Funding VS Advocacy VS Partnering In Active Management

[huntnpack]

We’ve probably hashed and rehashed this but I can’t think of specific threads.

Which contribution from the hook and bullet crowd is most important to wildlife management agencies?

I hear the funding aspect get hammered a lot but sometimes wonder if partnering in active hands on management i.e. harvest, habitat improvement, and/or data collection aren’t highlighted enough or more important in the long run. As alternate options for funding sources for state agencies increase in the future, are we hurting ourselves by not focusing on highlighting and increasing partnering with agencies in other ways?

Probably my real question:

What contributions from hunting/fishing arguably continue to give us bigger influence/more seats at the wildlife management table when these agencies are funded predominantly by broader, or just alternate, sources?

 

[huntnpack]

For context I’m kind of reeling after my barber put me on the spot about this tonight. Apparently I haven’t explored it enough recently.

Maybe I should have just gone with the Shane Mahoney argument. Because wildlife is a sustainable food resource etc. it simply offers a bigger stake in the human impact wildlife resources have on us as consumers versus voyeuristic stuff like birding. The wildife trust has more of a human impact when it’s feeding humans I don’t know.