Frequently Asked Questions About the
"Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program Act of 2003"
Why is this legislation needed?
Does it make sense to create yet another federal program for
USDA to administer?
What if USDA tries to force states to impose long-term agreements
or easements in order to receive funding?
If some farmers and ranchers begin receiving payments to allow
public access, won't other producers react by restricting hunting on their
land?
It would seem that $50 million is not very much money when you
consider the vast amount of private land in the United States. Is $50 million
worth the effort?
It is realistic to think that a new program can be funded in
the current budget environment?
Some landowners are unwilling to open their land to the public
because of concerns about liability. Does the bill do anything to protect
landowners in such cases?
Is this legislation only about hunting or can the states allow
other outdoor recreation activities such as birding or wildlife trails under
their access programs?
The last section of the legislation repeals a specific provision
in the Farm Bill. Can you explain what that is about?
Why is this legislation needed?
Many states, including North Dakota, face growing controversy over who
can hunt in the state, and under what conditions. The debate has pitted
resident hunters against out-of-state hunters and the rural businesses that
increasingly depend on these non-resident hunters for their economic survival.
The issue has even put states at odds with each other. In addition, more
and more agricultural land is being bought up for personal recreation by
outside investors who often pay more than the land is worth for agricultural
purposes and then close the land to public hunting.
At its core, the hunting debate is about demand exceeding supply. Quite
simply, the public desire for hunting and other outdoor recreation opportunities
increasingly exceeds the amount of land available for such activities. The
problem is growing worse each year, and states are in a quandary as they
seek to resolve it.
This legislation is an attempt to address the root cause of the problem
by providing a voluntary, incentive-based program, administered by the states,
under which farmers and ranchers will be encouraged to make their land available
for access by the public. Building on the success of limited state programs
in this area, the legislation is designed to grease the wheel, rather than
re-invent it, and in the process provide an additional means of supporting
farm income in the future.
This legislation is an attempt to address the root cause of the problem
by providing a voluntary, incentive-based program, administered by the states,
under which farmers and ranchers will be encouraged to make their land available
for access by the public. Building on the success of limited state programs
in this area, the legislation is designed to grease the wheel, rather than
re-invent it, and in the process provide an additional means of supporting
farm income in the future.
Does it make sense to create yet another federal program for
USDA to administer?
USDAs role would be limited to allocating program funds to the states,
while the states would actually implement the program in the field under
terms set by each state. But the program would be entirely voluntary and
incentive-based, and each state would have the flexibility to build on what
works and what is acceptable in each state. Funds are provided under the
program to encourage public access, and are not intended to duplicate other
federal programs that provide funds for habitat enhancement or conservation
generally.
What if USDA tries to force states to impose long-term agreements
or easements in order to receive funding?
The legislation specifically requires the Secretary of Agriculture to evaluate
state programs based on clear indications of landowner acceptance within
the state. In North Dakota, for example, it is apparent that contracts with
terms similar to those under the Conservation Reserve Program have been
well received by farmers and ranchers, while longer-term agreements or easements
have not. Current experience would indicate that, to be successful in encouraging
acceptance among North Dakota farmers and ranchers, a public access program
should feature shorter-term agreements.
If some farmers and ranchers begin receiving payments to allow
public access, won't other producers react by restricting hunting on their
land?
Experience in the handful of states that currently sponsor modest hunter
“walk- in” programs indicates that those programs increase the
amount of private land accessible by the public, without discouraging those
land owners who already provide access from continuing to do so in the future.
In addition, by targeting voluntary programs to private land with proper
wildlife habitat, a common-sense threshold is established for entry into
the program. The land must have appropriate habitat, as determined by each
state.
It would seem that $50 million is not very much money when
you consider the vast amount of private land in the United States. Is $50
million worth the effort?
As with any new initiative, this program should be forced to prove itself.
And $50
million annually should be sufficient to demonstrate whether this program
can generate the benefits and public support necessary for the effort to
be maintained or expanded in the future.
It is realistic to think that a new program can be funded
in the current budget environment?
There are two major arguments in favor of public funding for this new program.
First, the program is offered to address a major and increasingly divisive
public policy question: Who should have access to wildlife habitat?
Second, on-going trade negotiations under the World Trade Organization
(WTO) are almost certain to limit further the ability of the United States
and other countries to provide traditional means of farm income support.
This proposed new program, because its payments are not based on the price
or production of agricultural commodities, could provide one means to support
farm income in a manner consistent with the new, more stringent WTO rules
likely in the future.
Some landowners are unwilling to open their land to the public
because of concerns about liability. Does the bill do anything to protect
landowners in such cases?
This is a real concern, but its also an issue that is best addressed
at the state level. Indeed, some states have apparently already protected
landowners against litigation involving personal injury or property damage
(but not gross negligence), provided the landowner does not charge the public
a fee to enter the land. Hunting regulations are generally set on a state-by-state
basis, and the liability issue should also be resolved by the state. In
fact, the bill includes a clear statement that nothing in the legislation
preempts state liability law.
Is this legislation only about hunting or
can the states allow other outdoor recreation activities such as birding or
wildlife trails under their access programs?
Although most of the discussion about this legislation is likely to revolve
around hunting, states are free to design their own program when providing
access for wildlife-related activities. Thus, in developing their own program,
many states are likely to recognize that birding and nature-based tourism
are increasingly popular recreational activities. Supporting wildlife-based
recreation through positive voluntary landowner incentives can help to expand
these other outdoor activities.
The last section of the legislation repeals a specific provision
in the Farm Bill. Can you explain what that is about?
