Who paid for acquisition and management, of the place this mountain quail lives? We did.
A recent newspaper article finally pushed me over the edge … I wrote an op-ed for the paper that sums up my feelings – and maybe yours. The ignorance of so many so-called “environmentalists” and animal-rights supports is mind-boggling. If they understood the mechanics of wildlife management, well, read on …
Dylan Darling’s article of Dec. 29 on the decline of hunting and fishing license sales misses three key points: 1) When participation in these sports shrinks, all of Oregon’s wildlife loses. 2) Dwindling participation is only part of the problem. 3) There is a massive disparity between who benefits and who funds wildlife management in our state, and the nation for that matter.
Currently, hunters and anglers foot virtually the entire bill for fish and wildlife management at the state and federal level. During the Great Depression we convinced Congress to tax us with a “duck stamp,” to fund acquisition and management of federal wildlife refuges. We asked for – and pay – an excise tax on firearms, ammo, hunting vests, fishing rods and waders. When you see a new boat dock, songbird guzzler or wildlife viewing kiosk, you can thank sportsmen and women who probably funded it through these and similar mechanisms.
Almost annually, sportsmen and women consent to higher state and federal license, fee, and tag prices. This year alone, the cost of a duck stamp rose over 66 percent, an increase we were glad to endure. For almost a century, hunters and anglers have picked up the tab, and that’s before figuring in their massive contributions to conservation groups.
But other users of our forests, rivers, deserts and wildlife refuges pay a pittance, if anything, toward the management of public lands and wildlife. They are virtual freeloaders, riding the financial coat-tails of license buyers who fund management of songbirds, predators, endangered species, and everything else that swims, flies or runs through the trees.
In my book, it’s time those who kick into skinny skis, carry a camera, or pick up a paddle paid their fair share.
Why? The sad fact is, watchable wildlife, cute-and-cuddly critters, “charismatic megafauna” … and the environments they depend … may well vanish without hunting and fishing license money. There are simply too many “takers” (non-consumptive users) and not enough “makers” (license buyers). If paddlers, skiers, and birders don’t step up to the plate, their future outings may not include a breathtaking elk bugle or startling ruffed grouse flush.
Without hunting and fishing license sales, there would be little if any research on wolverines, wolf management, or protection of endangered suckers. All wildlife populations would decline further as habitat degrades and biologists take their place in the employment line. Sierra Club, PETA, and the Humane Society of the U.S. talk a good game, but they seldom put their money where their mouth is and certainly not at the level hunters and anglers do. Their shrillest fundraising campaign could never make up the deficit of plummeting hunting and angling license funds. Picket signs and protests won’t create buy critical habitat nor pay researchers’ salaries; sportsmen’s dollars do that.
If you ask mountain bikers, birders, kayakers, and backpackers, they’ll admit to enjoying their outdoor experience as passionately as anyone who waves a rod or carries a rifle. They’ll proudly share photos of gray jays perched on their hand, and mule deer fawns curled under a pine. But like the 30-something slacker still living in their parents’ basement, they simply don’t care who pays … as long as it’s not them.
It’s time to put up or shut up. Whether you’re vegan, pacifist, Buddhist, or Democrat, if you love our fish and wildlife and the places they live, you should be willing to finance their management. Save the philosophical discussion for later, when you’ve paid the price of admission.
Buy a hunting or fishing license or consider yourself a hypocrite. You might also try one of these wonderful sports and learn why so many are willing to invest so much.
Feel free to turn this into your own letter to the editor … or save it for that inevitable confrontation with someone who just doesn’t get it.
Scott Linden Outdoors 
I see I’m not the only Democrat or Republican, for that matter who misunderstood your “tongue in cheek” reference to freeloading non hunters and fisherman. The rash generalizations of groups in this country is one of the many reasons very little gets accomplished today. Democrats are not any different than any other group. I myself, started hunting at age 12 and still hunt (slower) pushing 65 today. I have belonged to D.U. and pheasants forever for most of those years and believe it or not I worked for 48 years before I retired. Contrary, to the generalizations I read today.
So, please Mr. Linden stick to dogs and hunting and leave your Republican politics in your den.
Politics is a contact sport, Brent. And the world is one big political debate. As you said, Democrats (or independents, Greens, or any party) are no different, and engage in the same strategies as everyone else. A prominent Democrat once said if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Welcome to my kitchen.
There’s no argument from me that sportsmen contribute to wildlife management. But it’s hard to ignore the Conservation Reserve Program’s impact on game and the 1.5 billion dollars spent by the Federal Government on contract payments for CRP. This is money that comes from all of us, not just hunters. If we as hunters continue to focus on the differences and alienate non-hunters as “virtual freeloaders” and “takers” it does little toward the goal of conservation and ensuring the future of hunting for future generations. Those of us who share an affinity for wild places and birds are not so different than those who don’t hunt and also want those environments to continue. The reality is that we have to be involved in the politics that affect game populations because the national treasury has more money than we can raise at banquets or with stamps. Access to that treasury for what matters to us means getting our message out to the non-hunting public, not just preaching to the choir. But more than that…looking at what happened in Costa Rica, where hunting was banned by a 5% initiative, shows me that hunters are always at the mercy of public opinion. Why aren’t we doing more to educate the non-hunting public instead of complaining about how little they know and calling names?
Let’s talk NET dollars, Christine. Over and above our “tax dollars” for CRP there are those solely paid by sportsmen and sportswomen … NOT by hikers, kayakers and bird watchers. Whether you know it or not, you are using a common tactic: divert the discussion to “common ground,” to obfuscate the real issue and gather us ’round to sing Kum-by-yah.
No offense intended, but your pipe dream of accessing the treasury will never become reality. User fees are the coin of the realm these days because they are a fair “tax” on those who benefit. If only it included non-consumptive users! Imagine how much management and research could take place if all of them paid their fair share for the use they already get from those resources.
Re your “Rainbow Coalition” idea of all of us hugging and getting along in a broader conservation alliance with the “education” you reference: propose it at your next Sierra Club meeting and see what kind of traction you get. The savvy groups know without sportsmen there would be no conservation. They don’t have enough dough, nor will they take pay cuts to provide more, so they pay lip service to getting along. But follow their money. Compare it to RMEF, DU, individual contributions and our voluntary taxes.
Cooperation toward common goals is all well and good in a speech, fundraising brochure, textbook or over coffee, but I’ve been there and done that. The reality is, we should be shaming non-consumptive users into paying their fair share. Nothing else has, nor will it ever, work.
Well I was right there with you until you included Democrats. Dang it all. I pay all the same fees in Texas as any hunter and or/fisherman does plus I make it a point to donate $1500.00 to $2000.00 a year to Trout Unlimited, Ducks, Quail and Pheasant Unlimited and CCA. I just wish us gun toting, fishing fanatic Democrats could get a fair acknowledgment that we too are a large part of the fishing/hunting community. Carry on.
I know you couldn’t see it, Warren, but my tongue was firmly in cheek. Though it would be interesting to know why Democrats don’t get much credit for, nor recognition of, their hunting and fishing activities. Keep sending money!
Let us not forget Camera equipment! I just returned from my local duck hunting spot where the parking area was over flowing with 27 vehicles and not one a hunter besides myself. They were taking pictures of a long eared owl, with a collection of cameras, lenses, and tri pods that I have no doubt would reach close to the $100K dollar mark! Without single cent going toward conservation. All but the most out of reach blinds were occupied by these people enjoying public lands that were paid for by hunters – ironically a group that many birders would like to see gone.
Mr. Linden our post today very poignant and for me, very timely. Thanks for speaking up.
Yep. Our private land open to hunting program is testing something you might like: to keep the birders, hikers and other riff-raff off land they don’t rent (we do, through an assessment on hunting licenses), many of the gates are locked. Licensed hunters get the combination from a caretaker or landowner and can then take advantage of the access THEY paid for. Maybe your local wildlife area manager should start kicking them out of those waterfowl hunting blinds!
I wish you had made the point without attacking the ” bikers, birders, kayakers, and backpackers…”, many of whom make significant contributions to habitat and conservation through other sources (like the Nature Conservancy, Sierra Club, etc.). Maybe it’s because I can’t see the article that prompted this reply by you, but it sure seems like you’re trying to build up our side by tearing down others.
We are all in this together Scott, and we don’t advance the cause of conservation by creating and then tearing down “the other side”. Just my two cents.
Not tearing them down, Peter, just reminding them that they are virtual freeloaders in the wildlife management/habitat acquisition realm. While we may share some goals, they are simply not paying their way. Their “significant contributions” pale by comparison with license, tag, permit fees hunters and anglers pay. Add the voluntary contributions any group makes (i.e., Sierra Club) and I’ll wager that RMEF members alone top that, let alone PF, TU, etc.
Some may choose to make contributions, but none are required to unless you count some state parks where access passes are needed because there just is no money. In this case rather calling it ” tearing down the other side” it might just be best to call it the truth. because it is.
In the West hunting opportunities are shrinking and many areas are being turned to birding destinations while other parts of public land are in the process of being sold off to the highest private bidder. The financial slack needs to be picked up by someone for the management of these now off limits to hunting areas and I really can’t see a $150.00 compensatory birding/nature license catching on when there are plenty of areas you can bird free of charge.
Amen, uplandish. Years ago, there was a move afoot to charge an excise tax (like we pay on hunting & fishing gear) to binoculars, hiking boots, kayak paddles, etc. The industry shot it down. What does THAT say about their commitment to habitat?