Frequently Asked Questions

Why is this legislation needed?

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’s 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 state or tribe, under which farmers, ranchers, and tribal members will be encouraged to make their land available for access by the public. Building on the success of limited state programs 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?

USDA’s role would be limited to allocating program funds to the states and tribes, while the states and tribes actually would implement the program in the field under terms set by each state or tribe. But the program would be entirely voluntary and incentive-based, and each state and tribe would have the flexibility to build on what works and what is acceptable for them. 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 in general.

What if USDA tries to force states or tribes to impose long-term agreements or easements in order to receive funding?

The legislation specifically requires the Secretary of Agriculture to evaluate state and tribal programs based on clear indications of landowner acceptance within the state or reservation. In states with current successful access programs, 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.

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 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 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 or tribe.

Is it 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 on treaties under the World Trade Organization (WTO) are almost certain to limit 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.

Will money for their new program come at the expense of funding for current farm or conservation programs?

No. Funding for Open Fields is proposed as an addition to existing funds or farm and conservation programs. Although the proposed funding source for all these programs would be the same - the Commodity Credit Corporation - "new" funding is proposed for Open Fields, just as other new farm or conservation programs have been funded in the past, including in the 2002 Farm Bill.

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 it’s also an issue that is best addressed at the state or tribal level. Indeed, some states already have 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 generally are set on a state-by-state or tribal by tribal basis, and the liability issue also should be resolved by the states and tribes. In fact, the bill includes a clear statement that nothing in the legislation preempts state or tribal liability law.