The people at the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife are claiming they are broke and are in need of funding, as much as doubling the current funding, according to Dr. Ken Elowe, Director of Resource Management for MDIFW.
You’ll get no argument from me that MDIFW is underfunded. What you will get are questions as to why and suggestions about the best way to deal with it. Let’s first address why the MDIFW is underfunded.
In the new issue of Maine Fish and Wildlife, MDIFW Commissioner Roland D. Martin, states that all the programs and responsibilities his department has to care for, brings back to the state of Maine some $2.4 billion annually. Maybe that amount could be more.
Dr. Elowe, in his article on who should fund MDIFW, also states that responsibilities to the department have grown out beyond fish and wildlife issues.
Over time, the Department’s mission has broadened significantly: It now manages whitewater rafting, registration of watercraft, snowmobiles, ATVs, hunter, trapper and recreational vehicle safety, conservation education, environmental permitting and other matters.
And that’s just scraping the surface. To this we should add search and rescue, law enforcement of recreational vehicles and all non game programs.
The major reason the MDIFW is underfunded is because it has been tasked to perform duties well beyond management of fish and wildlife. All of this has been done with essentially no additional funding. Presently the overwhelming majority of funding to MDIFW comes from license fees paid by hunters, fishers, trappers, and snowmobilers/ATVers.
I know of nobody who thinks MDIFW is properly funded. The problem now becomes what to do about it.
George Smith, Executive Director for the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, is promoting funding to come from general taxation. He is proposing that a percentage of the tax revenue be designated to the MDIFW. In all honesty I haven’t heard anybody else make a specific proposal that doesn’t involve using tax money to fund the current composition of the MDIFW and it’s ever expanding non game services.
While this proposal may seem functional on the surface, I have to wonder if most sportsmen, the one’s who will still be the major fund providers for the Department, understand that with such a move opens the door for non hunting, non fishing interests to demand more and more input into the decisions and direction the MDIFW should take. The majority of states that have followed this path have faced this problem and a problem it has become, with organizations like the Humane Society of the United States and PETA directly seeking or sponsoring their own representatives to fill seats on fish and game commissions. What could possibly be wrong with that?
I support increased funding for all the issues that Dr. Elowe lays out in his article. However, I don’t support them to be part of and funded by MDIFW. For regular readers, you know that I support a move that will put all non game programs into the Department of Conservation. Dr. Elowe says MDIFW doesn’t have enough biologists to cover everything. Fine, DOC, funded by taxpayer dollars, can hire their own wildlife biologists to take care of non game wildlife species. DOC can take care of environmental licensing, conservation education, etc. Law enforcement of snowmobiles and ATVs should be handled by state and local law enforcement as well as search and rescue.
This move would be unprecedented as the tendencies these days are to mash departments together believing money can be saved and programs run more efficiently. History has already shown us that that is not the case. As a matter of fact, the bigger the department the further away from the average sportsmen a sense of ownership becomes, resulting in a significant loss of interest. In other words, when sportsmen lose their voice, participation drops. The larger the department the more bureaucratic it becomes swelling the budget, resulting in depletion of programs. In other words, more of the same.
Conservationist or perhaps better labeled, environmentalists, have no business dictating to a fish and game department how to manage game for hunting, fishing and trapping opportunities. Funding fish and game with tax dollars will accomplish that with very negative results.
It’s easy for Commissioner Martin or Dr. Elowe to exclaim how their programs contribute $2.4 billion dollars annually to the Maine economy. Think how much bigger that amount would be if the programs were split up so that each one saw the attention it deserves and that would provide better opportunities. With a smaller MDIFW, they could get back to managing just fish and wildlife for the purpose of providing opportunities for hunters, trappers and fishermen, then I believe these resources could improve with the end result a better revenue stream for MDIFW.
With a better funded and more targeted Department of Conservation, similar results could be seen and achieving the wishes shared by Dr. Elowe. This can be done and the results impressive, in my opinion. Who has the chutzpah to try it?
The groups involved in examining how MDIFW should be funded are supposedly contacting other states that fund their departments with general taxation. I hope these groups understand that just because everybody else does it, doesn’t mean it’s the best. I’m confident that if they look at the issue with open minds, they will realize what I did several years ago.
Let’s properly fund the programs that need to be funded in Maine and not just throw money at it. Two lean, mean departments, each properly structured with sufficient funding could reverse a management trend that is seeing lousy results.
Tom Remington
