A Great Read - Earth Day

[Big Fin]

A good friend of mine who works for Arizona Game and Fish sent me this article. It is dead on. I felt compelled to post it here, as all you guys know exactly the story of hunters being the ones who set the table so all can enjoy the bounty of our efforts.

It is hard to listen to the hypocrisy of the uninformed as they rail against hunting/fishing, when it is hunters and anglers who are footing the bill for the entertainment these well-intended yet uniformed souls enjoy.

We have grown accustomed to it. Yet, we need to get this message out to more people. Let those who are currently uninformed become informed. We will probably never "shame" them in to paying a penny toward what they have historically gotten for free, but the facts of what we do, and have done since the 1930's, cannot be denied.

Happy Earth Day (a few days late)!

On Earth Day, thank a hunter
By Humberto Fontova, Townhall.com, April 22, 2011

‘In 1970, a Senator from Wisconsin named Gaylord Nelson raised his voice and called on every American to take action on behalf of the environment,” read President Obama’s Earth Day proclamation last year. “In the four decades since, millions of Americans have heeded that call and joined together to protect the planet we share.”

Well, I’ve got news for our President. Millions of Americans who had never heard of Gaylord Nelson “took action on behalf of the environment,” decades before the good Senator “raised his voice.” To wit:

The Pittman-Robertson Act (1937) imposed an excise tax of 10 per cent on all hunting gear. Then the Dingell-Johnson act (1950) did the same for fishing gear. The Wallop-Breaux amendment (1984) extended the tax to the fuel for boats. All of this lucre goes to “protect the environment” in the form of buying and maintaining National Wildlife Refuges, along with state programs for buying and maintaining various forms of wildlife habitat.

For the last couple of decades hunters and anglers have contributed over $1.5 billion per year towards Senator Gaylord Nelson’s lofty goal. To date, hunters and fisherpersons have shelled out over $20 billion “on behalf of the environment.” A study by the National Shooting Sports Foundation found that for every taxpayer dollar invested in wildlife conservation, hunters and fishermen contribute nine.

So please note: to "preserve nature," they don’t tax Birkenstock hiking boots and Ying-Yang pendants – but do tax my shotgun. They don’t tax yoga manuals and tofu tid-bits wrapped in recycled paper – but do tax my 30.06 deer rifle. They don’t tax binoculars or birding field guides with photos of the red-cockaded woodpecker and spotted owl – but do tax the shotgun shells I blast at mallards before arraying on my grill as duck-k-bobs (cooked rare and lovingly basted with plenty of butter, cajun seasoning and teriyaki sauce). Going further, they don’t tax kayaks and rock climbing picks and ropes – but do tax my compound bow and rifle scope. They don’t tax the plastic water bottles on Mountain bikes (or the mountain bike itself, come to think of it) – but do tax my duck decoys and camo pants.

Ten cents of every dollar I spent on my hunting and fishing toys (I'd cite the total but my wife might read this) funds Federal and State "conservation" programs. From my guns and ammo to my duck calls and decoys, from my rods and reels to my lures and gaffs, from my trolling motor to the very fuel for my outboard – ten cents of every dollar funds habitat for Spotted Owls, Red Cockaded Woodpeckers, Bald Eagles, Ospreys, Manatees, Snail darters, Black-Footed Ferrets, California Condors, Florida Panthers and Sea Otters.

None of these creatures (from what I hear) make a decent Gumbo or even a passable Chili. I must be crazy. But I have no choice. And this avalanche of tax dollars comes on top of those I fork over for the stacks of licenses, and permits, and stamps I'm required to have before I set a foot afield or set my boat afloat. Last season these totaled $500. (But sweetie! There are huge fines for hunting and fishing without them!)

And all the above is on top of my voluntary dues and assorted donations to such as Ducks Unlimited. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation these donations to such as DU, Pheasants Forever, etc. total $300 million a year.

As mentioned, just last year, hunters and anglers (not birdwatchers, not rock-climbers, not kayakers, not nature-hikers) "contributed" $1.5 billion "big ones" to purchase and maintain places for others to frolic and nature-watch.

You'd think some thanks might be in order from others not forced to buy any "Bird-Watching stamp" or "Hiking stamp," or "Kayaking stamp", or "Rock Climbing Stamp." You'd think they might appreciate us hunters' funding habitat for spotted owls, kangaroo rats, snail darters and louseworts, and bankrolling the scenery on their "nature trails."

We pay our way – in fact, we pay the hikers and bird-watchers way too. But rather than going afield as passive voyeurs, rather than regarding nature as a Disney cartoon, we accept nature's diktats. We revel in our role as full-fledged participants in her cycle of fang and claw (but add bullets, buckshot, broadheads, treble hooks and gaffs to the primal drama).

You'd think the voyeurs might throw us a bone every now and then? Well, think again. Here's the Sierra Club's official position: "Wild animals should not be valued principally in terms of whether they can serve as targets. As members of the family of life, we should respect the moral right of all creatures to exist, to be free of unnecessary predation, persecution, and cruel and unduly confining captivity."

Anyway, you’re quite welcome!

 

[1_pointer]

Very well written and true. It'd be nice for this to be picked up by a major media outlet. I'd love to see some their talking heads starting spinning. Might be good for a snippet on Today during "green week"...

 

[----]

Good points, although I`ll never understand the `us vs. them` attitude used.

 

[Big Fin]

......although I`ll never understand the `us vs. them` attitude used.

I am not saying the "us vs. them" attitude is necessarily useful, but it is a reality of the discussion and at the core of the struggle for representation on the issues.

It really comes down to the payers vs. the non-payers. And those who want to have all the say and not pay anything, versus those who have paid the freight and are being carved out of the equation.

When people/groups make statements as they often do, such as the last quote by the Sierra Club, and it reflects their lack of knowledge of the history of how we got here, it should not go without a rebuttal. Or at least not in my opinion.

I work with many groups who call themselves "non-consumptive" users. Really? They are consuming the product delivered, with that product being wildlife, wild lands, and the habitat that supports it. They are always quick to say they are not impacting the resource. I disagree.

I call them "non-contributing" users.

Not saying it should be run exclusively by the hunting/angling world, but if others want to complain about hunters, then the time is ripe for them to pony up and be part of the solution.

I have no problem paying what I do in the form of licenses and excise taxes. I do have a problem when those who pay nothing decide they should run the show. Might be how it eventually happens, but I think it is worth the debate to bring them into the funding mix, or let the representation be somewhat weighted toward the sources of funding.

Funny part of all this, or maybe the ironic part, is that this country had no "conservation ethic" until that strange notion was brought for by hunters in the late 1800's. While the rest of the country was still drinking the "Manifest Destiny" Kool-aid, hunters were fighting the tide and talking about this new idea of conservation. Hunters did it against some really great odds and unpopular political tides.

It was only in the last forty years that mainstream America embraced the idea, and now many act as if they invented the idea. It seems those groups who are least knowledgeable about our conservation history are the first and loudest when it come to throwing hunters and anglers to the curb.

Many want to disparage hunters and anglers (which we at times deserve), yet they want us to keep paying the freight while they get a free ride. Personally, I have a problem with that.

 

[Lawnboy]

Kind of like the horse haters out there. They sure like to hike miles of back country trails and even stay in an old FS look out but want to ban horses from using the trails. Most of the trails were and are cleared out by horsemen. Most of the old lookouts were constructed by horses hauling the wood and everything to build them. They sure like to benefit from what others have and are still doing. Would love to see a muffin muncher pack a pick axe 10 miles in and do his share for trail rehab.

Sorry a little off task but similar people.

 

[Black Hills]

Randy, you are dead-on right........unfortunatley it is an ideology issue with two distinct schools of thought and two distinct agendas that are at play. The problem is that the anti folks have the mindset that it should all be their way and no other.........

 

[----]

I don`t disagree with you Fin, or the premise of the author`s article. The lopsidedness of funding is something that probably should be addressed, and I like your description of non-consumptive vs. non-contributing.

It`s the tone of the author that bothers me.

So please note: to "preserve nature," they don’t tax Birkenstock hiking boots and Ying-Yang pendants – but do tax my shotgun. They don’t tax yoga manuals and tofu tid-bits wrapped in recycled paper – but do tax my 30.06 deer rifle.

This rubs me wrong. Maybe it`s because I grew up in a liberal lovefest of a valley, but I can Imagine a lot of people who aren`t opinionated on hunting taking offense to quotes like this.

It just seems to me that it`d be wiser to celebrate our contributions without trying to throw other groups under the bus. Take advantage of them taking the low route, and take the high ourselves.

Sorry to pick on this specific post, it`s just something that bothers me about politics, and I guess our culture in general.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Good piece, but I guess I fall in to the earth hugger category based on the SC's mission statement:

"Wild animals should not be valued principally in terms of whether they can serve as targets. As members of the family of life, we should respect the moral right of all creatures to exist, to be free of unnecessary predation, persecution, and cruel and unduly confining captivity."

I fully support the right of all critters to exist, that means those animals I don't hunt or fish for. That's the beauty of the modern sporting movement (with some exceptions). We do pay for it all. We pay for the conservation of snail darters, spotted owls, silvery minnows and every other species in the U.S. I like that. I like that we have the ethic to do that.

We didn't start out that way though. We started out by conserving what we held dearest: elk, deer, etc. We grew as all movements do, to understand that the biotic community is the driver behind growing wildlife. We focus on watershed conservation, habitat preservation, and landscape approaches to dealing with wildlife issues. That is a natural growth of the North American Model.

As for the funding, yes, non-consumptive users must pony up and backfill the shortfalls. An attempt was made a while ago to tax those items that the non-consumptive user buys, but was beaten down by the outdoor industry, IIRC.
Similarly, under P/R, items like treestands, and a host of other sporting goods are not taxed due to the changing technology, and the sluggish reaction from the Fed in amending the CFR.

One other thing, I don't see the accounting for agencies like the USDA FS, or the EPA in this piece. I would wager that if we add those entities, we would end up down to a measly 7-8 bucks per person.

 

[Big Fin]

Good info, guys.

Here is part of it that rubs me wrong, and like many topics these days, seems to put me in the "Old Geezer" category. It was part of the history of this funding battle none of those groups wants to talk about honestly.

In 1999 - 2001, we had a bill in Congress - Teaming With Wildlife (TWW) Act that would have generated $350 million per year for funding of non-game species. Then, and currently, non-game species is primarily benefited from funding via Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson dollars, the excise taxes we hunters and anglers pay on our equipment.

Our state wildlife agencies are primarily funded with license dollars and excise taxes. Yet look a the budgets of your agencies and see what a large percentage goes to non-game species, species we cannot hunt or fish, parks, and other programs that have most benefit to others besides the hunter/angler.

TWW would have been far lower tax rate than the 11% we pay on our equipment. It would have been an excise tax on items such as binoculars, tents, backpacks, etc. The proposed tax rate was held very low, due to the difficulty of tracing the product to an outdoor use. No one seem concerned that many shooters pay the P-R excise tax, though they never hunt, merely shoot as a hobby.

Anyhow, this was one of my first jumps into the pool of national level politics. What a wake up.

NONE of these people wanted to pay their fair share for non-game species. The bird watchers stated they are providing the habitat for birds by placing feeders in their back yards, so they should not be taxed. Some trail hiking groups claimed they paid for trails via some obscure program where a small portion of gas taxes go to the trail granting system. The wildlife photographers stated they were non-consumptive and should be exempt.

I could go on forever. The examples and excuses was a mile long. It really came down to this.

Those industries, and their user groups, want hunters and anglers to continue funding the non-game species programs. It is that simple.

Even though the non-game species could have benefited by specifically earmarked funds such as we use under the P-R/D-J programs, these companies, and the people representing the outdoor groups, screamed bloody murder. Companies that make a lot of money off trails, parks, wildlife watching, and other non-game activities paid for by hunters and anglers.

It still ticks me off to have sat in on meetings and calls as they whined and belly ached about the small proposed excise tax. They hired the best lobbyists in DC to defeat the bill and make it such a mess, that it eventually died. Since the mess, no attempts have been made to revive a secure funding source for non-game species. Why should they, when they are getting it paid for by someone else?

They had their chance to step up and pay some of the freight, albeit a small portion of the freight. It would have been allocated back to states in a similar fashion to hunting/fishing excise taxes and would have been earmarked specifically for non-game species.

Rather than step up as hunters have for the last 75 years, they bailed out. They asked hunters to keep paying the load, and when time came for management decisions they wanted, and still demand, to be at the head of the table.

Had that battle not unfolded the way it did, or had they pitched in and put their shoulder to the wheel for wildlife conservation, I would feel differently in the "us vs. them" discussion.

When the time came to be counted, they were absent. And, they still are.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ticks me off too Randy. I can tell you from being in funding battles in MT and WY, that there is no easy answer. Most don't want to spend money on managing Faery Shrimp or Ferretts. We do. We, for the most part, understand that it's all connected.

So how do we as a community reach out to those who wish to make decisions with no skin in the game?

 

[Big Fin]

Ticks me off too Randy. I can tell you from being in funding battles in MT and WY, that there is no easy answer. Most don't want to spend money on managing Faery Shrimp or Ferretts. We do. We, for the most part, understand that it's all connected.

So how do we as a community reach out to those who wish to make decisions with no skin in the game?

That is a mystery to me, Ben. They have had their chances to pitch in. They refuse. A 1% tax on those items would generate more money than the 11% tax we pay. It would do so much for non-game species.

Like most hunters and anglers, I love non-game species. Like you said, it is all connected.

I look at the work of Ducks Unlimited and the wetlands conservation they do. There are more songbirds, shorebirds, rodents, fish, and others who benefit from those efforts than what hunters get from shooting a few ducks each fall. That's why I am also a big DU supporter and spent five years as a committee chairman.

If you have an answer to the question you posed, I know a lot of people would love to hear it. So much more could be done for all wildlife if those groups contributed one-tenth of the percentage that hunters and anglers are paying.

Just don't know how you get them there.

 

[----]

Thanks for breaking that down Fin. Frustrating situation for sure...

I guess I understand why the us vs. them is there, but can`t understand why it needs to be, if that makes sense.

 

[Lawnboy]

Short of creating some sort of use fee for NF, State, Wilderness lands etc.. I don't know how those people would pony up. Obviously I don't think a use fee is even feasible. I think petitioning the eco groups out there to throw some money in the same pot that hunter's money goes is probably a long shot as well. We know from the wolf deal and others that these groups are loaded and could definitely contribute.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Well, we got them there on wolves.

Seriously, I think it will have to be a collaborative effort between manufacturers of those goods, and their constituents to get anything at a federal level.

On the state level, there are a lot of different models used. Arkansas, under Huckabee, adopted a percentage of the sales tax for wildlife management. That system seems to work fairly well (last I looked, it's been a while). One possibility for MT is a portion of the bed tax. The non-cons around Glacier and Yellowstone who come to see the wolves and bears deserve to help fund a portion of their management.

We did something along these lines when I worked in WY, but it was a 2 year process. We started out with the major sporting groups, and when we had consensus, we broadened our support base out to non-traditional allies like the mining industry and the oil and gas industry. What we ended up with was a $2 million/year appropriation out of the General Fund with no strings attached. We actually fought aspects of the enviro community on that.

That may not work everywhere, but it worked in WY.

The reality is, the funding problem is the greatest problem wildlife advocates face today. If the non-consumptive user doesn't step up and help fund management through some method, hunters and anglers will not be able to make up the rest.

 

[Wally Dog]

Fin,
Thanks for posting a nicely wordsmithed version of "our" perspective.
WD

 

[shoots-straight]

We (hunters and Fisherman) pay for practically everything, with regards to wildlife. If we want the aniti's and non consumptive consumers to pay their fair share, then we tread on a very slippery slope. I for one, would rather have that foot up on all others.

How do you entice the 80% of the populace that doesn't hunt, to pay for the wildlife we all enjoy, without hurting our position at the table. Right now we're at the top, because we are the support mechanism. If others segments of our society start to pitch in, and pay for the recovery, and management of our wildlife, then (IMO) we lose. Management strategies will change.

As an example of changing management strategies, YNPs situation with free ranging wolves, and the cascade effects would be alright, and replicated elsewhere, on lands we all hunt on, and any surplus elk could go to hunters. Which we all know is zero.

 

[Ben Lamb]

We (hunters and Fisherman) pay for practically everything, with regards to wildlife. If we want the aniti's and non consumptive consumers to pay their fair share, then we tread on a very slippery slope. I for one, would rather have that foot up on all others.

How do you entice the 80% of the populace that doesn't hunt, to pay for the wildlife we all enjoy, without hurting our position at the table. Right now we're at the top, because we are the support mechanism. If others segments of our society start to pitch in, and pay for the recovery, and management of our wildlife, then (IMO) we lose. Management strategies will change.

As an example of changing management strategies, YNPs situation with free ranging wolves, and the cascade effects would be alright, and replicated elsewhere, on lands we all hunt on, and any surplus elk could go to hunters. Which we all know is zero.

All very valid points. However, not wanting to give up control is going to get us more listed species, more conflict and more divisiveness. We need to have the buy in from those groups that would otherwise never drop a dime to fund a wetlands restoration.

Wildlife is held in trust for all people. Not just those of us who pay for it's well being and propagation. We have to find a way for the non consumptive user to pay their fair share and maintain our hunting and angling heritage. Luckily, most states have either passed, or will soon pass, a right to hunt and fish const. amendment in their state charters. Furthermore, states like MT, ID, WY, AK, OR, etc, etc have a huge economy built around public land hunting. It is within the best interests of the states to maintain that hunting and angling heritage for their bottom line.

 

[Black Hills]

Agree with SS.......be very careful what you wish for in terms of more seats at the table........there is a huge ideology split in this country and it is a fantasy to think "We will all come together for the greater good, etc, etc.......". Sorry, that may sound jaded but it is reality. It isn't happening.

All wildlife held in public trust is one thing, but trusting all the public with the wildlife is much different. We still have the single most successful wildlife system (North American Model) in the world and it is due in great part to hunters & sportsmen.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Agree with SS.......be very careful what you wish for in terms of more seats at the table........there is a huge ideology split in this country and it is a fantasy to think "We will all come together for the greater good, etc, etc.......". Sorry, that may sound jaded but it is reality. It isn't happening.

All wildlife held in public trust is one thing, but trusting all the public with the wildlife is much different. We still have the single most successful wildlife system (North American Model) in the world and it is due in great part to hunters & sportsmen.

I don't disagree with that at all. However, excluding those does nothing to foster greater support of hunting nation-wide, nor does it solve the funding problem. As forward thinking as hunters and anglers were a century ago in developing the Model, the reality is wildlife management has grown to a point where we are now falling short of funding some primary programs. Those programs are generally for species that we do not harvest, but they are species that are being used to stop development of natural resources, eliminate public use of public lands and erode our hunting and angling heritage. We have an opportunity right now to define what that future management of wildlife looks like due to our long conservation history.

Excluding those who think differently than us is a surefire way to reduce our overall importance in the political and management arena. TR once said that conservation of wildlife was a democratic process. But he also said:

"Let us speak courteously, deal fairly, and keep ourselves armed and ready."
San Francisco, CA, May 13, 1903

To me, that means we invite them to the table, but we hold fast our beliefs and our historic role as defenders and funders of wildlife conservation.

 

[onpoint]

Lotta good stuff said here. One thing that makes a lot of folks squeemish, though, is turning the mirror on them(our)selves.

Lotta outdoorsmen seem to spend an inordinate amount of time worrying about the anti's and the non-consumptive/non-contributing users. That is legit - no doubt, but......

Ben says we have an opportunity right now.....

We need to step up and sieze it.

I'll change SS's statement a bit.....how do you entice the 80% of SPORTSMEN that enjoy the consumptive part but DON"T contribute to the conservation and betterment of what they have - to step up.

I would argue that question is the big one.....I think and hope, at least here in MT (only because we have just suffered a serious attempt to kick us square in the crotch), we've made some steps in the right direction