39–006 

113TH CONGRESS REPT. 113–337 " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session Part 1 

RECREATIONAL FISHING AND HUNTING HERITAGE AND 

OPPORTUNITIES ACT 

JANUARY 31, 2014.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, from the Committee on Natural 

Resources, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 1825] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred the 

bill (H.R. 1825) to direct Federal public land management officials 

to exercise their authority under existing law to facilitate use of 

and access to Federal public lands for fishing, sport hunting, and 

recreational shooting, and for other purposes, having considered 

the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of H.R. 1825 is to direct Federal public land management officials to exercise their authority under existing law to 

facilitate use of and access to Federal public lands for fishing, sport 

hunting, and recreational shooting. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

H.R. 1825, the Recreational Fishing and Hunting Heritage and 

Opportunities Act, clarifies federal authorities and policies for the 

management of hunting and fishing on public lands. It provides additional protections for continued public access to public land for 

the purpose of recreational fishing, hunting, and shooting sports on 

U.S. Forest Service (FS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

lands. The provisions of H.R. 1825 require federal land managers 

to support and facilitate public use and access for hunting, fishing 

and recreational shooting and create an ‘‘open until closed’’ management regime for these activities on FS and BLM land, but does 

not give these uses priority over other multiple uses. It requires an 

evaluation of the impact on hunting, fishing and recreational shooting in land and resource planning and eliminates redundancies in 

environmental review of hunting, fishing and recreational shooting 

opportunities. The bill restates, in unambiguous language, Congress’ consistent position that BLM and FS lands designated as 

wilderness, wilderness eligible, or suitable and primitive or semiprimitive areas are open to all legal forms of hunting, fishing and 

recreational shooting unless there are good reasons to close such 

areas. It also forecloses opportunities for continued nuisance lawsuits by classifying hunting, fishing and recreational shooting as 

‘‘necessary’’ to meet the minimum requirements for the administration of wilderness. 

Although Congress has spoken many times on the issue of hunting, fishing and shooting sports on our multiple-use public lands 

and has always come down on the side of allowing these sporting 

activities to take place under state laws, these activities continue 

to come under attack and legal challenge from groups that are opposed to hunting in general as well as from those who seek to restrict these activities in designated wilderness areas. By clarifying 

the statutory obligations of land managing agencies, H.R. 1825 protects and fosters fishing, hunting, and shooting traditions on federal public lands to ensure that federal land management agencies—primarily the FS and the BLM—exercise their land management discretion to facilitate access for sportsmen activities. Under 

the provisions of H.R. 1825, these activities will be considered authorized and approved and thereby limit the ability of anti-hunting 

advocacy groups to use any ambiguity in the laws and force the 

land managing agencies to defend these activities in court or 

through the quagmire of administrative procedures, diverting resources that could otherwise be used for public recreation and wildlife conservation activities. 

The provisions of H.R. 1825 are needed to restore the legal status 

quo that prevailed for decades until a small number of federal 

court cases—primarily in San Francisco’s Ninth Circuit—effectively 

rewrote these provisions, disregarded plain language enacted by 

Congress as well as years of established precedent and practice by 

professional federal land managers. Wildlife conservation, for example, is the primary mission of all National Wildlife Refuge units. 

Consistent with these purposes, for decades the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS) and the Arizona Department of Game and 

Fish (AZGF) along with private conservationists constructed and 

maintained water ‘‘guzzlers’’ in the Kofa National Wildlife Refuge 

in Arizona to enhance and maintain bighorn sheep populations. 

When Congress designated portions of Kofa as wilderness in the 

1980s, it recognized these activities and concluded that the water 

for wildlife program on Kofa was consistent with the ‘‘supplemental’’ purposes of wilderness as expressly set forth in section 4(a) 

of the 1964 Wilderness Act (Public Law 88–577; 16 U.S.C. 

§ 1133(a)). 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

Nevertheless, in 2007, activists sued FWS to terminate the water 

for wildlife program and remove the guzzlers on the grounds that 

Kofa was a wilderness first (and no structures were to be permitted) and a wildlife refuge established for the conservation of 

bighorn sheep second. FWS and wildlife conservationists strongly 

disagreed. A U.S. District court upheld FWS and AZGF and allowed the water-for-wildlife program to continue. The U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit did not. H.R. 1825 merely reiterates 

the plain language of the 1964 Wilderness Act that its purposes are 

‘‘supplemental’’ to the primary purposes of the underlying federal 

land designation—in this case a wildlife refuge. This change, necessitated by judicial disregard of plain statutory language, is not a 

change in the Wilderness Act but restoration of the legal status quo 

that existed from 1964 until 2010. 

In certain other cases, Ninth Circuit decisions also overruled professional agency determinations and disregarded long-established 

understandings of the ‘‘necessity’’ standard set forth in section 4(c) 

of the 1964 Wilderness Act. To ensure that anti-fishing/anti-hunting activists may not use these recent court precedents to attack 

fishing or hunting within wilderness areas as not being ‘‘necessary,’’ H.R. 1825 specifies that opportunities to fish and hunt on 

wilderness lands are in fact ‘‘necessary.’’ Nothing in this language, 

tailored to reverse inappropriate judicial activism, authorizes any 

forms of roads or mechanized vehicle access in these units. Nothing 

in the bill includes any references to allowing, directly or indirectly, 

roads or vehicles in wilderness areas. Section 4(e) clearly states 

that this necessity determination provision, ‘‘shall not authorize or 

facilitate commodity development, use or extraction, motorized recreational access or use that is not otherwise allowed under the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), or permanent road construction or maintenance within designated wilderness areas.’’ 

A similar problem with regard to the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) is also corrected in the bill. Again, H.R. 1825 is 

narrowly tailored to fix a problem created by judicial disregard of 

previously enacted law. In this case, the 1997 Refuge Improvement 

Act (which passed the House with one dissenting vote and was 

signed into law by President Clinton) provided that fishing and 

hunting were ‘‘priority public uses’’ on National Wildlife Refuge 

units and that FWS would facilitate these uses by preparing Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCPs) for each Refuge. Per the 

Act, the environmental effects of fishing and hunting would be assessed and evaluated in these CCPs. 

Six years later animal rights activists filed suit seeking to close 

hunting on over 50 Refuges. They argued the CCPs weren’t enough 

to satisfy NEPA. FWS argued that no purpose would be served, 

and finite time and money wasted, by assessing the ‘‘cumulative effects,’’ for example, of deer hunting on Georgia’s Bond Swamp Refuge, woodcock hunting in the Canaan Valley Refuge in West Virginia, duck hunting on a North Dakota refuge, and moose hunting 

on a remote Alaska unit. None of the activities were in fact connected so there could be no cumulative effects. This fell on deaf 

ears in the courtroom and a D.C. federal court sided with the antihunting activists by ordering FWS to prepare additional cumulative effects assessments. FWS proceeded to spend the next three 

years wasting thousands of hours and dollars to prepare these unVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:36 Feb 01, 2014 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR337P1.XXX HR337P1

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

necessary cumulative effects assessments. H.R. 1825 reiterates the 

intent of the 1997 Refuge Act that the CCPs are sufficient to satisfy NEPA and spare FWS the time and cost of preparing superfluous cumulative effects analyses of these priority public uses. It 

is far better for the FWS to target its resources at on-the-ground 

conservation and management of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

The conservation movement was started by American sportsmen 

a century ago and since then almost all of our most successful wildlife conservation programs have been associated with recreational 

hunting and fishing. Species that were once rare, such as wild turkeys, deer, bear and wood ducks, are now plentiful as a result of 

private efforts by sportsmen and scientific management by state 

fish and game departments. H. R. 1825 supports sound wildlife 

conservation and recognizes the conservation benefits of protecting 

and extending recreational sporting activities. 

COMMITTEE ACTION

H.R. 1825 was introduced on May 3, 2013 by Congressman Dan 

Benishek (R–MI). The bill was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittees on 

Public Lands and Environmental Regulation and Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular Affairs. The bill was additionally referred 

to the Committee on Agriculture. On May 9, 2013, the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation held a 

hearing on the bill. On June 12, 2013, the Natural Resources Committee met to consider the bill. The Subcommittees were discharged by unanimous consent. Congressman DeFazio (D–OR) offered amendment designated .027 to the bill; the amendment was 

not adopted by a rollcall vote of 18 to 24, as follows: 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 5 here HR337.001

Date: June 12, 2013 

Committee on Natural Resources 

U.S. House ofRepreseutatives 

1 1 3th Congress 

Recorded Vote #: 8 

Meeting on / Amendment on: H.R. 1825 - DEFAZTO.027 (ANS), Not agreed to by a vote of 18 yeas and 24 nays 

MEMBERS Yea Nay Pres MEMBERS Yea Nay Pres 

Mr. Hastings, WA, Chairman X Mr. Duncan ofSC X 

Mr. Markey, MA, Ranking M,. Hanabusa, HI X 

Mr. Yonng, AK X Mr, Tipton, CO X 

Mr. Defazio, OR X Mr. Cardenas, CA X 

Mr. Gohmert, TX X Mr. Gosar, AZ X 

Mr. Faleomavaega, AS X Mr. Horsford, NV X 

Mr. Bishop, UT X Mr. Labrador, ID X 

Mr. Pallone. NJ X Mr. Huffman. CA X 

Mr. Lamborn, CO X Mr. Southerland, FL X 

Mrs. Napolitano, CA X Mr. Ruiz, CA X 

Mr. Wittman, VA X Mr. Flores, TX X 

Mr.Holt.NJ X Ms. Shea-Porter. NH X 

Mr. Broun, GA X Mr. Runyan, NJ X 

Mr. Grijalva. AZ X Mr. Lowenthal, CA X 

Mr. Flemiug, LA X Mr. Amodei, NV 

Ms. Bordallo, GU X Mr. Garcia, FL X 

Mr. McClintock, CA X Mr. Mullin, OK X 

Mr. Costa, CA Mr. Cartwright. PA X 

Mr. Thompson, PA X Mr. Stewart, UT X 

Mr. Sablan, CNMI Mr. Daines, MT X 

Ms. Lummis, WY X Mr. Cramer, ND X 

Ms. Tsongas. MA X Mr. LaMalfa, CA 

Mr. Benishek, MI X Mr. Smith, MO X 

Mr. Pieriuisi, PR X 

TOTALS 18 24 
6 

Congressman Rau ́l Grijalva (D–AZ) offered amendment designated .046 to the bill; the amendment was not adopted by a bipartisan rollcall vote of 15 to 26, as follows: 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 7 here HR337.002

Committee on Natural Resources 

u.s. House of Representatives 

113 th Congress 

Date: June 12, 2013 Recorded Vote #: 7 

Meeting on I Amendment on: H.R. 1825 - GRIJALV A.046, Not agreed to by a vote of 15 yeas and 26 nays 

MEMBERS Vea Nay Pres MEMBERS Vea Nay 

Mr. Hastings, W A, Chairman X Mr. Duncan of SC X 

Mr. Markey. MA. Ranking Ms. Hanabusa. HI X 

Mr. Voung, AK X Mr. Tipton, CO X 

Mr. Defazio, OR X Mr. Cardenas. CA 

Mr. Gohmert, TX X Mr. Gosar, AZ X 

Mr. Faleomavaega, AS X Mr. Horsford. NV X 

Mr. Bishop, UT X Mr. Labrador, 10 X 

Mr. Pallone. NJ X Mr. Huffman. CA X 

Mr. Lamborn, CO X Mr, Southerland, FL X 

Mrs. Napolitano. CA X Mr. Ruiz. CA X 

Mr. Wittman, V A X Mr. Flores, TX X 

Mr.Holt,NJ X Ms. Shea-Porter, NH X 

Mr. Brouu, GA X Mr, Runyan, NJ X 

Mr. Grijalva. AZ X Mr. Lowenthal. CA X 

Mr. Fleming, LA X Mr. Amodei, NV 

Ms. BordaI/o, GU X Mr. Garcia, FL X 

Mr. McClintock, CA X Mr. Mullin, OK X 

Mr. Costa. CA Mr. Cartwright. PA X 

Mr. Thompson, PA X Mr. Stewart, UT X 

Mr. Sablan. CNMI Mr. Daines, MT X 

Ms. Lummis, WY X Mr. Cramer, ND X 

Ms. Tsongas, MA X Mr. LaMalfa, CA 

Mr. Benishek, MI X Mr. Smith, MO X 

Mr. Pieriuisi, PR X 

TOTALS 15 26 

Pres 
8 

The bill was then adopted and ordered favorably reported to the 

House of Representatives by a bipartisan rollcall vote of 28 to 15, 

as follows: 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
9 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 9 here HR337.003

Date: June 12,2013 

Committee on Natural Resources 

U.S. House of Representatives 

113 th Congress 

Recorded Vote #: 9 

Meeting on I Amendment on: H.R. 1825 - To adopt and favorably report the bill to the House agreed to by a vote 

of 28 yeas to 15 nays 

MEMBERS Yea Nay Pres MEMBERS Yea Nay Pres 

Mr. Hastings, WA, Chairman X Mr. Duncan of SC X 

Mr. Markey, MA. Ranking Ms. Hanabusa, HI X 

Mr. Youug, AK X Mr. Tiptou, CO X 

Mr. Defazio. OR X I IMr. Cardenas. CA X 

Mr. Gohmer!, TX X Mr. Gosar, AZ X 

Mr. Faleomavaega. AS :M Mr. Horsford. NV X 

Mr. Bishop, UT Mr. Labrador, ID X 

Mr. Pallone. NJ Mr. Huffman, CA X 

Mr. Lamborn, CO Mr. Southerland, FL X 

Mrs. Napolitano. CA X Mr. Ruiz. CA X 

Mr. Wittman, VA X ~. Flores, TX X 

Mr. Holt. NJ X Ms. Shea-Porter, NH X 

Mr. Brouu, GA X Mr. Runyan, NJ X 

Mr. Grijalva. AZ X Mr. Lowenthal. CA X 

Mr. Fleming, LA X Mr. Amodei, NV 

tV,. Bordallo, GU X Mr. Garcia, FL X 

Mr. McCliutock, CA X Mr. Mullin,OK X 

Mr. Costa. CA X Mr. Cartwright, PA X 

Mr. Thompson, P A X Mr. Stewart, UT X 

Mr. Sablan, CNMJ Mr. Daines, MT X 

Ms. Lummis, WY X Mr. Cramer, ND X 

Ms. Tsongas, MA X Mr. LaMalfa, CA 

Mr. Benishek, MI X Mr. Smith, MO X I 

Mr. Pierluisi. PR X 

TOTALS 28 15 
10 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee on 

Natural Resources’ oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the body of this report. 

COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII

1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of 

the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(2)(B) of that rule provides 

that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Under clause 

3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 

section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate for this bill from the 

Director of the Congressional Budget Office: 

H.R. 1825—Recreational Fishing and Hunting Heritage and Opportunities Act 

H.R. 1825 would require federal land management agencies to 

provide access to certain federal lands for hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting activities. The bill also would require those 

agencies to prepare annual reports identifying lands that have 

been closed to such activities. Based on information provided by the 

affected agencies, CBO estimates that implementing the legislation 

would have no significant impact on the federal budget. Enacting 

H.R. 1825 would not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, 

pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. 

Because the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service, 

and other land management agencies have the authority to allow 

hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting on lands under their jurisdictions, CBO expects that implementing the bill would not significantly affect agency operations. In addition, the activities necessary to complete the annual reports required under the bill are 

similar to activities performed by the affected agencies under current law. Therefore, we estimate that implementing the legislation 

would have no significant impact on the budgets of those agencies. 

H.R. 1825 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would 

not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Jeff LaFave. The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director 

for Budget Analysis. 

2. Section 308(a) of Congressional Budget Act. As required by 

clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 

this bill does not contain any new budget authority, spending authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in revenues or 

tax expenditures. Based on information provided by the affected 

agencies, CBO estimates that implementing the legislation would 

have no significant impact on the federal budget. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
11 

3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by 

clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or objective 

of this bill is to direct Federal public land management officials to 

exercise their authority under existing law to facilitate use of and 

access to Federal public lands for fishing, sport hunting, and recreational shooting. 

EARMARK STATEMENT

This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined under clause 9(e), 

9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4

This bill contains no unfunded mandates. 

COMPLIANCE WITH H. RES. 5

Directed Rule Making. The Chairman does not believe that this 

bill directs any executive branch official to conduct any specific 

rule-making proceedings. 

Duplication of Existing Programs. This bill does not establish or 

reauthorize a program of the federal government known to be duplicative of another program. Such program was not included in 

any report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress 

pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111–139 or identified in the 

most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance published pursuant to the Federal Program Information Act (Public Law 95–220, 

as amended by Public Law 98–169) as relating to other programs. 

PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW

This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or tribal law. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

If enacted, this bill would make no changes in existing law. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(12) 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

For generations, American families have taken advantage of the 

hunting and fishing opportunities on the majority of federal public 

lands. As consistent supporters of recreation on public lands including hunting and fishing, among other activities, we have welcomed 

the opportunity to work with all stakeholders to ensure that future 

generations can continue this great tradition by ensuring access, as 

well as ensuring proper, sustainable management to maintain the 

balance of competing interests. 

Opportunities to hunt and fish on public land are abundant. 

These activities are already allowed in designated wilderness areas 

and in wildlife refuges. Proponents of this bill are simply interested 

in an ideological agenda of rolling back environmental protections 

as well as removing landmark conservation laws that have protected our treasured public lands for decades. 

Because of the wide-ranging support for hunting and fishing, 

H.R. 1825 could be bipartisan, noncontroversial legislation. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be the goal of this measure. 

Rather, H.R. 1825 includes sweeping provisions that would undermine the Wilderness Act, National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) and the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration 

Act. For example, Section 4(e)(1) would permit temporary roads, 

motorized equipment and motorboats, use of motor vehicles, landing of aircraft, structures and installations, and other forms of mechanical transport in designated wilderness if it is to support and 

facilitate recreational fishing, hunting, and shooting opportunities. 

This section could threaten the wilderness characteristics of some 

of America’s wildest and most treasured places. 

The bill also waives NEPA for all decisions regarding amendments to land use plans or refuge conservation plans concerning 

hunting or fishing. While these activities are appropriate uses of 

public lands, they clearly have impacts on those lands and the general public, including hunters and fishermen, should be consulted 

on those decisions through NEPA and other laws. 

H.R. 1825 uses an issue on where there is broad agreement—the 

importance of hunting and fishing on public lands—as cover to 

make unnecessary changes to landmark conservation laws. If enacted, H.R. 1825 could destroy the wilderness character of many 

designated wilderness areas and permanently alter wildlife refuge 

management. As a result, enactment of H.R. 1825 would destroy 

wildlife habitat, severely limiting opportunities for the recreational 

pursuits the bill claims to protect. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
13 

We support hunting and fishing on federal lands and we stand 

ready to work constructively with the Majority to promote and enhance responsible recreational opportunities. H.R. 1825 does neither. 

PETER DEFAZIO, Ranking Member, Committee 

on Natural Resources. 

RAU ́ L GRIJALVA, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Public Lands 

and Environmental Regulation. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
14 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 15 here HR337.004

EXCHANGE OF LETTERS 

ll.r5. House of Rcprcsrntatiurs ~ommltt( on 'Jgriculrurc 

naom 1101. Dmgmorth tlOOSf (~mrt !luildmg 

'l.lJashjngton, B~ :!O)l)-bOOl 

June 27, 2013 

The Honorable Doc Hastings 

Chainnan 

Committee on Natural Resources 

1324 Longworth HOB 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Chairman Hastings: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review the relevant provisions of the text ofH.R. 1825, 

the Recreational Fishing and Hunting Heritage and Opportunity Act. As you are aware, the bill 

was primarily referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, while the Agriculture Committee 

received an additional referral. 

I recognize and appreciate your desire to bring this legislation before the House in an 

expeditious manner and, accordingly, I agree to discharge H.R. 1825 from further consideration 

by the Committee on Agriculture. I do so with the understanding that by discharging the bill, the 

Committee on Agriculture docs not waive any future jurisdictional claim on this or similar 

matters. Further, the Committee on Agriculture reserves the right to seek the appointment of 

conferees, ifit should become necessary. 

I ask that you insert a copy of our exchange of letters into the Congressional Record 

during consideration of this measure on the House floor. 

Thank you for your courtesy in this matter and llook forward to continued cooperation 

between our respective committees. 

cc: The Honorable John A. Bochner, Speaker 

The Honorable Collin C. Peterson 

The Honorable Edward J. Markey 

Mr. Thomas J. Wickham, Parliamentarian 

Sincerely, 

i~ I). iv'4~-/J.- Frank D. Lucas 

Chainnan 
15 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 16 here HR337.005

T{)DOYO(JNG 

Ci<flfForSTAFr 

'i!l.~. ]!{oune of i'Repr.en.entatiu.en 

Q]:nmmittu un Natural 1Rtnuurttn 

lWiaa4ingtun.l!I(!t Z11515 

The Honorable Frank D. Lucas 

Chainnan 

Committee on Agriculture 

1301 Longworth HOB 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Chainnan: 

July 3,2013 I~'H-~.Y 110r-,CAN 

N.M()CI!,1T!CSfAF"O!flI'CTOR 

Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 1825, the Recreational Fishing and Hunting 

Heritage and Opportunities Act. As you know, the Committee on Natoral Resources ordered 

reported the bill on June 12,2013. I appreciate your support in bringing this legislation before 

the House of Representatives, and accordingly, understand that the Committee on Agriculture 

will forego action on the bill. 

The Committee on Natural Resources concurs with the mutual understanding that by 

foregoing consideration ofH.R. 1825 at this time, the Committee on Agriculture does not waive 

any jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in this or similar legislation. In addition, 

should a conference on the bill be necessary, I would support your request to have the 

Committee on Agriculture represented on the conference committee. Finally, I would be pleased 

to include your letter and this response in the bill report filed by the Committee on Natural 

Resources, as well as in the Congressional Record during floor consideration, to memorialize 

our understanding. 

Thank you for your cooperation. 

It-Ik 

Doc Hastings 

Chainnan 

cc: The Honorable John A. Boehner, Speaker 

The Honorable Edward J. Markey 

The Honorable Collin C. Peterson 

Mr. Thomas J. Wickham, Parliamentarian 

o