Why It Matters: Legislation that allows hunting and fishing on state public land to be banned based on a forest age class and prohibits sustainable forest management on Wildlife Management Areas, which are acquired and/or managed with revenue generated by sportsmen and women through the “user pays – public benefits” American System of Conservation Funding, sets a dangerous precedent and is a direct threat to hunters and anglers that depend on access to public lands.
Highlights:
- In March, several bills that would prohibit forest management on state public lands, including on Wildlife Management Areas, advanced in the Massachusetts Legislature.
- Thebills being considered include: Old Growth Forest Reserves Establishment (House Bill 903), Forest Protection (House Bill 953), Increased Protection of Wildlife Management Areas (House Bill 1048), and Forest Protection (House Bill 5216).
- On March 31, the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation (CSF) submitted a letter to the Massachusetts House of Representatives expressing concerns with the pieces of legislation and encouraging the Speaker of the House to table the bills.
A package of anti-forestry and anti-hunting bills opposed by CSF is pending action in the Massachusetts House Committee on Ways and Means. Several bills that were introduced in 2025 were redrafted, and a joint committee passed the bills accompanied by another bill that was introduced the same day. Among other things, the legislative package would establish “old growth forest reserves” on state-owned land and “buffer areas” around the reserves where active forest management would be prohibited, the creation of wildlife openings would be prohibited, and hunting and fishing could be restricted or prohibited if they are determined by the state to not be “suitable for the protection and management” of the reserves. Additionally, the bills would establish a council to oversee the management of reserves, and the council would not have a representative from the hunting and fishing community. The bills would also designate a minimum of 30% of Wildlife Management Areas as reserves and transfer management of the reserves to the Division of State Parks and Recreation. Finally, the bills would prohibit the creation of early successional habitat on lands under the control of the Division of State Parks and Recreation if 10% of early successional habitat exists in other areas of the state.
CSF’s letter expressed strong opposition to the bills and argued that the legislation contravenes the intent of the Wildlife Management Area program, undermines goals to improve forest resiliency, neglects the value of young forests and early successional habitats for wildlife, complicates management on public lands through the creation of buffers around reserves, and threatens access for hunters and anglers on public lands.
CSF’s letter stated, “We are strongly opposed to designating 30% of Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) as Reserves where sustainable forest and wildlife habitat management would be prohibited. WMAs are purchased and/or managed with funding generated by Massachusetts’ sportsmen and women, and WMAs provide important hunting and fishing opportunities for the public, particularly in a state with little public land like Massachusetts… Prohibiting forest management, including prohibiting the creation of wildlife openings and early successional habitat, converts WMAs to de facto state parks and undermines the intent of WMAs.”
CSF’s letter further stated, “We are strongly opposed to the provision that would allow fishing and hunting to be restricted or prohibited in old growth forest reserves (old growth forest plus buffer area). We are not aware of any situation across the country and cannot think of an example of how fishing or hunting would negatively impact the protection and management of old growth forests, let alone stands that are not old growth forests.”
As the Massachusetts Legislature considers these bills, CSF is hopeful that the significant negative impacts on wildlife habitat management and access for sportsmen and women will be considered and will continue to strongly oppose these bills throughout the legislative process.