Testimony in Opposition
LD 39, An Act To Clarify Landowners’ Liability Regarding Public Access
Senator Keim, Representative Moonen, distinguished members of the Judiciary Committee, my name is David Trahan and I am representing the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine testifying in opposition to LD 39, An Act To Clarify Landowners’ Liability Regarding Public Access.
Although expanding liability protections for landowners as it relates to recreational activities is something our organization supports, we cannot support LD 39 because of the unintended consequences that could occur if this legislation passes. Expanding liability exemptions beyond landowners and their agents to lease, sub-lease and easement holders creates dozens of different scenarios in which landowners can expand “pay-to-play” situations that could completely restructure the way in which Maine people recreate on private land.
For example, one landowner in the Bingham area recently gated thousands of acres of land and leased all of their bait sites to one guide. The only person allowed to bait bears on the land was the lease holder who happened to be a guide and their clients. Guides are required to have liability insurance because they are a business. Do we want to reward landowners and leaseholders by voiding them of all liability and responsibility for shutting their land to recreational access?
I know the sponsor of this legislation and the co-sponsors do not support “pay-to-play” and did not understand this legislation could allow such a situation to happen. This is a stereotypical situation where a bill leads to unintended consequences. It is becoming the trend around the state for large landowners to lease out hunting opportunities, particularly bear baiting sites, and give exclusive access to one guide and their clients. This trend concerns us.
Our organization does not support expanding this type of activity to other types of hunting, which this bill could do. I have attached a lengthy analysis by Kelly and Chapman, Esq. confirming what our concerns are and I encourage you to read the analysis particularly the conclusion portion. Quote: “What are the practical applications? The changes facilitate a middle man being involved, while maintaining protection for the land owner. This might expand hunting opportunities, where land owners might otherwise be disinclined to provide access. On the other hand, it makes land owners more capable of granting “pay-for-play access” to the public, generally, because they, or their agent, don’t need to be directly involved.”
For this reason we ask you to vote ought not to pass.