I was just over at Tovar’s Mindful Carnivore blog, and as usual, he’s spiked up a pretty good discussion.  He started it all by writing about posting his property with No Hunting signs, and about the different perspectives people have on putting up those signs.  It’s a good and relevant topic, and because of the diverse group of readers on his site, the feedback includes a lot of great points.

One of the comment threads, however, spun me off on a tangent (albeit hardly original). 

The commenter brought up the somewhat hackneyed notion that fish and game deparments cater to hunters and fishermen to the detriment of the rest of the ecosystem.  It’s an argument that still comes up often from the anti-hunting faction, and there’s enough surface logic to it that I find a lot of non-hunters and even some hunters starting to buy into it.  The truth, as I know it, isn’t quite that cut-and-dried.

First of all, let me lead in by saying that I totally agree that some hunters and fishermen can be very vocal and short-sighted when it comes to issues that impact their ability to hunt or fish.  The fact that a significant portion of funding for wildlife projects comes from their licenses, tags, and taxes spurs a sense of entitlement.  “We paid for it, we should have the say about how it’s managed,” they might cry. 

Of course there’s some merit to that perspective.  Wildlife agencies have to recognize the value of hunters and fishermen, and they realize that if this part of the constituency is not supplicated to some extent, they’ll lose that source of revenue.  Wildlife management decisions that reduce access to or availability of game will also reduce the number of licenses sold.  As license sales go down, federal Pittman-Robertson funds dry up.  In cases where hunting is used as part of the management strategy (e.g. whitetail deer, feral hogs, snow geese, etc.), a reduction in hunter numbers also means that harvest goals may not be met.  So it’s true that hunters and fishermen often do wield some clout in wildlife management decisions… even if it’s not nearly as much as some folks would have us believe.

At the same time, what the folks with an agenda don’t say, and what the rest may not know, is that even though a program might be designated “elk habitat restoration” or “deer herd management”, the programs tend to benefit many other species of fauna and flora.  Very few wildlife agencies engage in intentional monoculture, despite the accusations of anti-hunting organizations.  Likewise, many other programs are ignored in this argument, such as songbird restoration, research, and the protection of sensitive ecosystems, none of which have anything to do with hunting or fishing.  I expect a quick examination of any state’s wildlife resources department will turn up a number of such projects. 

All of this has got me thinking, again, that maybe it’s time to review the way wildlife and wildlife resources are funded.  Maybe it’s time to spread the burden a little more evenly to all users of the outdoors.  So here are some thoughts.  Just bouncing them around, of course, but for the sake of discussion…

Licenses – In CA, every dollar from hunting and fishing licenses, tags, and fees is deposited back into a fund specifically designated for Fish and Game purposes (despite Schwartzenegger’s efforts to raid the fund).  That’s not a bad chunk of change every year, and all of that money is earmarked for use in DFG projects and research.  It’s a pretty good arrangment.  I think more states should adopt this model. 

But what if, instead of just hunters and fishermen, everyone who uses resources that are under the oversight of the DFG had to buy a general license?  Imagine the backpackers, bird watchers, trail riders, mountain bikers, boaters, etc. all chipping in for the maintenance and management of State lands.  It wouldn’t have to be prohibitively expensive.  There could be special use tags for things like big game species, or limited access areas.  Wanna hunt Tule Elk?  There’s a tag for that.  Want to mountain bike Mt Tam?  There’s a tag for that.  Want to climb Mt. Shasta?  There’s a tag for that, too. 

Excise taxes – Under the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (AKA Pittman-Robertson act), a  tax (11% on sporting arms, ammo, and archery equipment and 10% on handguns) is added to the cost of the majority of hunting gear, including firearms, ammo, bows and arrows, and some other accessories.  This money goes into a fund to be redistributed to the states to fund wildlife and habitat restoration, management, hunter safety training, and some other related projects.  The Sport Fish Restoration Program (Dingell-Johnson act) created a similar tax for fishing equipment.  The combined totals for these taxes came to around $800 million in 2009, all of which was apportioned back to the states for wildlife and fisheries programs. 

Of course, in today’s crazy economy, $800 million doesn’t seem like all that much. It’s a reflection on the number of hunters and fishermen who are out there buying gear, and if the number of buyers drops off, the amount of funding drops off as well.  So, instead of putting the tax burden solely on hunters and fishermen, why not spread it around?  Put a similar excise tax on all sporting gear, from backpacks and tents to hiking boots and walking sticks.  Add that tax to mountain bikes and motorhomes.  Tack it onto the cost of binoculars, spotting scopes, and even telescopes. 

Change things up like this, and then we can all be equally (relatively) invested in the natural resources of our state and our country.  Then no one can accuse hunters and fishermen of “buying” the wildlife departments, or of exercising undue influence over decisions related to natural resource management.  Hunters and fishermen will no longer be able to claim “ownership” or entitlement based on the old argument that no one else is paying for it.

Related Posts