This article was referenced in out local paper

[drahthaar]

It makes the claim that hunters are not the main source of conservation funding. Seems a bit flawed to me, as some of the organizations it lists as conservation sources are nothing more than profiteers and preservationist organizations. And I think one needs to make a differentiation of conservation and preservation.

Never saw the WWF buy any winter range. And throwing in FS, NPS, and BLM is interesting. Is that a part of conservation? I consider it a "sunk cost", paid by all. Its just a given place to start.

Just curious as to what some of you all thought?

http://www.nrwm.org/wp-content/uplo...Management-Funding-in-the-US-Oct14-Rev-F1.pdf

 

[Big Fin]

I quote below, the resumes of the two authors so highly educated in wildlife management and wildlife policy to make them experts on such a topic - NOT.

1 Mr. Smith has 35 years of experience in environmental and resource management and has
published extensively on these topics. He has a master’s degree in engineering from the University of
Nevada, Reno. Mr. Smith is the managing director of the Mark E. Smith Foundation and co-founder of
Nevadans for Responsible Wildlife Management (www.NRWM.org).

2 Dr. Molde is a retired physician, former board member of Defenders of Wildlife, and a wildlife
advocate with 40 years experience. He is a co-founder of Nevadans for Responsible Wildlife
Management (www.NRWM.org).

As we say in the bean counting world, "Figures lie and liars figure."

Give me, or any CPA some numbers and tell us the desired outcome, and we can get your there with very few dots to connect.

As to your question of how much winter range has WWF purchased, the answer is way closer to zero than it is to what the hunting groups have done. The explanation for their claim lies in the fact that these authors find the work of lobbyists and litigators to be considered "conservation" work.

 

[JLS]

I skimmed over it, and it is obvious that a lot of "assumptions" are made that likely don't have any basis at all.

Also, when one figures in the total budgets of several very large federal agencies, the data is obviously going to be heavily skewed.

If you use a very loose and nebulous definition of "conservation", then it's pretty easy to create the scenario that is presented.

 

[bigskyblueman]

Clearly , this piece is intended to confuse and mislead the non-hunting public . I suspect they want Pittman-Robertson, Dingell-Johnson, and LWCF funds re- directed to their own organizations, so they must first discredit hunters by claiming no relation between hunting and conservation and management of wildlife . Proof of that was missing , notably. Don't abolish the laws, just makes us pay for their projects.

 

[Big Fin]

Also, a quick look at their home page shows they are mostly an anti-trapping and anti-bear hunting organization. Serious "street cred" if you were in the fund raising and fleecing business.

 

[Ben Lamb]

From the "study:"

State funding was not considered in this study, in part because most state wildlife agency funding flows from the federal government (about 70% in Nevada’s case), and in part because it would be a task larger than our resources allowed.

So they excluded the state management funding, but included the budgets of environmental NGO's? I think this would not pass muster of any professional panel of peers. They openly admit to eliminating data (state agencies & actual hunter & angler dollars) because they didn't want to do the work.

It's not a vessel I'd put much hope in, if I wanted to try and discredit hunters.

As for WWF, they may not own winter ground, but their work in Montana is helping bring back ferrets, establish more wild bison and help with the scientific management of wildlife. They're not perfect, but they're not the devil. The Nevada outfit, well...the study speaks for itself.

 

[DAVIDKERR]

nail them ben&randy-thanks