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

[406LIFE]

Looking for some thoughts and feedback on what NC (birders, watchers, etc.) should have and corresponding voice in managing wildife. Wildlife managment agencies are funded largely by hunting/fishing licenses. Wildlife are a public resource, so should all voices count equally? How could a collabartive conversation begin? Missing something else?

 

[Deleted member 28227]

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.

 

[elkduds]

In CO, 80% of elk hunters are nonconsumptive users.

Wild game is an integral part of public land, even though they come and go from it. Birds, nongame species, predators, humans likewise participate in the living system of any size slice of public lands. User fees are one of many ways to pay for public land and wildlife management. User fees have an obvious pay-to-play connection, and probably help users value public lands and wildlife more. Are cities that get their water supplies from public land watersheds users? How do they pay their user fees? There are infinitely more beneficiaries of wildlife and public lands than the few that pay for a license or habitat stamp. Non profit advocacy groups raise $ that goes to wildlife and public lands. Taxpayers support Federal land management and wildlife agencies. Where else should we look for $ support for public lands and wildlife? From willing participants through charitable contributions and habitat stamps. admission fees to public lands, a Pitman-Robertson-type sales tax on outdoor equipment, many new possibilities. The deepest pockets have the most $ to offer: watershed fees and other fees to the largest user groups, who pay little to nothing for the value they consume, extract or derive from public land. Meaning watershed beneficiaries, mining, timber harvest, grazing, oil/gas...

 

[Pucky Freak]

I think their voice is important because they often focus on preserving non-consumptive species. However, I do get sick of hearing the "hunters are not conservationists" tagline from this group, often.

 

[LopeHunter]

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.

What about infrastructure improvements that benefit NC and consumptive users such as trail maintenance, camp grounds, parking lots, fire management rescues and wildlife monitoring? Hunters pay Federal taxes as do NC users. NC may face additional fees but hunters would as well such as parking lot and camp fees.

Then, hunters and fisherman incur costs that are not in place for the NC crowd. Hunters and fisherman pay Pittman Robertson as a hidden tax when buy new gear. You do not see the tax on your receipt but is very real and impacts the cost you pay. Hunters then pay all the fees to apply which does not absolutely mean consumption will occur and then licenses and perhaps tags are purchased. I would surmise less than 50% of big game tags result in consumption.

There should be a statue of a hunter outside every national forest and park.

 

[Pucky Freak]

There should be a statue of a hunter outside every national forest and park.

There's a pretty big one second to the right...

 

[Pelican]

The majority of the money consumptive users contribute is spent on management of the species we hunt, catch, etc, but there is also a benefit to non game species. I’m alright paying more vs a NC user as I think being able to put a figure to it adds legitimacy to the claim that hunters are conservationists. Consumptive users also need NC users when issues like PLT arise. I also believe that animals that aren’t hunted or angled or viewed still have value. My state agency has a responsibility to conserve it all and I’m fine with a portion of my fees going to animals I don’t actively chase or even know exist. Whether NC users contribute financially at the same rate doesn’t matter as there votes certainly do count the same as ours. We will never agree on some issues (predator hunting), but telling NC users to pound sand because we pay more will only bite us in the ass eventually.

 

[grizzly_]

I've had this self-conversation for years. I finally decided I'd rather have hunters pay more than their fair share of the funding to preserve the right to more than their fair share of the management decisions.

 

[JM77]

The comments here would be totally different if NC user, given the same voice as consumptive hunters, stopped a traditional hunting season.

Hmmm, has it already happened?

 

[Scott85]

Take away lobbying from all groups and it should be fair across the board. As it sits now, hunters are the underdog and should get the bigger voice.

 

[rideold]

It's all a public resource and everyone is a member of the public.....

 

[MNElkNut]

Another way to look at it is can hunters continue to foot the bill on their own for conservation? Many think not. As the baby boomers retire from hunting, hunter numbers are going to decline. So is it time we as hunters figure out how to get the NC users to share in the cost burden? If so, you can well bet they will want a seat at the management table. On the other hand, I don't think we should be too quick to give them that seat until they demonstrate the ability to make a significant contribution to wildlife conservation in America.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I think about this topic a lot as I didn’t get into hunting until my early 20s, was raised by NC users, and don’t spend much time with hunters other than this forum. Most of my friends don’t hunt or fish but I often discuss my hunts and trips with them.

As I reflect about my evolution as a hunter I realize that I did way more in terms of conservation as a NC user that I have ever done as a hunter. Growing up I participated in the DOWs river watch program and monitored my local river’s water quality. I volunteered with the DOW when they did fish shocking. I worked on a GOCO grant to get a piece of property set aside as open space and I spoke in front of our town council against a high density housing developement in a mule deer migration route. At the time I had no interest in hunting, never thought I would hunt and my experience with hunters led me to believe they were all just a bunch of redneck slobs that destroyed the roads with their 4wheelers and left trash everywhere. These feelings changes after I married into a hunting family.

Point being it’s laudable to think NC users aren’t integral to conservation.

I think the Pitman tax is a bit of a tough sell as lots of NC users pay it... in fact more pitman money is generated by NC users than hunters. Don’t get me wrong it’s an amazing piece of legislation but I think you can shoot holes in it and that it’s not something you should hang your argument on.

Personally I think the best way to connective with NC users is the food argument, and then talk about how food and your love for being outside has made you care about conservation.

I do think the argument that hunters more than any user group are paying attention to herd size, location, and mortality is valid. Hunters are usually the first to notice when something is amiss population wise and therefore are a vital group to have at the discussion table. Our votes shouldn’t count more, but we should be listened to as we are actually out there in the field paying attention to wildlife.

 

[bobbydean]

Equal influence. We want people involved in wild land, national park conservation. Hunters are consumers. Hikers, bird guys, bikers are users. As said above, this is public land. I am very conservative and worry about the future, but it is public land.

Hunters and fisherman consume the product and the other public land users just use the land and do not consume the product. Unfortunately they harm the land in many cases. The activities that harm the land, should have a fee to address that harm (ie, horses and bikes in the back country)

Unfortunately, the different groups do not have the same views and have usage conflict.

I would love the users of public land paying some of the bill, and not leave it all to the hunter. Need another law increasing the users fees!

 

[LuketheDog]

I think anyone paying to access the resource should have a voice. For example, I think all public land users here in Colorado should have to pay for a Habitat Stamp and the Search and Rescue fee, just like hunters and fishermen do. This would also help clear up the debate about what a "wildlife watcher" is every time the question comes up of how many dollars each form of recreation brings to the state.

 

[Pelican]

I think about this topic a lot as I didn’t get into hunting until my early 20s, was raised by NC users, and don’t spend much time with hunters other than this forum. Most of my friends don’t hunt or fish but I often discuss my hunts and trips with them.

As I reflect about my evolution as a hunter I realize that I did way more in terms of conservation as a NC user that I have ever done as a hunter. Growing up I participated in the DOWs river watch program and monitored my local river’s water quality. I volunteered with the DOW when they did fish shocking. I worked on a GOCO grant to get a piece of property set aside as open space and I spoke in front of our town council against a high density housing developement in a mule deer migration route. At the time I had no interest in hunting, never thought I would hunt and my experience with hunters led me to believe they were all just a bunch of redneck slobs that destroyed the roads with their 4wheelers and left trash everywhere. These feelings changes after I married into a hunting family.

Point being it’s laudable to think NC users aren’t integral to conservation.

I think the Pitman tax is a bit of a tough sell as lots of NC users pay it... in fact more pitman money is generated by NC users than hunters. Don’t get me wrong it’s an amazing piece of legislation but I think you can shoot holes in it and that it’s not something you should hang your argument on.

Personally I think the best way to connective with NC users is the food argument, and then talk about how food and your love for being outside has made you care about conservation.

I do think the argument that hunters more than any user group are paying attention to herd size, location, and mortality is valid. Hunters are usually the first to notice when something is amiss population wise and therefore are a vital group to have at the discussion table. Our votes shouldn’t count more, but we should be listened to as we are actually out there in the field paying attention to wildlife.

Wllm1313,
The story about your transition from a NC users to a hunter got me thinking. My upbringing was 180 degrees from yours. I grew up in a hunting family in a small town where many people hunted. As such, I had a positive perception of hunting as I knew most hunters were law abiding and really cared about the game and were not all bloodthirsty drunks. So, when I hear about a couple numbnuts in AK digging a bear out of her den and killing her and her cubs, it doesn’t affect my perception of hunting because I know 99.99% of hunters are as appalled as I am by the actions of those dimwits. I can also see why the same story could change the perception of a NC user with a neutral or even positive perception of hunting to a negative perception quickly if they don’t have positive association with hunters. In short, hunters may have a credibility problem with NC users that we don’t see when we claim to be conservationists. We know we are care about sustaining wildlife, but I can also see why some may not trust us to practice what we preach.

 

[LopeHunter]

...I think the Pitman tax is a bit of a tough sell as lots of NC users pay it... in fact more pitman money is generated by NC users than hunters. Don’t get me wrong it’s an amazing piece of legislation but I think you can shoot holes in it and that it’s not something you should hang your argument on...

Is there a study that goes into detail how was determined hunters are not involved in the majority of the Pittman funds raised on ammunition and weapons? The tax is not on general outdoors gear such as tents or backpacks. Several users of ammunition are not paying the tax (sales are tax-free to the Department of Defense and the Coast Guard, state and local governments, and nonprofit organizations, and for export or use in vessels and aircraft) so that leaves shooters and hunters of which there is a significant overlap where a hunter also shoots targets.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Is there a study that goes into detail how was determined hunters are not involved in the majority of the Pittman funds raised on ammunition and weapons?

There is a breakdown somewhere and Randy as well as Rinella have discussed it before, but all fun and ammo sales are taxed not just those used for hunting. As I understand it the largest category of weapon sales are handguns, i.e. probably not hunters.

Anecdotely, I met a couple that were just about the biggest gun nuts you could find. Shot competitively, owned probably a hundred fire arms and shot at least a thousand rounds a week. They wouldn’t let their daughter date my buddy because he hunted. So while year there is huge overlap it’s not 100%, and lots of non hunting weapons and ammo are taxed.

Also... all my firearms were either hand me downs or purchased used, so I didn’t pay any Pittman tax, and I hand-load all my rifle ammo so between reloading stuff and bird loads I’m spending maybe $250, so $25 to Pittman... which is nothing compared to what I’ve spend on habitat stamps, licenses, park passes, and donations to wildlife orgs... probably 2 orders of magnitude less.

Pointing being it’s an awesome program and no other user group has decided to tax themselves in this manner so we should be proud of it, but I it’s not the pillar of my argument to NC users on the fence about the activity.

 

[Europe]

Equal influence. We want people involved in wild land, national park conservation. Hunters are consumers. Hikers, bird guys, bikers are users. As said above, this is public land. I am very conservative and worry about the future, but it is public land.

Hunters and fisherman consume the product and the other public land users just use the land and do not consume the product. Unfortunately they harm the land in many cases. The activities that harm the land, should have a fee to address that harm (ie, horses and bikes in the back country)

Unfortunately, the different groups do not have the same views and have usage conflict.

I would love the users of public land paying some of the bill, and not leave it all to the hunter. Need another law increasing the users fees!

this post makes several good points which I agree with----but (-:

Equal influence should/could work on everything, except "conversation's pertaining to animals that are hunted for consumption" At this point in time there are more non hunters using public land than hunters and that is o.k.---but---they should not have a say in the management of animals hunted for consumption.

Look no further than just across the border at what happen in British Columbia Canada. They admit that the 250 grizzly permits per year was sustainable, with 15000 Grizzlies residing in B.C., they admit without controlling the grizzly the numbers will increase and therefore the moose numbers will decline, they admit there will be more bear/human encounters, they admit that the outfitters and those who worked for them have been hurt, but bear hunting whether for trophy or consumption is, in their words "barbaric" and must be stopped and it was. There are a lot more people living in Vancouver who never leave the city who voted to ban grizzly hunting, than their are people in the small towns to the north.

Share everything--the cost of upkeep to the roads, forest, search and rescue,, as well as the right for EVERYONE to enjoy the land, but try to hold onto the rights of managing the animals hunted for consumption on said land, or you will lose the right to hunt that land. IMHO

 

[Hunting Wife]

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.