What role should Non-Consumptive users have in managing wildlife?

[bobbydean]

Europe, I agree with you. But I never said non hunters should be involved in animal decisions only the use of the land, much respect. Hunting Wife, your normal intelligent post and I think you are very smart. I cannot think of any of your posts that would make me think otherwise. I wish that nonhunting excursions in our public lands would require a fee, but I have had a free ride for life and do not know how that would go with our public land users.

An effort should be made to increase awareness of our public land users that we could lose that use and everyone should pay their fair share.

I think there is a minimal charge for a yearly pass to National Forest. Make that more equitable to what hunters are charged.

Did not mean to get on a soapbox!

I think I miswrote, the fee is for National Monuments or Parks, but should be expanded to National Forest.

 

[Pelican]

I think there is a minimal charge for a yearly pass to I think I miswrote, the fee is for National Monuments or Parks, but should be expanded to National Forest.

It’s a lot easier for the NPS to charge admission when parks have limited access points vs a national forest. I can’t remember the last time I encountered a FS or BLM ranger. They are spread very thin so enforcement would be difficult for a forest pass requirement. All tax payers already pay for management of our public lands, even those that don’t use them. I’m don’t disagree with your premise that an access fee would be beneficial, but there are complications. I know a lot of hunters that would bitch and moan if they had to pay $20 a year to camp or park on public lands that has always been free.

 

[Europe]

If we’re talking about what the OP posted, which was specifically with regards to wildlife management (vs conservation in general) NC users contribute very little. Yes, some PR dollars. But they actively avoid things like buying Duck Stamps or other “conservation stamps” issued by management agencies because they perceive that as somehow supporting hunting. The Audubon Society has been trying for years to get birders to buy Duck Stamps but it hasn’t been very successful. When you consider that state wildlife agency budgets are almost universally funded exclusively through license revenues, it’s obvious the NC users aren’t contributing much to overall wildlife management budgets.

The states manage wildlife in trust for their citizens. That means all citizens, not just those who hunt. So yes, NC users should have a seat at the management table. Everyone knows the current funding model for wildlife management by an ever shrinking portion of the population is unsustainable. Fixing the funding model would be a great place to engage NC users to collaborate on creating new revenue streams that could be used to, say, fund management of non game species that they may wish to see more resources directed to. But so far, NC users are not lining up to help figure out how they can contribute more to wildlife management.

This is a very well written post and I can not disagree with the logic or facts.

Hunting wife is the type and style of representation that we "hunters" need at the table representing us

Bobbydean---I did not, nor do I, disagree with either of your posts sir----my post was strictly my view, albeit a more emotional one, that over the last 80 plus years are "rights" ( as hunters and gun owners ) have been slowly taken from us and if it is possible, some would eliminate hunting/gun ownership altogether. I know I am a dinosaur but the constant drumbeat of "eliminate hunting --eliminate gun ownership" is a well funded organized effort.

The young First Nation lady who lives and hunts in the territories of Canada, tells me that as soon as they successfully got the grizzly banned in B.C., they were in The Yukon Territory, setting up shop with the intent on getting grizzly hunting banned in that territory. She also tells me that everyone in B.C. had told her they would never succeed getting the grizzly hunting ban in B.C., but it happen and happen 16 years after they started the campaign. It will be harder in the Yukon Territory because everyone who lives there hunts, but they have still organized an opposition group.

406life---I still say none---but, I do so knowing that, that opinion is neither logical or possible

 

[one ate E grain]

406LIFE a conservationist once said something to the extent that those who are most affected by a conservation action should have the most say or influence on that action. The same goes with many things in life. A birder wouldn't be affected much if deer licenses were oversold, undersold, or not sold at all. If it's not affecting his birds, or any other facet of his or her life, they should stay in their lane.

I read a few comments on here about funding so I'll add my 2 Kip. Funding should be long term, predictable, not subject to sudden budget constraints and from the general funds. No one should ever have to pay to access or camp on public lands, Parks, Forests, BLM, State lands, the whole thing.. Hunting/fishing licenses should be a very small fee to cover record keeping, ammo tax is not an equitable way to fund. I'd like to see out of state hunters charged the same as in state, limit via lottery if necessary but I want everyone to have an equal chance to hunt elk in my state, equal to all other out of staters that is.

A Kip is about 8,000 to the dollar so maybe my 2 Kip aren't worth much.

 

[come2elmo]

One aspect that hasn’t been discussed is the fact that many of the up and coming wildlife biologists are themselves non-consumptive users. I have a hunting buddy who is one of the heads of the wildlife program at a university here in Texas and he literally has a summer program where he is teaching some of his students how to camp. How to make a fire and light a Coleman lantern kind of stuff. Not all mind you but more then you would think. If the biologists don’t have skin in the game I shudder to think where it might go.

 

[farmerboy1381]

You would have to consider that a hunter takes possession and thus exclusively uses an animal while a bird watcher allows an animal to be used by others. A hunters license could be seen as reparations to the public for removing a public resource. Therefore you could argue all users should have the same voice, hunters are just paying for impacting the resource for others.

I have heard people make this argument before, but while it may have some valid points it is flawed. Hunters may remove one individual animal from being enjoyed by others, but in many cases the removal of some benefits the herd as a whole. I think that is a point that many N.C. users do not appreciate. Carrying capacity is a very real thing and when it is exceeded bad things happen. Some animals this matters more than others. But in many ways consumptive users are one of the main tools that are available for a wildlife agency. Consumptive users are usually some of the first to notice and call for change when populations of game animals start dropping. So I don’t really buy the theory that removing a select number of animals from a herd in any way limits the ability of anybody else to enjoy that same herd.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I have heard people make this argument before, but while it may have some valid points it is flawed. Hunters may remove one individual animal from being enjoyed by others, but in many cases the removal of some benefits the herd as a whole. I think that is a point that many N.C. users do not appreciate. Carrying capacity is a very real thing and when it is exceeded bad things happen. Some animals this matters more than others. But in many ways consumptive users are one of the main tools that are available for a wildlife agency. Consumptive users are usually some of the first to notice and call for change when populations of game animals start dropping. So I don’t really buy the theory that removing a select number of animals from a herd in any way limits the ability of anybody else to enjoy that same herd.

406LIFE a conservationist once said something to the extent that those who are most affected by a conservation action should have the most say or influence on that action. The same goes with many things in life. A birder wouldn't be affected much if deer licenses were oversold, undersold, or not sold at all. If it's not affecting his birds, or any other facet of his or her life, they should stay in their lane.

I think the hunter's as a management tool is a defensible position, but not a particularly efficacious argument when speaking with non-hunters. Population management has been shown time and time again to be the least effective argument in our tool box, with food being one of the most.

My point was more that you do not have/should not have greater say in wildlife management simply because you buy a license, as you're reimbursing the group for your use of a shared resource. Certainly your dollars are going to conservation, but that doesn't give you greater rights.

Example of my point: say you have 4 siblings inherits a rental property on the beach. The property is held by an LLP, each sibling inherits their portion of the property as shares in the LLP (North American wildlife system). You and your wife decide that the beach/house is where you want to spend a week a year vacationing (hunters not NC users). Because your the partnership rents the places and none of your siblings are using the house with you when you go or at other times of the year you have to pay the partnership for your week at the house at the same rental rate as the partnership would change any guest (you are utilizing the resource, shooting the deer). Further, just because you are paying to use the house that 1 week doesn't give you anymore rights to the property than your other siblings (buying a tag). Even if you do a bunch of maintenance to the property (conversation) while at the house that still does not give you any more rights. You might be entitled to some monetary compensation for your conservation efforts from the partnership but that's it. Your sibling who lives across the country from the property, who never visits, and whose only interaction with the partnership is casting a vote is just as entitled to that vote as you are as they are also a partner (NJ cat ladies).

Wildlife is owned by the state in trust for everyone, like it or not the New Jersey cat lady has the same ownership and say in the management of said wildlife as you do regardless of your perceived "greater" relationship to the resource.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

No one should ever have to pay to access or camp on public lands, Parks, Forests, BLM, State lands, the whole thing.. You are using the land and impacting it buy your presence, shouldn't you have to pay for your impacts?

Hunting/fishing licenses should be a very small fee to cover record keeping, ammo tax is not an equitable way to fund. Totally disagree, I think license should fund wildlife R tags should be the price of NR with that price being the NR price, ie $800. P&R is an amazing conservation law.

I'd like to see out of state hunters charged the same as in state, limit via lottery if necessary but I want everyone to have an equal chance to hunt elk in my state, equal to all other out of staters that is. Wildlife is owned by the state for their residence if the state chooses to provide more access to NR that is their perogitive, if NM decided to not give any NR permits I think that sucks but is fair.

A Kip is about 8,000 to the dollar so maybe my 2 Kip aren't worth much.

So what is your solution? You just listed a bunch of ways of flushing our system down the toilet without and way of paying for it... "Funding should be long term, predictable, not subject to sudden budget constraints and from the general funds." So the 231 million dollar budget of CPAW should come from the general fund. So is the state going to raises income taxes to pay for it, excise taxes, what? You realize that due to TABOR this would require a statewide vote, we couldn't get a measure passed to fund our roads and schools there isn't a snowflakes chance in hell that we are getting wildlife funding. How would this work in WY, NV, WA, SD, or AK which don't have income taxes?

 

[BuzzH]

I agree, there needs to be stability in funding for wildlife and that only happens when there is a funding mechanism specific to wildlife.

Right now its primarily funded by hunting and fishing license fees, PR/DJ funding with smaller amounts coming from NGO's, grants, etc.

IMO, I think any user of wildlife, whether it be consumptive or non-consumptive should have to pitch in. I'm not worried about the non-consumptive users having a seat at the table in regard to management decisions, they already do and always have. I figure if they have their seat at the table, may as well make them pay for it.

It just doesn't make sense to vilify the non-consumptive users, they have every right to enjoy the States wildlife via photography, just watching it, etc. What does make sense is to force them to pay for some of the tab...

 

[Hunting Wife]

People are conflating two separate issues here.

LAND management (National Parks, BLM, Forest Service, certain types of state lands) is funded by everyone. Money comes largely from taxes. NC users and hunters are essentially on an equal footing here.

WILDLIFE management (and certain other state lands in some cases) is funded almost exclusively by hunters. This is where the discrepancy in contribution lies.

I would also argue that the vast majority of hunting mortality is compensatory, so hunters are not taking anything from NC users that they weren’t going to lose anyway. Let’s look at the flip side...how many animals are removed from populations each year due to conflicts/impacts from NC users? Their impact on populations isn’t exactly negligible. All user groups impact populations. It’s just that one user group pays for management of all the impacts.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I would also argue that the vast majority of hunting mortality is compensatory, so hunters are not taking anything from NC users that they weren’t going to lose anyway. Let’s look at the flip side...how many animals are removed from populations each year due to conflicts/impacts from NC users? Their impact on populations isn’t exactly negligible. All user groups impact populations. It’s just that one user group pays for management of all the impacts.

100% agree, lion hunting in CA is a perfect example, but I think the optics are tough on this argument, depends on the ecology education of the person your talking to... although so do most of these arguments.

The issue still remains that regardless of impact, money, use, etc. wildlife are a jointly owned resources so all votes are equal. I think your argument is better fodder for the 'backpack tax'... maybe we can harness some of the Levi 'woke capitalism' and get some legislation passed

 

[farmerboy1381]

I think the hunter's as a management tool is a defensible position, but not a particularly efficacious argument when speaking with non-hunters. Population management has been shown time and time again to be the least effective argument in our tool box, with food being one of the most.

My point was more that you do not have/should not have greater say in wildlife management simply because you buy a license, as you're reimbursing the group for your use of a shared resource. Certainly your dollars are going to conservation, but that doesn't give you greater rights.

Example of my point: say you have 4 siblings inherits a rental property on the beach. The property is held by an LLP, each sibling inherits their portion of the property as shares in the LLP (North American wildlife system). You and your wife decide that the beach/house is where you want to spend a week a year vacationing (hunters not NC users). Because your the partnership rents the places and none of your siblings are using the house with you when you go or at other times of the year you have to pay the partnership for your week at the house at the same rental rate as the partnership would change any guest (you are utilizing the resource, shooting the deer). Further, just because you are paying to use the house that 1 week doesn't give you anymore rights to the property than your other siblings (buying a tag). Even if you do a bunch of maintenance to the property (conversation) while at the house that still does not give you any more rights. You might be entitled to some monetary compensation for your conservation efforts from the partnership but that's it. Your sibling who lives across the country from the property, who never visits, and whose only interaction with the partnership is casting a vote is just as entitled to that vote as you are as they are also a partner (NJ cat ladies).

Wildlife is owned by the state in trust for everyone, like it or not the New Jersey cat lady has the same ownership and say in the management of said wildlife as you do regardless of your perceived "greater" relationship to the resource.

In

I think the hunter's as a management tool is a defensible position, but not a particularly efficacious argument when speaking with non-hunters. Population management has been shown time and time again to be the least effective argument in our tool box, with food being one of the most.

My point was more that you do not have/should not have greater say in wildlife management simply because you buy a license, as you're reimbursing the group for your use of a shared resource. Certainly your dollars are going to conservation, but that doesn't give you greater rights.

Example of my point: say you have 4 siblings inherits a rental property on the beach. The property is held by an LLP, each sibling inherits their portion of the property as shares in the LLP (North American wildlife system). You and your wife decide that the beach/house is where you want to spend a week a year vacationing (hunters not NC users). Because your the partnership rents the places and none of your siblings are using the house with you when you go or at other times of the year you have to pay the partnership for your week at the house at the same rental rate as the partnership would change any guest (you are utilizing the resource, shooting the deer). Further, just because you are paying to use the house that 1 week doesn't give you anymore rights to the property than your other siblings (buying a tag). Even if you do a bunch of maintenance to the property (conversation) while at the house that still does not give you any more rights. You might be entitled to some monetary compensation for your conservation efforts from the partnership but that's it. Your sibling who lives across the country from the property, who never visits, and whose only interaction with the partnership is casting a vote is just as entitled to that vote as you are as they are also a partner (NJ cat ladies).

Wildlife is owned by the state in trust for everyone, like it or not the New Jersey cat lady has the same ownership and say in the management of said wildlife as you do regardless of your perceived "greater" relationship to the resource.
[/QUOTEm
I never said hunters deserve a greater voting right. I must have misunderstood you because I thought you said that hunters keep other people from enjoying a resource. My point was that proper hunting makes that resource better, far from preventing others enjoyment. And hunters should not have to pay “reparations” as you put it.
Voting rights should be exactly the same for everybody as far as government agencies go. However, going back to your example. Can we agree that it might be a good idea on the part of the investor who never goes to the property to not annoy the investor who consistently pays extra to use the property and still improves it while he is there, to the point that he stops doing it.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I never said hunters deserve a greater voting right. I must have misunderstood you because I thought you said that hunters keep other people from enjoying a resource. My point was that proper hunting makes that resource better, far from preventing others enjoyment. And hunters should not have to pay “reparations” as you put it.
Voting rights should be exactly the same for everybody as far as government agencies go. However, going back to your example. Can we agree that it might be a good idea on the part of the investor who never goes to the property to not annoy the investor who consistently pays extra to use the property and still improves it while he is there, to the point that he stops doing it.

I mean hunters are effecting a resources and 'removing' it from public use, I can't go find and photography the specific elk you killed. I think we have seen this a bit with Cecil and other named animals. Most states make you pay a fee to cut a x-mas tree as well. Per the analogy you aren't paying because you are damaging the house, you are paying for your ability to use it exclusively.

Would it be in the others best interest to not annoy... definitely, do people like being told what's in their best interest, but I mean... Bernie seems to making that work lol


Back to the OPs original question, I wonder if a species level explanation would be a helpful way to start. I think NC users kinda miss out on the fact that most NC users "using" an elk do so in Yellowstone, but in order to keep a genetically diverse, healthy population we need elk across a huge swath of NA. Given the world in which we live animals need to have a $$$ value or be incredibly adaptable (coyotes) to survive. Society isn't just going to tolerate herds of elk everywhere unless they place value on them. Hunting puts a $$$ value on animals and increases the landscapes carrying capacity because we tolerate them because of their value (the up and downs for elk in Montana for instance), from there you can dive into the $$$ hunting generates for conservation.

When I'm hanging out with non-hunters my go to explanation starts with; responsible food sourcing, this tends to get my foot in the door and seems to open up the conversation to constructive dialogue. Once I set the stage with that I get into the idea that I want to see elk everywhere not just in the national parks, and what is required to make that happen. Typically at this point people bring up trophy hunting, and that's where I think the titanic analogy, i.e. save the women and children first explanation is helpful. People also like to hear about how many rules and regs their actually are.

I think once you have NC users open to the idea that hunting isn't bad, then you have a good place to start discussing habitat preservation and the effects this has on other species. I think if you try less to convince people that you should be allowed to kill an elk, and focus on more how we need to protect elk and hunting is just a practical mechanism to do that you will be more successful reaching NC users.

 

[ARKANSASHUNTER]

If hunters want to be seen as true conservationists they need to start showing more SPECIFIC support for non-game species. We know that habitat protection helps all species but it's easy for the outsiders to say our motives are purely selfish and that any animals helped by hunters other than game species is a happy accident. Today, motive matters. When Shane Mahoney speaks we should listen. He has advocated for quite some time that groups like RMEF, Ducks Unlimited, QDMA, Pheasants forever etc etc should designate 10% of their funds directly for non game species if we are to be taken seriously as conservationists by non hunters. It makes sense to me. I split my charitable giving between hunting/angling orgs and ocean conservation orgs. HOWEVER; I am very careful to make sure the other orgs I support are NOT anti-hunt fish!