Why It Matters: Year after year, many states are seeing large influxes of new residents, and with that, the need for more housing and expanded services continues. Expanded urbanization and development require land, and sometimes that comes at the expense of state lands that were once utilized by not only hunters, anglers, and trappers, but also by horseback riders, hikers, bikers, birders, paddleboarders, and kayak and canoers. While the sale of these lands provides funds for the state, wildlife and opportunities for sportsmen and women are negatively impacted. “No-Net-Loss” policies limit the loss of access to hunting and fishing opportunity by establishing a minimum acreage of publicly- owned areas open to sportsmen and women, which ensures that future generations have the same opportunities tomorrow that currently exist today.
Highlights:
- “No-Net-Loss” of public hunting lands has become increasingly important to ensure access to hunting lands for current and future generations of hunters.
- President George H.W. Bush first addressed the subject of “No-Net-Loss” as a wetlands conservation goal for his administration in 1989.
- States such as Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, and Mississippi were some of the first states to implement “No-Net-Loss”.
- Alabama, Kentucky, Maine, Connecticut, and West Virginia have also adopted language that follows the “No-Net-Loss” model. New Jersey continues to introduce such legislation but has yet to be successful in its enactment.
- States that already have “No-Net-Loss” enacted can update their baseline year so any lands that have been obtained since the legislation was first enacted, can now be encompassed by these protections.
“No-Net-Loss” creates a baseline of public land acreage that is available for access by hunters, anglers, and trappers. Legislation can include a provision that requires state agencies to provide written justification for any closure of public hunting lands and provide annual reports to the legislature detailing the public lands closed to hunting in the preceding year and the lands opened to hunting to compensate for the closure. Additionally, the passage of “No-Net-Loss” legislation in no way infringes on private property rights or the rights of local governments to manage their own lands.
Many sportsmen and women, and outdoor recreationists, rely on federal and state lands to enjoy their pursuits. According to surveys conducted by Responsive Management, 46% of hunters cited lack of access as taking away their enjoyment of hunting and influencing their decision not to hunt.
Through the American System of Conservation Funding (ASCF), revenues from the sale of hunting, fishing, and trapping licenses are used to fund the state’s fish and wildlife agency. Additionally, those funds are then eligible for federal match dollars through the Wildlife Restoration Act (Pittman-Robertson Act) and the Sport Fish Restoration Act (Dingell-Johnson Act). If those 46% of respondents stopped participating in hunting, fishing, and trapping, their respective states would see a loss in direct (license sales) and indirect funding (federal match) for their missions, thus directly impacting the state’s ability to conserve wildlife and fisheries. Access and opportunity are the first “domino” in a figurative “domino effect” that impact conservation. If access and opportunity “fall”, there is chain reaction of undoubtable detriment throughout the entire system of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation.
Moving forward, the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation (CSF) encourages legislators to enact permanent protections for state-owned lands that guarantee hunting and fishing access. Protecting access for sportsmen and women is imperative in the recruitment, retention, and reactivation of our nation’s boots-on-the-ground conservationists, who primarily fund the state’s fish and wildlife agencies and conservation. For more information, please visit https://congressionalsportsmen.org/policy/no-net-loss/.
