Why It Matters: Massachusetts House Bill 903, was introduced into the Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources this past month. This legislation would authorize the establishment of old growth forest reserves on state-owned lands – which include “old growth forests” plus vaguely defined “buffer areas” where sustainable forestry and wildlife habitat improvement practices would be prohibited. The bill would also authorize prohibiting certain activities in old growth forest reserves, including fishing and hunting.
Highlights:
- If enacted, this law would be first in the country to authorize the prohibition of hunting and fishing on public land based on a forest stand’s successional stage.
- So called “Buffer Areas” around “old growth forests” are ill-defined and would consist of significant portions of state-owned land around targeted areas.
- The power to prohibit hunting and angling in ”old growth forests” and surrounding “buffer areas” would be explicitly granted to the Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs.
“Old growth forests” are an underrepresented forest habitat type in Massachusetts. However, Massachusetts House Bill 903, which would authorize the designation of old growth forest reserves, comprised of “old growth forests” plus “buffer areas,” on state-owned lands, would do little, if anything, to change that, despite its intent to protect old growth. As the Massachusetts Forest Action Plan states, “the vast majority of all old growth forest stands on public lands in Massachusetts are protected by small patch reserves or large reserves.” Protections for old growth forests are already in place. Conversely, young forests are also underrepresented in state, and prioritizing management for early successional habitats is important to support a wide range of game and non-game species, including many Species of Greatest Conservation Need.
Beyond the inherent problems with this bill being a solution in search of a problem, there are also technical aspects within the language that are highly problematic. For example, the “buffer area” definition is subjective and provides little guidance regarding how big a buffer area should be (e.g., distance from edge of old growth forest stand, total acreage, etc.) apart from “sufficient size and configuration.” Giving the Secretary ultimate authority to define “sufficient size and configuration” without guidelines. It is critically important for a range of forest age classes and habitats to be represented across the landscape to enhance biodiversity and support a wider range of wildlife species, and there is a concern that forest managers will lose management flexibility and not be able to create habitat diversity for wildlife because of the lack of clarity and potential overreach when designating buffer areas.
Of utmost concern is giving the authority to prohibit hunting and angling practices in these ill-defined areas to the Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs, which would directly impact access for sportsmen and women who are the best stewards of our wildlife.
Sportsmen and women provide, on average, nearly 60% of the funds used by state fish and wildlife agencies to carry out their critical conservation missions through the “user pays – public benefits” American System of Conservation Funding (ASCF). In Massachusetts, the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (MassWildlife) receives 85% of its budget from sportsmen and women. Reducing access and opportunity to those responsible for most of the habitat management in the commonwealth is an ill-conceived plan.
“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 (buffer areas),” said John Culclasure, Senior Director of Forest Policy for the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation (CSF). “The ‘suitable’ standard in the bill is vague and opens the door for capricious decision-making that could bar anglers and hunters from accessing publicly-owned land, including land purchased and/or managed with funding generated through hunting and fishing licenses and excise taxes on sporting-related goods – the ‘user pays – public benefits’ American System of Conservation Funding.”
CSF continues to work with and monitor wildlife and forestry issues to maintain access for hunters, anglers, trappers and recreational shooters as well as making sure best practices are utilized for habitat management, directly working with our wildlife agencies, such as Mass Wildlife.
