Several issues related to hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting on federal and state lands are addressed in various bills in the 113 th Congress. Hunting and conservation have been linked since the advent of federal wildlife legislation, such as the Lacey Act of 1900 (the first federal wildlife law, making it a federal crime to ship game killed in violation of one state's laws to another state) or the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (regulating the killing, hunting, buying, or selling of migratory birds). Controversy exists about exactly what hunting, fishing, or shooting sports currently are allowed on federal land and when. Under current law, opening more lands to hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting is to be balanced against good game management, public safety, resource management, and the statutory purposes of the lands. This report focuses on the Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act of 2014 ( S. 2363 ), now pending in the Senate. It addresses various issues of interest to sportsmen and Congress. Among other things, it covers land management priorities for hunting, trapping, fishing, and recreational shooting on various categories of federal lands; changes to the duck stamp program; recreational shooting; imports of polar bear trophies; hunting waterfowl over baited fields; and funding for land acquisition to support hunter access. Section 101 of S. 2363 concerns duck stamps. Currently, duck stamps are purchased by hunters for the right to hunt migratory birds; proceeds from their sale go to the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund (MBCF) for acquisition of migratory bird habitat for inclusion in the National Wildlife Refuge System. Stamps are good for one year, and cost $15, a price set in legislation in 1991. Since 2008, a pilot program has tested the feasibility of the sale of duck stamps through the Internet; a number of states now participate in the pilot program. In other states, stamps continue to be available at U.S. post offices or other approved sites. S. 2363 would permanently authorize the electronic issuance of duck stamps. States would apply to the Secretary of the Interior for authority to issue the electronic stamps, under a procedure specified in the section. Provisions for revocation of state authority to issue electronic stamps are included. Section 102 of S. 2363 would exempt lead shot, ammunition, and fishing sinkers from provisions of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The section would prohibit regulation under TSCA of "shot, bullets and other projectiles, propellants, and primers" and "any sport fishing equipment." The bill further adds that the section does not limit the need to comply with other federal, state, or local laws. This provision appears to seek legislative certainty for a denied citizen petition to force the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate lead in ammunition and in fishing sinkers. On August 27, 2010, EPA denied one portion of the petition relating to the production of lead for use in ammunition, stating that the agency did not have legal authority to regulate ammunition under TSCA. EPA continued to evaluate the petition with respect to fishing tackle and accepted public comments until September 15, 2010. EPA denied that portion of the petition on November 4, 2010. On April 30, 2012, a lawsuit challenging the denial was dismissed. On June 7, 2012, a suit was filed challenging EPA's 2012 denial of a new petition to regulate lead shot under TSCA. The court rejected the plaintiffs' case in July 2013, and an appeal has been filed. These provisions would prevent federal regulation through TSCA, but not through other statutory authorities: lead shot has been banned in the United States for the hunting of migratory waterfowl since 1991 under authority of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Endangered Species Act. Consequently, it is unclear what effect the provision might have. Section 103 of S. 2363 is designated the Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act. It would allow territories and states to use more of the funds allocated to them under the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. §669) for projects involving land acquisition, construction, and expansion of public target ranges for firearms or archery. A state's allocation of federal funds may currently be used to support a maximum of 75% of any project, with the remainder coming from nonfederal sources. Section 103 would amend 16 U.S.C. §669h-1(a), apparently intending to increase the maximum federal share from the Pittman-Robertson (P-R) program from 75% to 90%, for projects acquiring land for, expanding, or constructing target ranges. However, the bill contains a provision stating that a state "may pay up to 90 percent of the cost of acquiring land for, expanding, or constructing a public target range." On its face, the language appears to give a state federal approval to pay for nearly all of the cost of a project. However, it is more likely that the purpose is to allow a state to use its P-R allocation of federal funds to pay for up to 90% of the cost of a project, with the state (or other nonfederal sources) needing to pay for no more than 10% of the project. There is no committee report to clarify the intent of the provision. The bill would define a public target range , for the purposes of P-R, specifying that it is a location identified by a government agency, is open to the public, may be supervised, and accommodates archery or rifle, pistol, or shotgun shooting. S. 2363 (Section 104) would exempt Alaska Natives who are subsistence users from 16 U.S.C. 718a, which requires waterfowl hunters to purchase the duck stamp. Before May 15, 2008, when the listing of polar bears as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) took effect, it was legal under U.S. law to import polar bear trophies legally taken in Canada. After that date, import was not allowed. Once the proposed rule to list polar bears as a threatened species was published in January 2007, an extensive campaign was conducted by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to alert hunters to the potential impact of ESA listing on the ability to import polar bear trophies. However, FWS continued to authorize the import of polar bear trophies under existing law until the ESA listing became final. The permitting process was truncated by court order, making the listing effective immediately rather than after 30 days. S. 2363 (Section 105) would amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) to allow hunters with polar bear trophies legally hunted in Canada to import these trophies to the United States. It would direct FWS to issue permits for importing these sport-hunted trophies, if a permit was sought before May 15, 2008. It would further amend the MMPA to provide that the permits may be issued regardless of the polar bears' status as a depleted species, which is the basis on which the permits were denied. FWS does not oppose legislation allowing importation for hunters who both applied for an import permit and completed their legal hunt prior to ESA listing. Others oppose allowing these permits, believing it would encourage hunting of species whose listing is imminent. The Humane Society of the United States testified in the 112 th Congress that allowing polar bear imports would "would roll back polar bear conservation efforts and set a dangerous precedent for gutting the protections provided under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act." A federal court has upheld the current permit ban, finding that there was no procedural flaw in blocking permits as of the day the bear was listed as threatened. Hunting of migratory game birds over baited fields is forbidden by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and its implementing regulations. There is little controversy over whether such hunting is an unsportsmanlike practice that should not be allowed. There is, however, controversy over precisely what constitutes baiting , how long hunters should wait after an agricultural field has been harvested to avoid the baiting prohibition, and whether the effects of natural disasters might affect whether a field is considered baited. Section 106 of S. 2363 addresses these issues by allowing hunting over crops in certain circumstances. Section 106 defines a bait area as an area where there has been the placement of salt grain, or feed to attract game birds; and an area where there has been manipulation of unharvested cropland (e.g., through mowing or discing), unless the manipulation is a normal agricultural practice. It then explicitly excludes from the definition any areas (a) with a treatment that is a normal agricultural practice, (b) with unmanipulated standing crops, or (c) with standing crops that are or were flooded. The last provision appears to exclude flooded cropland, whether naturally or artificially flooded. The section defines normal agricultural practice . Some features of this long definition are particularly noteworthy. First, the practice is to be considered normal if recommended by the state office of the Cooperative Extension System of the Department of Agriculture. In addition, the applicable state game department is to be consulted and, if requested, may be asked to concur. It is unclear who may do the requesting, and what would be the effect if the applicable state game department does not concur. A normal agricultural practice is also defined to include the destruction of crops as required by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation to obtain a crop insurance payment after a natural disaster. Section 106 also requires an annual report from the Secretary of Agriculture to the Secretary of the Interior on any changes to normal agricultural practices. Section 107 of S. 2363 addresses hunting, trapping, fishing, and recreational shooting on federal land, and appears to create an "open until closed" management policy for federal lands. It describes the factors a land management agency must consider to justify closing federal lands to hunting, trapping, fishing, or recreational shooting.