Sportsmen Slam House Bill Limiting Public Lands Acquisitions

Rep. Morgan Griffith
Rep. Morgan Griffith

Backcountry Hunters and AnglersWASHINGTON -(Ammoland.com)- A bill that would inhibit the strategic acquisition of public lands and waters for access, recreation and fish and wildlife habitat is drawing strong criticism from Backcountry Hunters & Anglers.

H.R. 2167, introduced last week by Rep. Morgan Griffith of Virginia, would legislate a “no net increase” in the size of the public estate, stipulating that for every acre acquired by the federal government, an equal amount must be sold or divested to state or private interests.

The “Acre In, Acre Out Act” would unnecessarily deprive entities such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service of a critical tool in their efforts to increase public access opportunities and address the needs of specific game and fish populations, said BHA President and CEO Land Tawney.

“American citizens must remain committed to providing our land management agencies the tools they need to successfully conserve key lands and waters and enhance public access to the outdoors,” said Tawney, “and the ability to strategically acquire important acreages is central to achieving this goal.

“Under Congressman Griffith’s legislation, we the American public land owners would be forced to sell off our lands – potentially at a fraction of their value – in order to enable land managers to do their jobs,” Tawney continued. “This type of contemptible horse trading deserves to be swiftly and summarily rejected. Hunters and anglers must unite in urging our elected officials to stand strong in opposing Mr. Griffith’s bill, just as previous Congresses have done.”

This marks the third time Rep. Griffith has introduced the legislation, which so far has failed to advance.

Backcountry Hunters & Anglers is the sportsmen’s voice for our wild public lands, waters and wildlife.

 

Learn more about BHA:

Visit their website.
Connect with them on Facebook.
Follow them on Twitter.
Find them on Instagram.

11
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
10 Comment threads
1 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
11 Comment authors
John ReynoldsWild BillOdellCharlie RedfeatherTionico Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
John Reynolds
Guest
John Reynolds

To those that support this bill who do you think the federal government is?

Do you not realize that the federal government is US and that when WE own it we have access. When it’s sold to the robber barons they block us out and the ruin it for future generations.

Odell
Guest
Odell

All these federal lands should be returned to the states, or to the previous owners from whom the land was taken if at all possible. Any public lands should only belong to the states, not the federal government.

Charlie Redfeather
Guest
Charlie Redfeather

Most of you making comments, Don’t have the intelligence of a Knat!! What land do you want the Feds to aquire? The land under your house? The land down the block?Right now the Feds own almost 80 % of the land west of Mississippi, land that is right now so restrictive sportsmen can barely access it!! If we allow the Feds to further restrict our land you won’t be able to use it at all!! Did you not pay attention as to what happened to Mr. Vinican last year in Oregon?? The Feds shot him deader than a skunk and… Read more »

Tionico
Guest
Tionico

While this bill does not do nearly enough, BHA’s opposition to it is for the wrong reasons. They say: “The “Acre In, Acre Out Act” would unnecessarily deprive entities such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service of a critical tool in their efforts to increase public access opportunities and address the needs of specific game and fish populations, said BHA President and CEO Land Tawney.” oh what CONSTITUTIONAL basis do these FedGov agencies have control of ANY lands? THAT is the question. Neither BHA nor this bill address THIS question. Examine… Read more »

Mike Murray
Guest
Mike Murray

The Bill sucks. Exactly how much of the (mostly western) States will the Feds deign to release, or attempt to gain? East of the Mississippi the Feds control (on average) about 5% or less. West of the Mississippi, it’s 30% to 80%. In FL 13%, in VA it’s 9%. How much more would this fool like to give them?

Jim S
Guest
Jim S

BHA is a socialist organization looking to lock up as much land under the federal government as possible. Just look for their funding sources.

MarkT
Guest
MarkT

Why would we want the Feds to own even more of our land? They own too much as it is. I hope most outdoorsmen are intelligent & patriotic enough to realize that the Feds owning lots of land is not good for we the people. To simply want more land to hunt n fish on is selfish and short-sighted.

Chris Mallory
Guest
Chris Mallory

Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17. Federal ownership of most “public land” is unconstitutional.

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

@Chris Mallory, This is a common claim—that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to manage land beyond the District of Columbia or military bases. However, a subcommittee (7 Republicans, 3 Democrats, and 1 Independent) of the Conference of Western Attorneys General completed a two-year analysis of this argument and determined that it was unfounded. Also, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government has a right to own public land, going all the way back to 1840, United States v. Gratiot. Please see Article IV, Section 3, clause 2, which authorizes the United States to rule, regulate,… Read more »

TL Cleveland
Guest
TL Cleveland

Great bill. Back country hunters & anglers is just another left wing communist front group as is conservation voters. Reseach American history and the original intent of the founders

Jennifer Deegan
Guest
Jennifer Deegan

Thank you so much for opposing this horrible bill!