Wildlife Mgmnt $$$
Connecticut
I was thinking about the decline in hunting licenses in many states and the impact on wildlife conservation funding. As anti-hunting groups and anti-gun groups push the youth away from hunting, the money available for land procurement and habitat improvements is declining, and that puts the future on shaky ground in my opinion. I'm sure the Dems will just place another tax on say, hiking, camping, tubing on the river, etc. And promoting companies like WB to control wildlife will just add to the pain of the taxpayer's wallet.
Thoughts?
I agree with your general premise, that license sales are declining which is reducing revenue for conservation of natural resources. I do not think that anti gun and anti hunter groups are the majority cause, I don’t believe they are even a minority cause. Regardless, just as we pay volunteer taxes on sporting arms and ammo to go back to the resource, so should other interest groups like hikers and bird watchers. They could impose similar revenue makers on the tools of their recreational pursuits such as bird seed, binoculars, and hiking equipment. I also agree that there are going to be fewer deer hunters into the future and that resource will increase in size. But as revenue declines for wildlife management agencies, they are not going to be spending money they don’t have on sharpshooters. They will try to use the remaining pool of hunters and try increasing take limits, extending seasons, and potentially permitting the sale of hunter-harvested venison to incentivize increased take. My 2 cents.
Dr Williams, good points. However, I laughed a bit about politicians spending money they don't have, that happens every day unfortunately. And the media running with anti-gun stories, especially the mass shooting cases, does convince the liberals and the impressionable youth that anything to do with guns is bad, so hunting is viewed in the same light. You're right that Peta doesn't have as much of an impact, but I know at least 2 young ladies at work who discuss the evils of hunting based upon information from Peta. Whatever the causes, I just wonder where conservation funds will come from in 10 years???
I agree with Doc that the anti-hunter groups are not driving this situation. They are simply benefitting from it as a nice bonus. Keep in mind they rely on controversy to help with their publicity and fundraising efforts. A lot of non-hunters have benefitted from the Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson acts. The money we have contributed for wildlife conservation is HUGE and hikers, birders, photographers, snowmobilers, ATVers, campers, have had a nice ride on our coattails. As our numbers decline, there will be a giant sucking sound (as Ross Perot would say) of evaporating funds and the gov will have to look elsewhere. Some of the "non-consumptive" enthusiasts are of the opinion that they shouldn't have to pay, and I can envision some of these groups pointing fingers at the others to justify not having to pay. It would be wise for hunters and fisherman to reach out to these groups and try to find some common ground. As our dollars and influence decrease, I am sure others would be willing to step up, just as many non-hunters buy duck stamps each year.
I wonder if there's any data that shows how much is donated by the non-hunters?
Peta isn't as concerned with with us as they are with Africa. What we have to worry about is Fran Silverman and the Friends of Animals. They already fought off the black bear hunt for several years and also want to reduce to amount of public land open to hunting. The Hartford Courant keeps on publishing their articles. Maybe some of us ought to write some articles. They accuse DEEP of using skewed data and want to gather their own.
Nightmare fuel: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.courant.com/opinion/op-ed/hc-op-silverman-open-space-0630-20190630-noxgvrya4fe2dhxz6n5khy6e4q-story.html%3foutputType=amp
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/amp/Colin-McEnroe-Annual-hunting-bills-more-than-he-13669705.php
All valid points. N8ture nailed it. I wouldn’t worry about statewide professional sharpshooting as a solution to deer overabundance. It’s far too large an area and far too expensive. It will be used in certain local overabundant situations no doubt though.
Anyone not familiar with H.R.3742 - Recovering America's Wildlife Act of 2019 should take a look at it. It will hopefully be called in the House this spring and it will likely add quite a lot of money to what we're now getting from P-R (assuming of course that it passes and is signed into law).
Those who think we have too much land on which to hunt, should take a closer look at who pays to acquire that land. I don't anticipate that changing much in the future, ARAs like to bitch, but I don't see them buying much land. When they do, they can put up 'no hunting' signs. Then once the deer eat everything in sight, they'll be looking for hunters, or maybe they'll have to hire someone.
Head over to thetruthaboutguns.com. Good article posted today about how California gun/ammo regulation have squeezed hunters out and the impact on conservation funds. CA had dropped to 225k licenses down from a 1970 high of 750k. Bigs bucks lost to the Pitman fund.
I have not read that article, but just as it’s not wholly the antis responsible for the decline in license sales in the East, it is not an ammo tax and gun regulations responsible for the decline in hunting license sales over the last 50 years in the West. We gun owners have been dealing with these issues nationwide thanks to a handful of kooks hellbent on killing innocent people.
Just for clarification: "killing innocent people" is already illegal.
One can blame inanimate objects until the cows come home. They will not respond to those actions.
Perhaps someone would care to explain to us how taxing or restricting the rights of those who obey the laws will have any positive effect on those who do not.
Yes. We are dealing increased firearms regulations because kooks use them to murder people. I’m dealing with these increased regulations just as you are. I’m arguing that’s not why there is a decline in hunters in the West over the past 50 years.
"Perhaps someone would care to explain to us how taxing or restricting the rights of those who obey the laws will have any positive effect on those who do not."
Ace - I know it was a rhetorical question... The tax is simply a way for the anti-gun folks to push their agenda.
There are two entirely separate issues here and both need to be addressed separately. The first, hunter recruitment, or more accurately, the lack thereof is a function of the world we live in; instant gratification is the order of the day and the youth that we used to replenish our ranks from is growing increasingly disinterested in anything that requires the old "blood, sweat and tears" to accomplish. In some ways this may be an unfortunate side effect of the realities of the need for a two-income family; absent direct parental involvement society has been handing off certain aspects of upbringing to a day-care provider, a nanny (for those of means) or sadly, the TV, GameBoy, PlayStation or the latest electronic babysitting device.
Kids also don't interact the way we did; how many of us can recall pick-up sports games; basketball, football, etc. growing up? I'm sure many of us formed friendships in our youth that last to this day; this kind of direct, one-on-one interaction simply isn't happening much, if at all today. Absent a seismic shift in circumstances I don't see this trend reversing.
The second issue is one that impacts all of us and while I don't see the same correlation as the first to new recruitment I can see it's negative impact on the second "R"-retention. I see people I know getting so disgusted with the ever-increasing restrictions (some cleverly disguised as taxes) that they simply stop bucking the system and drop out. We have a much better chance of arresting this trend by staying involved, especially at the local level.
The state of ct sells off land that was hunting access and is now owned by some trail company. No hunting at all but hiking is aloud...right after they logged for rabbit habitat. ..cockponset in durham on bear hill road
Jax, When did that happen? I loved hunting there. I know they did some selective cutting but I thought it was DEEP improving habitat. Are there no hunting signs posted? I’ll have to drive by. What a shame if this is true.
There are pieces of CSF over there but also a piece owned by Connecticut Forest and Park Association. I think you’re confusing the two. Are you sure the state sold the piece? Is the piece in the link the one you are talking about?
If I actually believed that the leaders of the anti-gun crowd were motivated strictly because of firearms being used to kill people, I would not worry as much, because that would mean they were simply misinformed as opposed to calculated and devious. Many things kill more people than murders with firearms, yet ... crickets.
The motivation that does indeed scare me is what the Founders were talking about preventing when they wrote the 2nd Amendment. Which of course, it would pay to remember is a natural right, not one granted by government.
So many good points you guys all laid out here. Mike I really like your descriptions of the two R's. So true.
May sound crazy, but I'd be open to a "land stamp" for all. Here in MA, we have to buy a land stamp for about 5 bucks when we buy our license. Fishing, hunting, sporting (both fishing and hunting as one), it's required. This goes directly to MassWildlife's purchase of more land we can then use to hunt or fish or walk etc... Why not require folks who dont have a hunting/fishing license to also buy a land stamp?
I often hear folks noting the cost of licenses/tags/stamps to use the resources available drives people away... I realize there may be a small percent of folks for whom those expenses legitimately prevent them from buying licenses... But if the resource has value to folks, the relatively minor cost increases should be manageable for most. If they are quitting because of the cost, it's seems to me other factors may be getting in the way. 81 bucks (is that accurate?) to archery hunt and gun hunt deer and small game as well as fish all waters in CT. MA is similar. If you buy a sporting license (combo hunting and fishing) then buy the tags for antlerless deer (if you get a tag in lotto), turkey, bear, etc ends up in the upper 70's for me the past few years.
Given how much we get for, call it, 7 bucks a month... WOW! It's a BARGAIN.
I think society's move towards less experiential value of unstructured outdoor time (I think Mike noted that as well) and more urbanized lifestyles and faster lifestyles ultimately lead the way...
I'm hopeful though, that the growing desire to slow down in some folks and the desire to eat closer to home and be more environmentally conscious - which has pushed some folks not normally thought of as being interested in hunting or fishing - to pursue those activities will help stem the tide a bit. At least to keep several more generations in a position where hunting and fishing are participated in.
Will,
Great post as per usual! I'm with you 100% on all users having skin in the game and agree completely most of us who pursue game and fish wouldn't have any issue with a minimal fee to gain access to land and waterways.
Will, I love the idea of a land use fee (oh boy, the Dems will have that one on the floor for a vote tomorrow) but the only thing that scares me is where the money actually ends up. We here about "Lock Boxes" and you have to ask yourself WHY??? Why do the politicians need something like that to avoid spending money intended for one purpose on another? I know why, they lie!! Lock boxes do nothing because they divert the funds before they get into the box. Sorry for veering off topic.
We have a land use fee already guys.....it’s on your car registration. $5. To use all state parks.
Passport to the Parks. All monies go back to DEEP.
Bob, up here, MDFW is run as a separate entity,its own financial beast, unrelated to the general fund etc. Not sure down there. Our land stamp is 100% used by MDFW to buy more land.
Gov Romney tried to change that and slide MDFW funds into other uses... thankfully that was pushed aside and the past few governors both have kept MDFW separate.
I wish all fish and wildlife agencies were that way. That independence is really good.
BT - is the state park fee $10 per car registration? Not sure. Will - I wish that CT put the money towards the purpose it was intended. People, not politicians, in this state just rose up and stopped a bill that would install tolls on our roads because we're already the 2nd highest taxed state in the country. Sounds like Mass has the perfect system.
Another $5 added to your boat registration fee so some politically appointed a-hole can sit in an office.
Bob, for MDFW, it's a good system that I hope sticks. There are always areas one may want to see improved, but the way MDFW works is pretty darn good in this day and age.
I would gladly pay additional for a land-stamp or something to that effect, but only if there was a guarantee that the money would be used for its intended purpose and wouldn't end up in the general fund. A few years ago the state tried to abscond the money raised from pheasant stamps to try and balance the budget - until it was pointed out that this is a self funding program in which this years stamp revenue pays for next years birds.
We have this already! It was implemented in 2018......when you pay your car registration in CT, you now pay this fee. Everyone pays it. Hunters, non hunters. Everyone.
BT, that's for state parks, not state forests. We can't hunt in the parks or beaches. If you use parks and beaches its a great deal. I do. But, the walkers, bird watchers, etc still get the S.F. for free. I don't care how much I have to pay for my endeavors, but I'd like to see the freeloaders pay up or shut up.
Everybody pays $5 a year. It all goes to DEEP. Doesn’t matter that the monies are designated to allow people access to state parks.....what matters is that everyone pays the fee. Isn’t that what y’all are moaning about??
$5 or $10 every time you register your car doesn't compare to the license fees, bird stamps and taxes we pay each year to pursue our past time of hunting. And again, where the money actually ends up in this state is anyone's guess.
Holy smokes.....this is thing most of the guys are posting about....
There is now a fee - for everyone - that is currently being utilized - and ALL the monies go right back to DEEP. And people are still grumbling and questioning.....
The state is making everyone.....that owns a car and registers it in the state of CT....not just the granola-types that like to watch birds and drink from streams....pay a $5 fee per year.
Sound like a $5 trout and salmon stamp?? All trout and salmon fisherman who want to be legal have to purchase that now. Let’s all get in a circle and sing nice songs now. :)
Its great that the monies go to DEEP from all those $5 registrations, but I thought that fee was to run the parks, not for buying state land, etc. So, I guess that makes all those anti hunting AR's that protest at every hunting/trapping regulation change equal, because they now have skin in the game.
As far as the trout stamps, you only need one to fish in trophy trout waters or to keep a fish. Otherwise, you can catch and release trout all season long without the stamp. Unlike hunting, where we pay for the potential to shoot something.
Again, its just conversation. We know DEEP isn't going to charge walkers, horse riders, bird watchers a use fee. Hell, they're not even required to wear orange during hunting season. I think we just get frustrated footing the bulk of the bill, and the anti's have a say at no cost to them. ($5 is not just a cost to them, but to everyone, incl. us, who already pay the bulk). So, getting a 'cat or bear season will never happen. I'm sure you know what I mean.
And this gets back to the original post, where are funds going to come from as license sales continue to decline? More creative solutions like the state park entry fee and fees for non-consumptive recreation. The money needs to come from somewhere!
Brian, the literature on the state site says just that, it goes to the parks and replaces the parking fee. Doc is correct in that the real issue is declining hunter participation and I don't see that trend changing.
