Hunters, Environmentalists Square Off Over Access to Federal Lands

The Hunting Heritage Protection Act wending its way through Congress was supposed to be a harmless proposal that evokes the memory of Teddy Roosevelt and reminds Americans of their legacy of hunting on federal lands.

Instead, the bill has fueled a bitter debate between hunters and environmentalists over access to federal lands and whether more hunting endangers hikers, bird-watchers and other outdoor hobbyists.

The National Audubon Society says that if the bill by Rep. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) becomes law, families will need to wear bright orange vests when they visit a wildlife refuge.

Hunters say they are the ones under attack. As environmental groups file lawsuits and federal agencies write new land-use rules, the bill is needed to ensure that some federal land stays open to hunting, they say.

The bill, backed by House sportsmen such as Reps. Collin C. Peterson (D-Minn.) and Don Young (R-Alaska), would in general require that federal lands be open to recreational hunting unless national security, public safety, or other federal or state laws restrict the activity.

The proposal calls for a “no net loss” of hunting on federal lands. That means that if federal land managers closed one area to hunting, they would have to open an equal amount of land elsewhere.

The bill “is simply designed to put hunting on an equal plane with all other outdoors activities on public lands,” Chambliss said. “We’ve got too many public lands that people don’t have access to.”

The House Resources Committee, chaired by Young, approved the bill earlier this summer and last week forwarded it to the full House for consideration. Chambliss hopes to gain House approval before the body adjourns for the year next month.

In the Senate, Republican Rod Grams of Minnesota said he plans to try to attach a similar proposal to a major conservation bill that would provide $3 billion a year to buy land, restore coastlines and protect wildlife.

The 500,000-member Audubon, worried that Republicans will put the bill on a fast track, recently stepped up opposition in dramatic fashion.

The group sent a flyer with a bright orange hunting vest on the cover to each member of the House, with the inscription: “Planning a family trip to a national wildlife refuge? Better pack this.”

Inside the flyer, Audubon said the bill would place casual users of public lands closer to hunting and gunfire, which could have “catastrophic consequences.”

Bill Horn, the Washington, D.C., counsel of the Wildlife Legislative Fund of America, a pro-hunting group, called the Audubon flyer “one of the most irresponsible, misrepresentative” pieces that he has ever seen. He said it is preposterous to think the bill would endanger other land users.

But Dan Beard, senior vice president of Audubon in Washington, D.C., stood by the piece, saying the bill’s language would have the effect of making hunting the No. 1 priority on all federal lands.

“Federal lands shouldn’t become private hunting preserves,” he said. “These lands are open for all of us to enjoy--not just one special interest.”

No one disputes that hunting is--and will continue to be--a major activity on federal lands.

About 14 million Americans hunt. The activity is allowed on the vast majority of the 549 million acres of national forests, national wildlife refuges and Bureau of Land Management lands.

A Forest Service study four years ago found that hunters in national forests spent $2.1 billion and supported nearly 73,000 jobs.

But hunting advocates worry that federal agency proposals that could restrict road building in national forests and limit off-road vehicles on BLM lands also could limit hunters’ access.

Other isolated flare-ups, such as an effort to limit the range of off-road vehicles in Big Cypress National Preserve in Florida, added to their concerns.

The Chambliss proposal is a protective measure to ensure that land managers will keep hunters in mind when they write rules, said Richard Parsons, government affairs director of Safari Club International, the world’s largest hunting group.

Bill Harrison of Olympia, Wash., said he regularly hunts for elk in the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest and has had no problem getting access. He said the Chambliss bill would keep it that way.

But the Clinton administration opposes the bill, saying it would tie the hands of land managers who need flexibility in deciding whether to close areas to hunting from time to time to boost safety or reduce conflicts with other users.

The “no net loss” provision would be expensive, burdensome and complicated to administer, said agency officials, who question whether the bill is necessary.

“There’s certainly no move afoot to start wholesale closures at all,” said Rem Hawes, a BLM spokesman. “Without a doubt the vast majority of public land areas for the foreseeable future will be open to hunting.”

U.S. Congress legislative information: https://thomas.loc.gov/

The bill number is HR 4790.