Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

A Behind-the-Scenes Look at the Sportsmen's Heritage Act

April 26, 2012
A Behind-the-Scenes Look at the Sportsmen's Heritage Act - 2

I’m not a fan of politics. Democracy, on the other hand, is something I value. The recent passage of H.R. 4089, the Sportsmen’s Heritage Act, is a bit of both. At its core, the legislative package is designed to ensure that hunting and fishing are protected uses of public land.

But, as always seems to happen in Washington, the full scope of the bills has been complicated thanks in part to politics. Some of the add-ons (like preventing greenie-weenie lawyers from continuing to push for lead bans in ammunition and fishing tackle) are certainly interesting and needed but do complicate things. In a previous Open Country post, Ben Lamb did an excellent job of breaking down some of the areas of concern and I won’t rehash those here.

What I can offer, however, is a bit of a behind-the-scenes look at the events that led up to the Sportsmen’s Heritage Act finding its way through the U.S. House of Representatives and illustrate just a bit about how great democracy can be – and hopefully illustrate just how important your voice is along the way.

In 2007, a southeast Michigan attorney named Kurt Meister filed suit against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service alleging that the management plan for the Huron-Manistee National Forest, located in Michigan’s northern Lower Peninsula, displayed too much favoritism towards hunters and snowmobile riders and didn’t allow enough opportunity for “quiet” recreation.

Michigan is my home state and I happen to work for Michigan United Conservation Clubs, a non-profit conservation group that serves as a watchdog for hunting and fishing rights in the state. Obviously, such a lawsuit quickly became a point of attention and hundreds of hours of staff time were devoted to the battle.

The suit was originally tossed out but Meister appealed that ruling to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court where he found sympathetic ears. The Court of Appeals found that the Forest Service had failed to coordinate its planning with the state of Michigan and didn’t consider closing 14 semi-primitive, non-motorized areas to gun hunting and snowmobile use in favor of “alternative” uses when establishing its management plans for the forest.

As a result, Huron-Manistee National Forest managers were forced to amend the management plan and they offered four alternatives. The options ranged from maintaining the existing regulations to eliminating gun hunting and snowmobile use in some 60,000-plus acres of the forest. It was clear what the intent of offering the range of choices was: Did people really value hunting and fishing as a protected use of the Huron-Manistee National Forest? Or was Meister right? Did the majority of forest users truly view gun hunting and snowmobile use as an unnecessary and obtrusive activity?

If there ever was a time for the hunting community to speak up, it was then. And speak up they did.

News of the ruling spread quickly and sportsmen’s organizations rallied the troops. MUCC, one of the nation’s largest and longest-running groups of its kind, used the instant reach of e-mail to rally its 40,000-plus members. Thousands of comments were submitted to the U.S. Forest Service, the vast majority of which supported firearms hunting. Nationally, the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance, NRA and others weighed in and helped deliver much-needed media exposure to the issue.

Hunters were no longer the silent majority. They spoke and spoke loudly.

As a result, the Forest Service opted to reclassify 13 of the 14 areas to management designations that very clearly allow for gun hunting and maintained snowmobile access on designated trails.

While the Huron-Manistee case was a victory for hunting and fishing, it also revealed a very real threat to the future of hunting on National Forest lands and it was clear that legislative action was needed to prevent further frivolous lawsuits. Because the issue received such wide-spread support from hunters, anglers and conservation organizations, politicians – the original self-preservationists -- were willing to take up the cause and, of course, earn a few votes come November. As I said, I’m not much for politics. But I have learned that without ample public support, legislators will not take a stand no matter the issue. By standing up and making our desires known, we not only won the battle for our hunting heritage in the Huron-Manistee National Forest, we also made it easy for legislation to take shape.

And in today’s political climate, that’s saying something.

Comments (2)

Top Rated
All Comments
from TonyH. wrote 1 year 51 weeks ago

Mr. Purcell:
I agree 100 percent -- the bill's language is not good in its current form. To be honest, I do not know a lot about the pieces of the bill outside of those that deal with the public access mandate. Ben Lamb, however, is very versed on those and has done a pair of entries with some great information. Unfortunately, it appears that this bill is following the "Washington" path and being jammed full of a lot of other pieces of legislation, some of which seem to be a bit peripheral to the public access portion.

For what it's worth, I agree that wilderness areas should be available that do not allow rampant ATV/ORV/vehicle access. Some day, I will be too old and physically unable to hike in and hunt those areas. And I'll miss them. But I'll be happy that my son can enjoy what I have.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Roderick K. Purcell wrote 1 year 51 weeks ago

Thanks for this background, Tony. It sounds like this bill has some strong things going for it. Other components, though, have me wondering. Perhaps you can enlighten us on the Congressional Research Services report on this bill that says the wording could allow motorized traffic in official Wilderness Areas. I hunt and fish in wilderness areas (along with plenty other folks) and, while ATVs have a place in the woods, Wilderness ain't it. Sounds like this bill still needs some work.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment (200 characters or less)

from TonyH. wrote 1 year 51 weeks ago

Mr. Purcell:
I agree 100 percent -- the bill's language is not good in its current form. To be honest, I do not know a lot about the pieces of the bill outside of those that deal with the public access mandate. Ben Lamb, however, is very versed on those and has done a pair of entries with some great information. Unfortunately, it appears that this bill is following the "Washington" path and being jammed full of a lot of other pieces of legislation, some of which seem to be a bit peripheral to the public access portion.

For what it's worth, I agree that wilderness areas should be available that do not allow rampant ATV/ORV/vehicle access. Some day, I will be too old and physically unable to hike in and hunt those areas. And I'll miss them. But I'll be happy that my son can enjoy what I have.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Roderick K. Purcell wrote 1 year 51 weeks ago

Thanks for this background, Tony. It sounds like this bill has some strong things going for it. Other components, though, have me wondering. Perhaps you can enlighten us on the Congressional Research Services report on this bill that says the wording could allow motorized traffic in official Wilderness Areas. I hunt and fish in wilderness areas (along with plenty other folks) and, while ATVs have a place in the woods, Wilderness ain't it. Sounds like this bill still needs some work.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment (200 characters or less)

ADVERTISEMENT

About Open Country

Hunters and anglers across the nation consistently list one challenge as their primary obstacle to spending more time in the field: Access.

Outdoor Life's Open Country program aims to tackle that issue head on and with boots on the ground. The program highlights volunteer-driven efforts to improve access along with habitat improvements to make existing public lands even better places to hunt and fish. The program's goal is to substantially increase sportsman's access across the country by promoting events that make a difference.

Here on Open Country's blog page, contributors take a close look at access issues across the country. Some are public-policy discussions, where we investigate the nuances of public access. In other blogs, we shine a light on attempts to turn public recreation opportunities into private hunting and fishing domains. In still other blogs, we interview decision makers about access issues. Together, we fight for the ability of America's hunters and anglers to have a place to swing a gun or wet a line.

We promise the discussion is always lively, interesting, and fresh, so visit this page frequently to tune into the latest access issue.

The Open Country program culminates in grants and awards with top projects and participants being honored.

Submit a project for the Open Country Grant Award.
Nominate an individual for the Open Country Award.

Open Country

  


 


Event Calendar

  • April 19: Spruce Planting at Crane Pond State Game Area
  • May 3: Jack Pine Planting in the Grayling Forest Management Unit
  • May 29: Red Oak Planting in Shingleton Forest Management Unit
  • June 1: Red Oak Planting in Gwinn Forest Management Unit
  • View all events.