Hunting saves the things we love!

Ran across this article about the declining hunter and fees that they pay to do what they love. Yep, hard to believe but its true for the most part hunters carry the burden of supporting State funded game & fish departments. Now with hunters declining where is that money going to come from? The fact that most of the non-game species programs that save, research, protect and study non-game species is paid for by license fees from hunters and fishermen who will pay for it next?

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates 33 states saw declines in hunting license sales over the last two decades. The sharpest drop was in Massachusetts, which has seen a 50 percent falloff in hunting license sales during that time.

Something to think about. Heres the link.

http://my.earthlink.net/article/us?guid=20101212/158299cd-c13e-4890-90f8-022fd8aba746

Please keep comments on-topic.

The topic here is how funds are raised for wildlife/wildlife habitat conservation, not the politics of gun ownership.

Hunting is a tough issue and often launches us off into stormy debate. Personally I don't hunt because, to me, killing for fun or sport simply makes no sense. But regardless of how I feel, I must accept that others feel differently and moreover, some hunting is now necessary simply because we humans have taken the planet to a place where hunting is essential for the natural balance. So in good conscience I cannot rail against hunting or hunters in general. It and they are necessary in some situations.

Let's not though embrace hunting for the revenue. Too many decisions are made regarding the almighty buck instead of the greater good of our only home, this planet and the creatures on it. Where's the money gonna come from? Wherever it needs to! If we want to use these lands, let's support them. I buy a duck stamp every year. I pay admission fees to all parks and refuges even when I don't have to (old coot) and always put in more than needed. I can get in free for volunteering to help on a refuge but I pay anyway. I donate as much as I can afford to other causes. So let's just all do that.
JR

Doug, there's a lot of truth to your comments. I've volunteered for State parks and I'm amused by the folks who are offended by paying a minimal 5-dollar-fee to park a car. I was just at Bosque and they sure put in a lot of work, time, and effort to attract the birds, including growing the alfalfa and corn for the geese, cranes, and other birds. And what does it cost us to enter the park? That same 5-dollar-parking fee!
I had not realized that hunting is declining; I do know that license fees have gone up.
If we go skiing or play a round of golf, we pay an arm and a leg for the privilege and yet as photographers we feel it's our God-given right to go where we please to shoot whatever/whenever we please.
Yes, I agree, we all need to do some soul searching.
Here's a bit of information on what it takes to manage a bird refuge..
Thanks for assisting in raising our awareness.

Carol

This is not about the hunting and if its right or wrong but the money coming into the good people at fish and wildlife services of the state in which you live. The fact is the money from these license fees pays for well over 90% of the non-game species as far as research and protection. I covered the oil spill for my paper this past summer down in Louisiana and the department of fish and game was being pushed way beyond the breaking point. Now with no hunters showing up and buying license down there for waterfowl hunting things like flooding inland dikes to try and intercept migrating species from getting into contaminated wetlands is going to be cut. This is just one example of how this all works. I’m not advocating for or against hunting and fishing that’s not what this is about. Its about where is this money going to come from to protect non-game species because that’s what will suffer first if the money is not there. And by the way buying a duck stamp did more for wildlife in your area then any other single thing you could have done. I do the same because I love the stamp, the art work that goes into it I dont duck hunt and I sure dont waist my money on some boutique wildlife organization that has a fancy office in Washington and spends more money on parties for lobbyist then it does on saving and protecting wildlife.

Since my original post has been deleted I will make my point with words instead of an image.

I take exception to the title of this thread: "Hunting saves the things we love!"

The fees paid by hunters may indeed help in conservation efforts, funding state agencies and programs and be applied to habitat purchase and maintenance, but hunting does not save anything.

Rather than worry about the decline in the number of hunters the states need to address how they fund habitat protection. Perhaps they can do what the USPS does and raise fees to maintain service with a declining base of support. Or they can shift funds used to "repopulate pheasants" so hunters can "save" them to something more useful to habitat and wildlife in general.

Managing land for hunted species instead of preserving habitat doesn't make a lot of sense, either. Does New Jersey need more deer leading to even more car-deer crashes and more deer ticks and more Lyme disease? I didn't think so when I lived there and don't think so now. And yet the NJ Fish and Game probably still believe that more edge habitat is Good (because it benefits game species) even while to causes more habitat fragmentation and declines in species that need large contiguous woods.

Sorry for stating a fact. The title does have a "!" at the end of it. You don't have to like hunting to understand that its right now paying the bills for managing land, preserving habitat and protecting non-game species. Yes, great if there is another way to do this then step up and do it. I dont care where the money comes from as long as the game and inland fisheries people get it.

Richard - I'm afraid you're mistaken. Hunting, or should I say Hunters, have indeed saved plenty. The populations of duck, geese, turkey, and deer (as well as other non-game species) have all benefitted greatly from hunters. The efforts of hunters through organizations such as Ducks Unlimited, Wild Turkey Federation, Quail Unlimted, Pheasants Forever, etc. have directly affected the populations of these and other animals for the positive. I am not a trophy hunter nor do I hunt for "sport". I hunt to put lean, healthy meat in the freezer. Not only do the fees I pay for licenses and stamps go to benefit wildlife, but so do a portion of the taxes I pay for ammunition, etc. The fact that you do not like hunting is fine - to each his/her own, but to say that hunting has not benefited both game and non-game species is just plainly inaccurate.

This topic recently came up on a local birding group. There was a suggestion that birders should buy hunter stamps, and an interesting counter-suggestion that F&G should come out with birding stamps.

As for thinking government agencies spend your money more effectively than "boutique wildlife organizations", I've got some stock in the (formerly named) Minerals Management Service you might be interested in.

Federal Dingell-Johnson Act and a host of state statutes fund wildlife.
and
Meditations on Hunting by Ortega y Gasset: "One does not hunt to kill; one kills to say one has hunted."

If the axiom is true the one cannot "hunt" with a camera, and those who do hunt do fund wildlife more than photographers according to state and federal laws. And it is voluntary not coerced. If one dances one must pay the fiddler.

We should appreciate that there is "something for everyone" and we are all in a web of give and take.

the fisch

the fisch

While noting that many hunters are strong conservationists and many hunting organizations work for habitat preservation, I think it's absurd to say that 'hunting saves the things we love."

As Rich Ditch points out, it's the fees charge for hunting that are used to manage game and preserve habitat. This money could come from anywhere. I'll agree that fees applied to hunting save some things I love (and damage or kill others), but it's not the act of hunting that is saving anything.

If a cigarette tax was used to build a hospital would you write your headline: "Smoking Saves Lives!" ???

I recall back in the 70's California offered a stamp to raise dedicated funds from non-hunters to support research and management in non-game species. Loudly ballyhooed, it was a dismal failure. The non-hunters failed to pony up. Miserably. Anyone know if the effort is still under way? If so, it should have raised lots of money by now.

I proposed to the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries that they offer a photography license that of course would be on a volunteer basis and the buyer of that license could ask that the money he or she puts into the fund can be directed to whatever branch of the department they wanted it used for. Example could be something like Brook Trout stream restoration or non-game species. No mater what you think about government spending, the State level Game people really get it right. There have been comments made here that say that is not true but in my 30 years covering them as a journalist that has not been the case in my observations, at least in Virginia. If you really don’t know how your states wildlife people are spending their money then find out before making comments and or donating money to them. Become informed about how they work not inflamed over that the fact that they take care of hunters and fishermen. We have a voice also but whining over the ethics of hunting once again is not what this is about. The fact still remains that the fees that hunters pay are having the largest effect on the things we love.

There have been comments made here that say that is not true but in my 30 years covering them as a journalist that has not been the case in my observations, at least in Virginia. If you really don’t know how your states wildlife people are spending their money then find out before making comments and or donating money to them. Become informed about how they work not inflamed over that the fact that they take care of hunters and fishermen.

- Douglas Graham

Please be more specific in which comment(s) you are citing. If you are referring to my comment I'd like to know that so I can reply.

Richard I believe it was this comment that I was referring too.

"As for thinking government agencies spend your money more effectively than "boutique wildlife organizations", I've got some stock in the (formerly named) Minerals Management Service you might be interested in. "

So you can turn off your blow torch

Doug: thanks for the clarification. I won't fire up the blowtorch.

I think it's sad that it requires the revenue recieved from an interest in hunting to create and preserve lands/wildlife refuges for hunting. I personally don't hunt. The thought of killing an animal for sport, trophy, or any other form of entertainment is not appealling to me. However, I do see the need for hunting in situations that create a controlled population of healthy animals. I have no problem with people that hunt to put food on the table. I will say that this is not really necessary in todays society either though. You can always go to the store. But, I'm cool with it, I just choose not to do it. I don't know why wildlife viewing can't generate the needed revenue to justify the creation, and preservation of these lands. I personally have no problem paying an entrance or parking fee when I go onto a wildlife refuge, or wild spaces. I also wouldn't mind paying an annual fee/liscence for the priveledge of having these places.

Chris

I have a few friends that work with our state's division of wildlife, and from what they tell me, Douglas is pretty much on target. A couple of decades of so ago, license fees were heavily weighed to producing hunting and fishing harvests. Increasing over the years, these fees are used for habitat restoration and protection, protection of endangered and threatened species, management of invasive species and of non-hunter/fisher related projects. In my state and others, there are some sport fisheries that are being restored to populations of indigenous aquatic populations species with possibly little or no sport fishing value, but using sportsmans license money.

I think one of the worries that my friends have, and that I share, is that in light of these trends, license money may someday be diverted into a general fund managed by the whims of our politicians rather than wildlife experts.

It's unfortunate that in some areas license revenues are down as there probably is no immediate similar fund to replace the protection and enhancement of our fish and wildlife. I think, as opinion, if we expect wildlife viewers and photographers to pony up this sort of money, it just ain't going to happen any time soon. Alternately, as government programs funded by taxpayers, I can see cuts happening just like everywhere else.

In my book, hunting and hunting license fees are inextricably related and I don't find the saying, "hunting is saving what we love" to be at all out of line.

Roger thats the way I see it and what you said especially the part about "license money may someday be diverted into a general fund managed by the whims of our politicians rather than wildlife experts" is exactly the point I was trying to make. Sorry for the title of this because it went off on anti-hunting and other directions. It should have been "Hunting license fees pay for what we love". The other point Im trying to make is maybe its our turn to pony up.

Sorry for the title of this..... It should have been "Hunting license fees pay for what we love".

You're right Doug, and I suppose it wasn't entirely fair that I really focused more on your (slightly misstated title) than on the real point of your message. But I would argue that we could equally make the case that instead of

license money may someday be diverted into a general fund

we should strive for the opposite: a situation where general fund monies are directed toward conservation as a public good, and something that everyone has access to, independent of their ability to pony up for a hunting license and all the ATVs and other apparatus associated with hunting (or a photog license and bodies and lenses, which are about as expensive).

but finally, regarding:

it went off on anti-hunting and other directions.

I have to say I have no problem with hunting in general. In fact (and I suppose I'm straying off topic here, but), it salvaged the whole Bush II presidency for me. I mean, any activity that can lead to the sitting vice president shooting someone in the face and not facing charges is pretty awesome (if rather dark/grotesque) comedy. Only in America!

Chris Chamberlain said:

I have no problem with people that hunt to put food on the table. I will say that this is not really necessary in todays society either though. You can always go to the store.

Hi Chris - This is not quite accurate in my view. Where I shop I've never seen venison offered, or wild turkey (there's a huge difference in flavor between wild and dosmesticated turkey). I probably could find duck or geese if I looked hard enough. Even so, that's not quite the point of this comment. Whether you kill your food yourself or buy it at the store (letting someone else kill your food for you) an animal had to die for it (unless you're vegan or vegetarian perhaps). I've been around slaughter houses before and personally I think my killing an animal is faster and perhaps more "humane" than methods used in a slaughter house - if killing anything can be considered humane. Not to parse words, but when you say hunting is no longer necessary, that may be technically true, but death still is a necessary by product if you choose to eat meat. Just being a little nit-picky my friend.

Brian I’m laughing out loud on the train right now on the way to work. Well said:-)

"Any activity that can lead to the sitting vice president shooting someone in the face and not facing charges is pretty awesome (if rather dark/grotesque) comedy. Only in America! "

I really like your idea of having a general fund that is directed toward conservation. As long as we can keep it in the hands of the people in those state level game departments then it works. Well it works as best I can tell from the 3 states that I have worked with. I’m always impressed with them. They work long hour’s way beyond what they are paid for and they really care about the same things that people here care about. How we get that money to them and where it comes from is the hurdle that will be hard to cross.

Last I did not start this topic to piss anyone off or to get people upset but to maybe think about what we can all do even if its just talking to people that dont know about this stuff. I love NPN and the people here. Its fun and Ive gained a lot from you guys. However I think we can do more with our voice the same kind of effect that the hunters have had with their Ducks Unlimited, Quail Unlimited, etc., etc. maybe we can come up with Nature Photographers Saving Wild Places and Wild Things Unlimited. Sky is the limit and if they can do it so can we.

Check your state constitutions. A lot of states (Alaska included) have specific provisions against money going directly into dedicated funds. The money goes into the general fund and the legislature supposedly passes it through to the fund. They have control issues of course, and seem to enjoy the politics of deciding if, and how much, the monies collected actually make it into the fund. A critical part of the process of establishing a special fund is getting the legislature to pass laws to authorize it in the first place. If the proposal doesn't conform to established state laws and procedures, it's going nowhere in the legislative process.

Hey Bill,

You make a good point, and I guess I have to agree. I have had venison, and quail, goose, etc.... I enjoy those meats too. I also agree that if I go and buy a t-bone, and cow had to die for it. So yes, I was being a little nit picky. If I had to choose my life before death, I think I'd opt for wild and free, over captive and steroid fed! If I were a cow, of course!

Chris

Hank I did a little checking and found out that a lot of states do allow money going directly into dedicated funds. Alaska and a few other states are the exception because the population numbers are not as large as most states. I got a hold of Virginia financial summary and found some really interesting things.

For fiscal year 2010 (July 1, 2009-June 30, 2010) income from operations was $51,908,635.

This is how the money was broken down as far as incoming funds directly into the department of Game and Inland Fisheries.

License Fees and Sales: $25,548,957

Federal Grants: $ 13,437,877

Interfund Transfers: $9,443,544

Other: $3,478,257

The report went on to say that the current finances are sound but that the department will need to garner additional revenue from non-sportsman sources. While current finances are sound, the future is less certain because of lower and lower sales in hunting licenses. Forecast show increasing cost and decreasing revenues. DGIF will need to use additional cash balances to pay for operations. As a result, three years from now the agency will have insufficient revenue and cash to continue current levels of service. It goes on in great details about how programs like non-game species habitat protection and non-game studies would be the first to go. I think in our eyes this would be the worst part to lose……right?

I don’t think I can make the point any clearer then the numbers above. Hunters and fishermen do and have been paying for the things we love for a long, long time and the people in the game departments have been doing a really good job handling the money. It appears we need to be part of the solution if we want the things we love to continue to get the attention of the game departments in our states.

I wonder if the timing isn't better for non-game dedicated "stamps" like California tried back in the 70's? It was a dismal flop then, but I don't know if it still exists today. Society is different 40 years later, and lots of folks might be inclined to contribute if they were sure the funds could go to worthy projects. I know I would, in addition to the hunting and fishing licenses and stamps I also buy. It would be DOA in Alaska I'm afraid, but we're the exception rather than the rule.

Or photo stamps? We could make NPN the site from which the game departments can come and buy images for the stamps for each state. Stranger things have happened.

I personally wouldn't mind paying some kind of a license fee--as a photographer--but I am not sure what it would be for. An entrance fee to a park or area makes sense. But other photographic topics -- that would be a management nightmare.

I also wonder what the statistics are between the number of serious photographers that would pay a fee and the number of hunters who do. I suspect the contrast would be sobering.

Of course, hunters are fined and even lose their privileges if caught without a license. The ramifications for that kind of enforcement for a photographers license are.... what? I can imagine earsplitting howls.

I dont think this should be leveled on just photographers but all outdoor users. Bird watchers, hikers, whitewater, climbing, etc., etc. Ill have to say the thought of having to pay to play when Im already taxed to death puts a bitter taste in my mouth but I also understand that its coming to that. Its not fair that a small group of outdoorsmen pays the bulk of the bill for the rest of us.

Our state division of wildlife gets some funding through our state lottery system. I believe virtually all of the revenue from lottery ticket sales goes to outdoor recreation development and wildlife and habitat preservation.

There's a lot that has been left out of this discussion, so I'll mention a few of them that come to mind.

1. This is been a one-sided and partisan discussion in many ways, and some of that traces back to the originally referenced article. Check the sources of the information in it and you'lll find they are primarily "sportsmen's organizations" and the state and federal agencies that have been put in place to support their interests. Reading the article I picked out: National Shooting Sports Foundation; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Pennsylvania Game Commission; Massachusetts Department of Fish and Game; U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance; National Wild Turkey Federation; Wisconsin's Department of Natural Resources; Whitetails Unlimited. This discussion needs balance from conservation sources.

2. The financials that Doug lists talk about revenue sources. I don't see any coverage of how these monies are actually spent. It would be interesting to see how much of that revenue goes to non game interests, for instance. How much of the money brought in is used in direct support of the hunting and fishing interests? How do attribute funds spent on habitat between game and non game species? Is habitat created and maintained for game species what is needed for non game species?

3. Is hunting and fishing more consumptive of natural resources than nature photography or nature viewing? Should nature photographers or nature viewers be charged at the same rates as hunters?

4. Fees are already levied on photographers, climbers, etc. Bush the First gave us "User Fees" for access to our public lands. Here in AZ I have to pay entrance fees to National Parks and Monuments like every other visitor. I pay entrance fees for some BLM land access like Madera Canyon and Tonto National Forest. I pay entrance fees at AZ state parks. There are even fees now for City parks here in Phoenix.

Hunters and fishermen pay those same fees on top of their hunting and fishing licenses. They also pay federal excise taxes on the gear they buy, fees that are dedicated to programs for fishing and wildlife. I think they'd all feel it a terrific bargain if they could suspend all those fees and just pay the public land access fees.

"This is been a one-sided and partisan discussion in many ways, and some of that traces back to the originally referenced article. Check the sources of the information in it and you'lll find they are primarily "sportsmen's organizations" and the state and federal agencies that have been put in place to support their interests. Reading the article I picked out: National Shooting Sports Foundation; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Pennsylvania Game Commission; Massachusetts Department of Fish and Game; U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance; National Wild Turkey Federation; Wisconsin's Department of Natural Resources; Whitetails Unlimited. This discussion needs balance from conservation sources. "

I might be missing someting, but I think of all the organizations mentioned as "conservation sources". It seems like all of the organizations that focus on preserving our natural heritage have some special niche in which they focus. I think sources like The Nature Conservancy tend to frequently partner with state and federal wildlife agencies due to their proficiency in wildlife management. I'm sure there is some conflict, but I don't think it is an "us and them" type thing.

I think the fact of the matter is that hunters and fishermen have a history of providing very significant funding to preserve habitat and game and non-game species. With fewer hunters, a lack of revenue is an issue. Hunters have had a huge impact on our nature heritage. The duck stamp program that started during the dry years of the dust bowl was integral to bringing back waterfowl populations and preserving wetlands. Many think that it was his love of hunting that lead Teddy Roosevelt to establish some of our early national parks.

With hunting on the decline it's maybe important for the non-hunters to step up to the plate a little more and voice their interests to their politicians. And also make some time or money contributions to conservation organizations. I do some volunteer work through HawkWatch International and find it very rewarding.

It’s easy to trace how the money is spent for Virginia and its right down the middle for game and non-game species. I don’t know but I’m going to guess it’s easy to check other states. The process is pretty transparent and open to the public seeking the information. The department has their biologist divided into too two different groups one dealing primarily with game species and the other dealing primarily with non-game.

Roger:

We obviously see things differently.

From some quick web surfing I found:

National Shooting Sports Foundation: As the firearms industry trade association, NSSF is working to promote, protect and preserve hunting and the shooting sports.

U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance: Dedicated to protecting hunting, fishing and trapping in America by providing legislative and legal support.

National Wild Turkey Federation: The National Wild Turkey Federation is a national nonprofit conservation and hunting organization that, along with its volunteers, partners and sponsors, has worked for the conservation of the wild turkey and preservation of our hunting heritage.

Whitetails Unlimited: Our purpose is to raise funds in support of...

(1) educational programs; (2) habitat conservation, and (3) preservation of the hunting tradition for the direct benefit of the white-tailed deer and other wildlife.

These are hunting organizations. They might include statements about conservation, but only as a means to increasing the number of game subjects for their constituency to hunt.

How about input from the Sierra Club? The American Bird Conservancy? The American Birding Association?

I am not saying that sportsmen haven't put a lot of money into conservation through licenses, duck stamps, excise taxes, etc.

I am questioning what percentage of "hunting related" revenues are being applied to non game species and non game conservation. I've yet to see a breakdown that addresses this.

I am questioning what percentage of "hunting related" revenues are being applied to non game species and non game conservation. I've yet to see a breakdown that addresses this.

Sounds like you need to do some research. I'd be interested in what you learn.

In the meantime, if anyone wants an "inside look" at what public agencies are facing today this is a good read. As Richard demonstrates, in Alaska it's more about politics than science or funding.

Richard, I think the point I was hoping to make is that hunting issues are conservation issues. All of the organizations you mention as conservation groups have their own point of focus, just as each of the "hunting" gourps, but they all share a common interest in preserving wildlife and habitat.

This is a sample from the Autobon Society, though I'm sure there are more examples of diverse issues. "...Support deer hunting, even if you don't like the idea. In the long run it's the only humane solution and the only way to protect the native ecosystems that deer are part of and depend on."

hunting issues are conservation issues

I think that this is debatable. Most hunting groups are focused on (a) maintaining/increasing their ability to hunt (b) a specific species. But gearing efforts toward one species may well come at the expense of another.

For example, fishermen looove trout (and count me among them!). But non-native trout introduced in rivers where they don't belong are hell on native species. Here on the lower Colorado, they (along with dam impacts etc) are a major factor in most of the native species being either endangered or extirpated. But try to take trout out of a tributary creek and fishermen will raise holy hell. This does not strike me as conservation advocacy.

Also in northern AZ, elk aren't native but were introduced in Kaibab NF, and due to increasing numbers of artificial water sources, their numbers have skyrockted. This is at the expense of mule deer and plenty of less charismatic species and plant communities. Try to reduce elk? Betcha the hunters are a lot less interested in ecosystem impacts and conservation and native species than they are in their yearly take.

Brian, you are right about some historical mismanagement of fisheries in favor of game fish. I can only say that this is changing very quickly. If you want to read an interesting perspective on this, you might check out a book called "An Entirely Synthetic Fish: How Rainbow Trout Beguiled America and Overran the World".

For what it is worth, my degree is in fisheries biology and I worked for our division of wildlife at one time.

That's an excellent book Roger. My degrees are also in fisheries, though I went the academic career route rather than agencies.

In my mind it's all about user groups, and sad to say today, politics and money. User groups who foot the bills feel they should have more say, while those that don't pay the bills complain they don't have as much influence. Yup, pay-as-you-play politics are trying to trump resource management.

If a college student today asked me what classes to take in preparation for a career in resource management, I'd recommend political science, economics and public speaking. They'll need them more than biology. And I'm only half kidding.

"I am questioning what percentage of "hunting related" revenues are being applied to non game species and non game conservation. I've yet to see a breakdown that addresses this."


Sounds like you need to do some research. I'd be interested in what you learn.

In the meantime, if anyone wants an "inside look" at what public agencies are facing today this is a good read. As Richard demonstrates, in Alaska it's more about politics than science or funding.

- Hank

Actually, the way science works is that those making claims should be able to support those claims and defend them when questioned about them.

Claims like: "its true for the most part hunters carry the burden of supporting State funded game & fish departments"

And: "The fact that most of the non-game species programs that save, research, protect and study non-game species is paid for by license fees from hunters and fishermen"

And: "The fact is the money from these license fees pays for well over 90% of the non-game species as far as research and protection."

What I'm asking for (again) is unbiased source material to support these claims. Saying "its true" or "The fact" doesn't make any statement "true" or a "fact."

Seeing a breakdown of the revenue side of the equation for one state (VA) shows nothing about how the money is spent on non game species and conservation in VA or in the entire country.

Claiming that efforts to increase the numbers of specific game species is beneficial to other species in general and to non game species in particular does not make it so however much we might want that to be true.

Even wikipedia knows that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not on the person asking for proof, documentation, or references.

So support your claim that it's unfair for agencies to favor hunters and fishers when they're the ones paying the bills. I haven't seen you come close yet. When I pointed out that they pay public land fees like everyone else on top of their license fees and excise taxes on gear to support the agencies, you ducked.

Claims like: "its true for the most part hunters carry the burden of supporting State funded game & fish departments"

What I'm asking for (again) is unbiased source material to support these claims. Saying "its true" or "The fact" doesn't make any statement "true" or a "fact."

A quick search found this - New York Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources

I think that this is debatable. Most hunting groups are focused on (a) maintaining/increasing their ability to hunt (b) a specific species. But gearing efforts toward one species may well come at the expense of another.

For example, fishermen looove trout (and count me among them!). But non-native trout introduced in rivers where they don't belong are hell on native species. Here on the lower Colorado, they (along with dam impacts etc) are a major factor in most of the native species being either endangered or extirpated. But try to take trout out of a tributary creek and fishermen will raise holy hell. This does not strike me as conservation advocacy.

Also in northern AZ, elk aren't native but were introduced in Kaibab NF, and due to increasing numbers of artificial water sources, their numbers have skyrockted. This is at the expense of mule deer and plenty of less charismatic species and plant communities. Try to reduce elk? Betcha the hunters are a lot less interested in ecosystem impacts and conservation and native species than they are in their yearly take.

AMEN to what Brian said. Hunting may sometimes benefit "the things we love", but often only tangentially. I live in South Dakota, where everything with a heartbeat is fair game to be hunted. The state bird? An introduced species, the Ring-necked Pheasant. Pheasant habitat is priority number one for GFP here.

Does that help other species as well? Sure, it might help some species, but there's also no doubt the biodiversity of the state would be MUCH different without millions of non-native Ring-necked Pheasants around. What about other grassland species? How have their numbers changed as they've been forced to compete with non-native pheasants? Land management in the state is specifically tailored to maximize abundance of a non-native species, just so people can go out and hunt for them.

Is THAT conservation?

The "hunters as conservationist" argument is very hard for me to swallow. Makes for great press I guess, but let's be honest. Hunting is about having a resource available to kill. Take that resource away, and see how many hunters still support habitat preservation.

Time to end this one as it can't stay on topic (how to ensure funding). Thanks to all who participated!