Land totaling the size of Connecticut has been targeted in a new bill in the Republican House, uniting hunters and conservationists in opposition 
 
 Now that Republicans have quietly drawn a path to give away much of Americans’ public land, US representative Jason Chaffetz of Utah has introduced what the Wilderness Society is calling “step two” in the GOP’s plan to offload federal property. 
 
 The new piece of legislation would direct the interior secretary to immediately sell off an area of public land the size of Connecticut. In a press release for House Bill 621, Chaffetz, a Tea Party Republican, claimed that the 3.3m acres of national land, maintained by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), served “no purpose for taxpayers”. 
 
 But many in the 10 states that would lose federal land in the bill disagree, and public land rallies in opposition are bringing together environmentalists and sportsmen across the west. 
 
 Set aside for mixed use, BLM land is leased for oil, gas and timber, but is also open to campers, cyclists and other outdoor enthusiasts. As well as providing corridors for gray wolves and grizzly bears, low-lying BLM land often makes up the winter pasture for big game species, such as elk, pronghorn and big-horned sheep. 
 
 Jason Amaro, who represents the south-west chapter of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, describes the move as a land grab. 
 
 “Last I checked, hunters and fishermen were taxpayers,” said Amaro, who lives in a New Mexico county where 70,000 acres of federal lands are singled out. In total, his state, which sees $650m in economic activity from hunting and fishing, stands to lose 800,000 acres of BLM land, or more than the state of Rhode Island. 
 
 “That word ‘disposal’ is scary. It’s not ‘disposable’ for an outdoorsman,” he said. 
 
 Scott Groene, a Utah conservationist, said the state’s elected officials were trying to “seize public lands any way they can”, without providing Americans a chance to weigh in. If residents knew their local BLM land was being threatened, said Groene, “I’m sure the communities would be shocked”. 
 
 Congress moves to give away national lands, discounting billions in revenue and millions of jobs Read more 
 
 Chaffetz introduced the bill alongside a second piece of legislation that would strip the BLM and the US Forest Service of law enforcement capabilities, a move in line with the Utah delegation’s opposition to all federal land management. 
 
 “The other bill hamstrings our ability to manage and ensure that our public lands are being kept safe,” said Bobby McEnaney of the Natural Resources Defense Council. “When you have those two combined, it’s a fairly cynical approach to how public lands can be managed.” 
 
 The 10 states affected are Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Wyoming. Residents can see how much acreage is earmarked for “disposal” in their counties by checking a PDF on Chaffetz’s website. 
 
 Due to a controversial change this month to the House of Representatives’ rules, the sale does not have to make money for the federal government. A representative for the interior department, Mike Pool, who weighed in on a version of the bill in 2011, said selling those 3.3m acres “would be unlikely to generate revenue”. 
 
 A Republican conservation group in Utah likened it at the time to “selling the house to pay the light bill”. 
 
 The acreage identified is drawn from a 1997 survey conducted by the Clinton administration, which sought to identify potential offsets to revive the Florida Everglades after decades of pollution from the sugar cane industry. 
 
 The actual language of the 1997 survey, which did not result in land being sold, prefaced its findings with a caution: “Please note many lands identified appear to have conflicts which may preclude them from being considered for disposal or exchange.” 
 
 The vast majority of the thousands of parcels have “impediments to disposal”, according to the survey, including hosting endangered species and wetlands or having “cultural significance”. 
 
 Barack Obama created at least two federal protections in counties with large swathes of BLM land now designated for disposal: New Mexico’s Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks national monument, in 2014, and Utah’s Bears Ears national monument, in 2016. Arizona’s Parashant national monument, near the Grand Canyon, was designated by Bill Clinton in 2000 and also sits in a marked county. 
 
 A spokesperson for Chaffetz said he was not available for comment. 
 
 To outdoorsmen like Amaro, selling off individual parcels of national land creates a “multiplier problem”, where a small parcel of land turned private can cut off access for many. That’s what happened in Coronado national forest, he said. Ten acres that led on to hundreds of thousands of acres of public property were turned into state trust land. 
 
 “Access has been eliminated for much of the forest. The private landowners now effectively have their own private hunting preserves by not allowing public hunters a way into the national forest,” Amaro said. 
 
 Chaffetz’s proposal might in fact be in violation of the common-law Public Trust Doctrine, which requires that the federal government keep and manage national resources for all Americans. Courts have upheld the policy that sale or use must be in Americans’ interest. 
 
 John Gale, conservation director for Backcountry Hunters and Anglers in Missoula, Montana, said the Utah representatives were pushing the bills despite their proven unpopularity. 
 
 “It’s not only an assault on our traditions,” Gale said. “It’s the idea that they’re stealing that from our children.” ||||| Breaking News Emails Get breaking news alerts and special reports. The news and stories that matter, delivered weekday mornings. 
 
 WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is moving to reverse Obama-era rules barring hunters on some public lands in Alaska from baiting brown bears with bacon and doughnuts and using spotlights to shoot mother black bears and cubs hibernating in their dens. 
 
 The National Park Service issued a notice Monday of its intent to amend regulations for sport hunting and trapping in national preserves to bring the federal rules in line with Alaska state law. 
 
 Under the proposed changes, hunters would also be allowed to hunt black bears with dogs, kill wolves and pups in their dens, and use motor boats to shoot swimming caribou. 
 
 These and other hunting methods — condemned as cruel by wildlife protection advocates — were outlawed on federal lands in 2015. Members of the public have 60 days to provide comment on the proposed new rules. 
 
 "The conservation of wildlife and habitat for future generations is a goal we share with Alaska," said Bert Frost, the park service's regional director. "This proposed rule will reconsider NPS efforts in Alaska for improved alignment of hunting regulations on national preserves with State of Alaska regulations, and to enhance consistency with harvest regulations on surrounding non-federal lands and waters." 
 
 Alaska has 10 national preserves covering nearly 37,000 square miles (95,830 square kilometers). 
 
 The Alaska Department of Fish and Game was "pleased to see the National Park Service working to better align federal regulations with State of Alaska hunting and trapping regulations," Maria Gladziszewski, the state agency's deputy director of the Division of Wildlife Conservation, said in an email to The Associated Press. 
 
 She said the proposal is "progress in that direction, and we appreciate those efforts. Alaskans benefit when state and federal regulations are consistent." 
 
 Gladziszewski said the state doesn't conduct predator control in national preserves. "Predator control could be allowed in preserves only with federal authorization because such actions are subject to NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) review," she said. 
 
 Expanding hunting rights on federal lands has been a priority for Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, a former Montana congressman who displays a taxidermied bear in his Washington office along with mounted heads from a bison and an elk. 
 
 The Obama-era restrictions on hunting on federal lands in Alaska were challenged by Safari Club International, a group that promotes big-game hunting. The Associated Press reported in March that Zinke had appointed a board loaded with trophy hunters to advise him on conserving threatened and endangered wildlife, including members of the Safari Club. 
 
 President Donald Trump's sons are also avid trophy hunters who have made past excursions to Africa and Alaska. 
 
 Collette Adkins, a lawyer and biologist with the advocacy group Center for Biological Diversity, expressed outrage at the rollback. 
 
 "Cruel and harmful hunting methods like killing bear cubs and their mothers near dens have no place on our national preserves," she said. 
 
 The Humane Society of the United States said it would oppose the new rules. 
 
 "These federal lands are havens for wildlife and the National Park Service is mandated to manage these ecosystems in a manner that promotes conservation," said Anna Frostic, a lawyer for the animal rights group. "This proposed rule, which would allow inhumane killing of our native carnivores in a misguided attempt to increase trophy hunting opportunities, is unlawful and must not be finalized."
– Conservationists of all kinds are protesting a Republican lawmaker's proposal for the "disposal" of an area of federal land the size of Connecticut—and their outcry seems to have worked, for now. The House bill introduced by Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz called for the immediate sale of 3.3 million acres of public land in 10 states, Outdoor Life reports. "The long overdue disposal of excess federal lands will free up resources for the federal government" and boost economic development, Chaffetz initially said in a statement. But, following massive uproar, Chaffetz announced Wednesday night he would withdraw the bill. A rule change introduced in January means the federal government is no longer required to make money when it sells off public lands. The bill Chaffetz introduced stated that the land had "no purpose for taxpayers," though hunters and other outdoor enthusiasts strongly disagreed, calling the move a "land grab" that will deprive them of access to large areas of wilderness. "Last I checked, hunters and fishermen were taxpayers," Backcountry Hunters and Anglers spokesperson Jason Amaro told the Guardian. He represents a chapter that includes New Mexico, where a chunk of land the size of Rhode Island would have been sold off under the bill. "That word 'disposal' is scary," Amaro said. It's not 'disposable' for an outdoorsman." Over at Outside Online, Abe Streep warns that this won't be "the last fight between the Republican Congress and the outdoor industry."