Podcast 5 - thoughts on funding

[DevotedArcher]

This is my first post - let me start by saying I think the podcast is absolutely excellent. As soon as I finish one I look forward to the next.

I found the discussion regarding "non-consumptive" users, or as Randy calls them public land "spectators" very compelling. I have a thought on this that I feel was almost expressed during the discussion but ended up being narrowly missed.

At about the 1 hour mark Randy started talking about the hunter's deepened connection to the land due to the primal need for food.

For me, I have always justified the expense of hunting and fishing by the fact that it is the only recreational activity that I engage in that provides sustenance for my family. As a hunter, I'm more than willing to pay $600 for an elk tag for the chance to bring home quality free-range elk meat, because there is real monetary value in it. If I don't harvest meat myself, I'm going to have to pay for it anyway at a store.

How much is the meat from a bull elk worth? Grass-fed beef ranges anywhere from $12 to upwards of $30 a pound depending on the cut. Let's say you net only 150 pounds of consumable meat from an elk kill, and let's value that meat at only $5/lb (which we probably all agree is ridiculously low).

That's $750 worth of meat you just put in the freezer, and you had the experience of a lifetime getting it. Obviously the same goes for a limit of fresh fish or anything else.

Balancing the all-in cost against the actual economic value of wild meats, not even considering the soft benefit of recreation, I think it's very possible that a skilled, reasonably frugal hunter/fisherman can actually break even annually. You may even find that we can turn a profit over time - think about the value of fresh salmon, versus the relatively minimal cost of catching them off a riverbank in the northwest....

Even "trophy" hunters on an Africa safari have the peace of mind knowing that a good outfitter will use their harvest to feed others. You could argue that on some level they are making a charitable financial donation to the local community by paying for the opportunity.

Any time I buy a tag or gear, make a donation, or invest in a conservation membership, I know that my money will ultimately come back to my family at our dinner table.

This simply isn't the case with the "non-consumptive" user. For them, the outdoors is sheer recreation. For that reason, it's no surprise to me that they don't carry their weight financially.

So, to me the question is, how do you provide the "spectators" with a real, quantifiable economic return to incentivize investment?

 

[jakesdad]

I really wish more states would take a look at what was done here in Missouri. Our conservation dept gets 1/8 of 1 cent from sales tax for funding,and it has done wonderfully.

You could even limit it from a general sales tax percentage to a tax on sporting goods much like Pittman. For those who complain that they dont want the extra tax on their softball gear,I do know for a fact that the conservation dept has helped our park in tremendous ways with trees and landscaping so it benefits everybody. Outdoors is outdoors.

Put in perspective if you were loaded with wealth and spent $100000 on sporting goods,the extra 1/8 of 1 cent would only cost you an additional $125. Everybody contributing a little adds up fast.