For those of you that are interested, take a moment to read he following excerpt. Then I have a question and I’d like to hear what YOU think.
“Today, game agencies are involved with more than game and habitat conservation efforts. Their expanded responsibilities now include “non-game” programs like environmental protection, urban wildlife, human-wildlife conflicts, endangered-species management, and control over an expanding list of animal diseases. This growth of agency responsibilities is diluting their concentration on conservation programs while at the same time forcing them to seek alternative funding.
These developments have generated a “funding model” that makes use of hunter and angler dollars to fund “non-game” programs and other programs that are not conservation related. The use of revenue from the of sale licenses and the imposition of excise taxes once earmarked for “game” and “habitat” are now being diverted to other uses, which, although of benefit to everyone—man and beast alike—place the burden on hunters and anglers only.
In response to the need for funding to support expanding services by game agencies, some states have enacted various taxes and directed percentages of state lottery revenues to game agencies. A paradox is then created: as the pool of funding expands beyond the contributions of hunters and anglers (to include general public revenue, or even the eventuality of targeting all wildlife aficionados, such as wildlife watchers and backpackers, with fees) these new revenue-generating entities will begin to articulate their wildlife priorities, which may not be in line with those of hunters and anglers.
As the population of hunters decreases the urgency will increase to replace or expand revenue for the resources needed by growing game agencies. Although this may be an equitable option for financing non-game-related programs, it will most surely diminish the sphere of influence enjoyed by hunters and anglers with game agencies.”
The above issue is taken from my book The New Age Hunter. Part of the justification we hunters use in support of hunting is that fees from the sale of licenses, permits, and revenue from the Pitman-Robertson tax on ammo and firearms have supported game agencies. Almost 75% of funding of all game management comes from these sources – all funded by hunters.
Expanding their responsibilities as mentioned above and the need to use their funds to thwart lawsuits by the antis are overburdening game agencies. As the pressure for funding grows there’s a good chance the general public will be approached and tapped for their tax dollars or “user fees.” When this happens (and in some states it has) it will remove an important underpinning we hunters have used to justify that hunting is a benefit to our nation through funding conservation and game management efforts. Should this occur the general populace would then have a voice in game management programs.
My question is how will we justify hunting if the general population begins to fund game management programs and the majority feels that hunting is a “bad” thing?
Ant
http://www.anthonypmaurosr.com
“Today, game agencies are involved with more than game and habitat conservation efforts. Their expanded responsibilities now include “non-game” programs like environmental protection, urban wildlife, human-wildlife conflicts, endangered-species management, and control over an expanding list of animal diseases. This growth of agency responsibilities is diluting their concentration on conservation programs while at the same time forcing them to seek alternative funding.
These developments have generated a “funding model” that makes use of hunter and angler dollars to fund “non-game” programs and other programs that are not conservation related. The use of revenue from the of sale licenses and the imposition of excise taxes once earmarked for “game” and “habitat” are now being diverted to other uses, which, although of benefit to everyone—man and beast alike—place the burden on hunters and anglers only.
In response to the need for funding to support expanding services by game agencies, some states have enacted various taxes and directed percentages of state lottery revenues to game agencies. A paradox is then created: as the pool of funding expands beyond the contributions of hunters and anglers (to include general public revenue, or even the eventuality of targeting all wildlife aficionados, such as wildlife watchers and backpackers, with fees) these new revenue-generating entities will begin to articulate their wildlife priorities, which may not be in line with those of hunters and anglers.
As the population of hunters decreases the urgency will increase to replace or expand revenue for the resources needed by growing game agencies. Although this may be an equitable option for financing non-game-related programs, it will most surely diminish the sphere of influence enjoyed by hunters and anglers with game agencies.”
The above issue is taken from my book The New Age Hunter. Part of the justification we hunters use in support of hunting is that fees from the sale of licenses, permits, and revenue from the Pitman-Robertson tax on ammo and firearms have supported game agencies. Almost 75% of funding of all game management comes from these sources – all funded by hunters.
Expanding their responsibilities as mentioned above and the need to use their funds to thwart lawsuits by the antis are overburdening game agencies. As the pressure for funding grows there’s a good chance the general public will be approached and tapped for their tax dollars or “user fees.” When this happens (and in some states it has) it will remove an important underpinning we hunters have used to justify that hunting is a benefit to our nation through funding conservation and game management efforts. Should this occur the general populace would then have a voice in game management programs.
My question is how will we justify hunting if the general population begins to fund game management programs and the majority feels that hunting is a “bad” thing?
Ant
http://www.anthonypmaurosr.com
