While hunting and fishing are permitted on the majority of federal lands, some believe that those recreational activities are unnecessarily restricted by the planning processes of federal land management agencies, such as the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Forest Service, the National Park Service (NPS), and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Additionally, some believe courts have misinterpreted the purposes of those lands and impeded recreation. The Sportsmen's Heritage Act of 2012 ( H.R. 4089 ) would "open" almost all federal lands and waters to hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting, and establish criteria for land management agencies to close lands to those activities. Opponents of the bill assert that it would adversely affect wilderness areas and create additional, sometimes contradictory, steps for land management agencies in their already complex planning processes. Titles I and II establish a uniform system for land management agencies to determine whether federal lands should be closed to hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting. Titles III through VI of H.R. 4089 address issues related to hunting, fishing, or federal lands, such as issuing permits to allow the import of polar bear parts by certain applicants; continuing the use of lead shot and lead sinkers; opening the Kisatchie National Forest in Louisiana for dog-deer hunting; and limiting the President's ability to establish national monuments under the Antiquities Act of 1906. In general, states manage hunting and fishing within their boundaries, and federal laws regulating these activities are a series of exceptions to this general rule. Exceptions include regulating migratory birds, protecting species under the Endangered Species Act, or regulating hunting and fishing on federal lands. Federal land managers work with state managers in regulating the time, place, manner, or quantity of animals to be taken. In short, the delineation of these responsibilities may be summarized as the federal government regulates the habitat, and the state regulates the take. Hunting and conservation have been linked since the advent of federal wildlife legislation, such as the Lacey Act of 1900 or the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. As one supporter of H.R. 4089 stated: The conservation movement was started by American sportsmen a century ago and since then almost all of our most successful wildlife conservation programs have been associated with recreational hunting and fishing. Species that were once rare, such as wild turkeys, deer, bear and wood ducks are now plentiful as a result of private efforts by sportsmen and scientific management by state fish and game departments. Even so, controversy exists about exactly what hunting, fishing, or shooting sports currently are allowed on federal land and when. Some believe federal land planning processes, which include analyses under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), are an obstacle to hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting. Others point to recent court decisions favoring wilderness protection over recreation as restricting statutorily guaranteed recreational access. Opening more lands to hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting should be balanced against good game management, public safety, resource management, and the statutory purposes of the lands. These are a few of the issues addressed in H.R. 4089 . The bill is supported by groups including the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance, National Rifle Association, Safari Club International, and other organizations. Opponents include Wilderness Watch, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, Humane Society, and others. Wilderness Watch described the bill as "a thinly disguised measure to gut the 1964 Wilderness Act and protections for every unit of the National Wilderness Preservation System." However, one of the supporters of H.R. 4089 , U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance, describes the bill as clarifying "that hunting, fishing and recreational shooting are legitimate uses of federal public lands and that these lands are open, as a matter of law, to these traditional activities." According to Safari Club International, the lack of access is a "primary reason" that hunters and anglers stop using federal lands for those activities. However, it is not clear whether those goals will be achieved by H.R. 4089 . To the extent that "access" means physical access, rather than regulatory, the bill does not provide any funding for road or trail expansion or maintenance. It is also possible that the bill could slow the planning process; it appears to add steps to the land management processes already in place, such as new criteria, reporting requirements, and public notices. H.R. 4089 is silent as to when implementation is required, which could be interpreted as leading to land agencies having to revise all land management plans at the same time. Additionally, the bill proposes different criteria for different types of lands and different types of activities, potentially making application by land management agencies difficult. Finally, in some cases, particularly lands withdrawn for a particular purpose, such as wilderness areas or BLM national monuments, the bill favors activities over the conservation values for which those lands were designated. Introduced on February 27, 2012, the Sportsmen's Heritage Act of 2012 ( H.R. 4089 ) is an amalgam of three earlier bills. Title I is based on H.R. 2834 , the Recreational Fishing and Hunting Heritage and Opportunities Act. Title II is based on H.R. 3440 , the Recreational Shooting Protection Act. Title III is based on H.R. 991 , which concerns importing polar bear trophies from Canada. Hearings were held on those bills. Title IV is based on H.R. 1558 , which concerns regulating the use of lead shot and sinkers by the Environmental Protection Agency. The two remaining titles of H.R. 4089 are similar to other bills introduced in the House during the 112 th Congress. Title V is similar to H.R. 2793 , which concerns the use of hunting dogs in a national forest in Louisiana. There were no hearings on this bill. Finally, a portion of Title VI, which would limit the President's ability to establish national monuments, is similar to H.R. 302 , on which hearings were held. The Committee on Natural Resources reported H.R. 4089 , as amended, on April 13, 2012 ( H.Rept. 112-426 ). H.Res. 614 allowed eight amendments to be in order. Three amendments were approved by the full House— H.Amdt. 1005 , H.Amdt. 1009 , and H.Amdt. 1012 . On April 17, 2012, the bill passed the House (yeas 274—nays 146). The federal government owns and manages approximately 635 million-640 million acres of land. About 95% of this land is owned and managed by four federal land management agencies—BLM, Forest Service, NPS, and FWS. The current land management practices for the four agencies regarding hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting are provided in the Appendix . In general, each agency is required by law to prepare a plan for land management approximately every 15 years, considering public input in the plan's development. Among other determinations, these plans describe what lands are open for activities including hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting, and any restrictions on those activities, such as locations and seasons. Each agency must balance statutory mandates regarding use and conservation in the plans. The plans may be amended or revised as circumstances warrant. A memorandum of understanding among the Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, BLM, and dozens of sporting organizations provides for increased communication in planning and implementing projects and activities related to hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting on federal lands. In addition to the specific statutes and regulations of each agency, all federal agencies must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires agencies to assess the environmental consequences of a proposed action before making a final decision, and Sections 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act, which require federal agencies to evaluate the effects of their actions on historic and cultural properties before acting. Both laws require public consultation prior to decision making. Title I of H.R. 4089 , the Recreational Fishing and Hunting Heritage and Opportunities Act, is intended to create an "open until closed" management policy for federal lands, according to the House committee report on H.R. 4089 . Title I describes the factors a land management agency must consider to justify closing federal lands to fishing, hunting, or recreational shooting. The steps include specific criteria for closure determinations, revising planning documents, and filing reports with Congress. Senate bill S. 2066 is almost identical to Title I of H.R. 4089 , which passed the House on April 17, 2012. Because of the similarities between the two bills, this report will refer only to H.R. 4089 unless there is a distinction between the two. This analysis will focus on Title I's potential impacts on lands managed by BLM, the Forest Service, NPS, and FWS. However, in light of the definition of federal public land (see below), the scope could be broader, including any agency that owns lands. Title I of the Sportsmen's Heritage Act of 2012 defines federal public land broadly. Under H.R. 4089 , Section 103(1), federal public land means "any land or water that is owned by the United States; and managed by a Federal agency (including the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service) for purposes that include the conservation of natural resources." The definition exempts lands or waters held in trust for the benefit of Indians or other Native Americans (§103(1)(B)); and Section 104(d) exempts BLM and Forest Service lands on the Outer Continental Shelf. While there is no existing statutory definition of federal public land , the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) defines public lands as BLM lands, the Title I definition is broader than the FLPMA definition, and arguably could be construed to include all federal lands.