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?

USDA’s 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 it’s 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?

The 2002 Farm Bill includes a provision stating that acreage enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), and “any other...conservation program for which payments are made in exchange for not producing an agricultural commodity” shall not be included in calculating a farm’s acreage base for purposes of farm program payments.

It is logical to exclude land enrolled in the CRP and WRP (and potentially other federal conservation programs) from a farm’s acreage base, since payments are provided separately under the CRP and WRP programs. However, USDA has also ruled that farmland enrolled under state “public access” programs that provide a modest payment for establishing habitat rather than growing agricultural commodities should also be excluded from a farm’s acreage base. Unfortunately, in these situation, the loss of federal farm benefits greatly exceeds the incentive payments from the state, imposing a harsh penalty on the farmer and undermining state programs. This section would repeal that Farm Bill provision.