Several issues related to hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting, on both federal and state lands are addressed in S. 3525 , the Sportsman's Act of 2012. Hunting and conservation have been linked since the advent of federal wildlife legislation, such as the Lacey Act of 1900 (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). Even so, 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. S. 3525 focuses on physical access to federal lands where these activities are already allowed by acquiring lands or rights of way. S. 3525 would also create or expand sport fishing programs, allow specified imports of polar bear trophies, support a program of regional working groups to conserve populations of migratory birds, and amend the duck stamp program (which provides funds for acquisition of waterfowl habitat), among other things. S. 3525 would make funding changes for some of these activities, and reauthorize a number of conservation programs, as well as expand an existing program to control nutria, a marshland pest. S. 3525 is not the only hunting and fishing bill pending before Congress. H.R. 4089 , which passed the House in April 2012, would alter the management practices of federal agencies with the intent of opening more lands to hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting. While they have many of the same activities in common, the two bills' approaches are quite different. H.R. 4089 would alter planning practices of agencies, eliminate reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act, and direct certain types of activities to be allowed on lands, even wilderness areas, absent a public safety, national security, or statutory resource protection basis. The Senate bill's approach focuses on physical access to suitable hunting and fishing areas on federal land, in contrast to the House bill's approach of changing federal land management practices. Most of S. 3525 was originally part of an amendment ( S.Amdt. 2232 , introduced on June 7, 2012) to S. 3240 (the 2012 farm bill), although the two measures are not completely identical. On June 19, 2012, the amendment was ruled as nongermane to the 2012 farm bill. S. 3525 , in its current form, was introduced as a separate bill on September 10, 2012. It was placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders on September 11, 2012. Because the measure was not referred to a committee, it lacks a committee report. On September 20, 2012, a cloture motion on the motion to proceed to the measure was presented in the Senate. Consideration before the fall recess has been scheduled. Title I of S. 3525 focuses on physical access to federal lands for hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting, as well as other topics. It addresses land acquisition to facilitate access for those activities; authorization of permits to allow import of certain sport-hunted polar bear trophies; expanded permission for carrying bows and crossbows in national park units; expanded funding for state land purchase or operation of public target ranges; and exclusion of lead ammunition and sinkers from regulation under the Toxic Substances Control Act. One criticism of federal land management has been that access to hunting and fishing areas can be limited. Sometimes, the best access to federal land is across private property. At least two federal land management agencies, BLM and the Forest Service, have authority to acquire property, especially to provide easier access to federal lands. The authority includes eminent domain. Section 101(a) of S. 3525 would amend the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCF) by directing preparation of priority lists for federal lands already within the jurisdiction of the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture. The priority lists are to identify land or rights-of-way acquisition projects where access to hunting, fishing, and other recreational purposes currently is "significantly restricted." The bill would require each agency in the two departments to devote at least 1.5% of its annual appropriation of funds under the LWCF to acquisition of lands, rights of way, or other interests from willing sellers to improve access for these activities. 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 to import polar bear trophies from Canada. After that date, importation was not allowed. Section 102 of S. 3525 would amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) to allow between 41 and 44 hunters with polar bear trophies legally hunted in Canada to import these trophies to the United States. Section 102 would also direct FWS to issue permits for importing the sport-hunted trophies. This section is almost identical to H.R. 4089 , Title III. S. 3525 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. S. 3525 would apply only to bears legally killed prior to May 15, 2008. Permit fees of $1,000 for each imported trophy would go to the existing U.S.-Russia Polar Bear Conservation Fund to support polar bear conservation activities. Once the proposed rule to list polar bears as a threatened species was published in January 2007, an extensive campaign was conducted by FWS to alert hunters to the potential impact of ESA listing on the ability to import polar bear trophies. However, despite issuing this warning, 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. Section 102 would allow entry of any harvest before May 15, 2008, regardless of whether a permit was sought prior to the law change, provided that the bear was taken from a population from which import was legal at the time. 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. FWS originally declined to support another version of this provision ( H.R. 991 , as introduced) because the introduced version would have allowed hunters to import polar bear trophies regardless of whether the hunter had applied for the permit prior to the 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 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." The Dissenting Views to the House Committee Report on H.R. 4089 , for example, pointed to the "extensive outreach by the Fish and Wildlife Service that a prohibition would be placed on polar bear trophy imports if a listing occurred" as a reason not to provide a legislative waiver. A federal court upheld the permit ban, finding that there was no procedural flaw in blocking permits as of the day the bear was listed as threatened. Section 103 of S. 3525 would allow bowhunters to carry their weapons across national park units to access hunting on adjacent lands. Current law for guns allows possession of a "firearm including an assembled or functional firearm" in national park units, depending on applicable state law. Section 103 does not appear to be based on personal protection—it explicitly does not authorize the use of the bow or the crossbow—but instead, seems based on convenience. Portage is allowed where it is "the most direct means of access to the adjacent land." Additionally, despite the heading, Section 103 does not authorize possession of bows within the National Wildlife Refuge System. Under Subtitle B of Title I of the Senate bill, the Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act, territories and states would be allowed 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 114(b) would amend 16 U.S.C. §669g(b) to continue the limit on operating and maintaining target ranges to a maximum of 75% federal share; and Section 114(c) would amend 16 U.S.C. §669h-1(a) to increase the maximum federal share from the Pittman-Robertson program to 90%, for projects acquiring land for, expanding, or constructing target ranges. Section 114 would also add a definition of public target range , limiting it to "archery or rifle, pistol, or shotgun shooting." The shooting range provision differs substantially from that in H.R. 4089 , which does not include any reference to the Pittman-Robertson Act. H.R. 4089 would direct how federal land managers allow shooting ranges on federal lands; it does not describe state and territorial funding for those activities on their own property Section 115 of S. 3525 is a resolution stating the sense of the Congress that the Forest Service and BLM are to cooperate with state and local authorities in managing and removing waste on any federal land used as a public target range. Section 121 of S. 3525 would exempt lead shot, ammunition, and fishing sinkers from provisions of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).