlife habitat that
contributes to the quail restoration objectives." The inclusion of
this language is the direct result of a CSF breakfast briefing in
March on the NBCI.
Bear Management - The Senate passed version of the
Farm Bill included a provision that would have negatively impacted
state authority to manage bears. The provision, known as the Bear
Protection Act, is 
based on the inaccurate belief that bears in the United
States are being poached in large numbers to supply the worldwide
demand for bear parts. Specifically, it would have made it illegal
to sell or transport bear viscera (gall bladder and bile) and while
on its face may seem harmless, it could have impacted hunters
transporting legally taken bears across state lines and would have
represented an unnecessary federal intrusion into state management
of bears. All the data available suggests that bear populations in
the U.S. are stable or increasing and that federal intrusion into
state management authority is unwarranted. The provision was dropped
in conference after the insistence of House conferees, including
Congressman Don Young (R-AK) and Congressman Jim Hansen
(R-UT).
Hunters Help the Hungry - One disappointing component
of the conference agreement was the removal of language included in
the Senate version of the bill by Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA)
that would have allowed federal funding to help pay for the
processing of venison donated to soup kitchens by hunters. The
provision was modeled on the Hunters Help the Hungry Act, introduced
by Harkin in the Senate and Congressmen Phelps (D-IL), Pickering
(R-MS), Thompson (D-CA), Hayes (R-NC), Boswell (D-IA), Boyd (R-FL),
Shows (D-MS) and Green (R-WI) in the House. Game meat, donated
by hunters, can make a real difference in the fight against hunger.
Local game donation programs like Hunters for the Hungry, Farmers
and Hunters Feeding the Hungry, and Sportsmen Against Hunger, have
been created in 48 states but these programs are being easily
overwhelmed by the abundance of donated meat and the lack of funds
for processing it. This provision would have authorized states to
use administrative funds from the Emergency Food Assistance Program
(TEFAP) to pay for the processing costs of donated wild game, but
was eliminated from the final bill due to objections by a House
conferee over the perceived cost of the program
