There is no opportunity for productive fishing or hunting if there are no productive lands and waters in which to sling a line, spot and stalk or swing an over-under. Bottom line.
This basic fact has been a part of the American sporting consciousness since Theordore Roosevelt inscribed it, if not before. It’s a cornerstone of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation.
Fish and wildlife call public lands home
In the West, the vast majority of productive stream and upland habitat we have left is found on public lands. In fact, over 70 percent of the remaining native trout waters in the western United States are found on public lands. Much of these lands are managed for multiple use and are open for activities that, if not managed responsibly, have the potential to degrade these landscapes and the waters that run through them.
It’s hard to exaggerate the importance of public lands for fishing and hunting in America, but these lands also provide energy resources, minerals, forage, timber and other uses. Our nation needs responsibly developed, domestically produced energy, critical minerals and other resources—no question. But we also need native fish and wildlife, in populations robust enough to sustain our sporting heritage, the $1.2 trillion outdoor recreation economy and the many small businesses and communities that depend on healthy lands and waters.
Productive habitat is the critical variable for species viability. Without sufficient room to roam and large tracts of unpolluted areas of water and land, our most popular fish and game species start to go away.
Of the 28 trout species and subspecies native to the Lower 48, three are now extinct and six are listed as threatened or endangered. Excluding the extinct trout species, 52 percent now occupy less than 25 percent of their historical range and are at high risk from at least one major threat.
Nearly all native trout—92 percent—face some level of risk.
Anglers and hunters stand for protections
It’s a lot more difficult—and exponentially more expensive—to try to restore degraded lands and waters than it is to protect them in good working condition in the first place. We need to do more to safeguard public land strongholds for fish and wildlife.
For decades, anglers and hunters have accepted the challenge of conserving our remaining hunting grounds and trout streams by supporting laws, policies and administrative actions that do just that. One such action, taken by 18 presidents over the past 119 years, is the designation of national monuments. Nine Republican presidents have established national monuments—Theodore Roosevelt, Taft, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, Eisenhower, Ford, George W. Bush and Donald Trump.
National monuments can be established by acts of Congress or by presidential proclamation. The authority for presidents to designate national monuments is provided under the Antiquities Act, passed by Congress and signed into law in 1906. The act gives presidents the ability to permanently protect extraordinary geologic, cultural, historic and ecological resources on federal public lands and waters from new development (valid existing use permits and mineral claims are not affected).
The Antiquities Act is a powerful tool for conservation, and a coalition of hunters and anglers have developed principles for designating the right monuments in the right places. Under all such designations on Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service lands, management of fishing and hunting is retained by state fish and wildlife agencies.
For more than a century, presidents have protected some of our most important places for fishing and hunting and left behind a powerful and lasting legacy. In recent years, such places include Rio Grande del Norte National Monument in New Mexico, Sáttítla Highlands National Monument in California and Browns Canyon National Monument in Colorado.
In President Trump’s first term, he made a major contribution to this legacy by signing the John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act, which established five new national monuments and designated more than one million acres of Wilderness and 350 miles of new Wild and Scenic rivers. The Dingell Act, the most comprehensive conservation legislation in a generation, improved protections for key fishing and hunting grounds in Oregon, Colorado, Utah, Washington, New Mexico and California.
Such protections are supported broadly by the public. Eighty five percent of western voters support creating new national parks, monuments, wildlife refuges and tribal protected areas to protect historic sites or areas important for outdoor recreation.
But new legislation has been introduced in both houses of Congress that would curtail the authority for presidents to establish national monuments. Moreover, a litigation battle has been brewing that challenges the very idea of America’s public lands, with plaintiffs arguing that the federal government should begin disposing of hundreds of millions of acres of public lands that belong to all of us.
Both ideas are bad for anglers, hunters and anyone whose livelihood or lifestyle depends on public lands, from the Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument in Maine to the Tongass National Forest in Alaska, and the millions of honey holes, secret spots and places of personal refuge in between.
Today, fishing, hunting, and wildlife dependent activities such as bird watching represent a robust and growing economy and support tens of thousands of jobs, from guiding to retail services. We are not talking chump change, either. As of 2022, more than 39 million people participated in fishing, generating over $99 billion in economic activity annually, while more than 14 million people participated in hunting, contributing more than $45 billion to the economy each year.
The potential sell-off of federal public lands—which is what the controversy over “disposal” of federal lands is really about—undermines our outdoor traditions and threatens rural economies. These lands belong to all Americans and provide vital access for anglers, hunters, campers and outdoor enthusiasts. Sixty five percent of Westerners oppose transferring ownership of national public lands to states.
Striving for balance
Controversy over public lands management is nothing new, but collaboration and compromise are a proven path to finding solutions that accommodate both conservation and development. If we prioritize areas for such development which are less vital for fish and wildlife—and double down on strong, durable protections for those public lands with the highest fish and wildlife habitat and angling and hunting values—we can sustain our sporting heritage and the satisfaction of casting to native trout and filling freezers with wild game.
As Congress and the administration outline proposals for public lands, all of us who fish and hunt need to pay attention and let decision makers know when policies would undermine conservation priorities and sporting opportunities. Our last, best places to hunt and fish—and the nearly $400 billion economy that fish and wildlife support—depend on healthy public lands and public land advocates.