Skip to Navigation Skip to Content
Decorative woodsy background

Fish and Wildlife Funding

Fish and Wildlife Funding
Origami by Giom.

My old boss Walter Medwid recently published this op-ed raising the issue of Fish and Wildlife funding in Vermont. It’s a wonky issue, I’ll grant you, but it’s something that everyone who cares about nature ought to be at least peripherally interested in, no matter what state you live in. We published an extensive piece by Tovar Cerulli on the subject last year that includes all the background you need to know – you can read it here.

I'm glad Walter raised the issue and I agree with much of what he said, though I’d put a finer point on the degree to which hunters, anglers, and trappers are carrying the financial burden of protecting, conserving, and studying wildlife. In Vermont, only around 10 percent of the Fish and Wildlife budget comes from the general fund; 72 percent comes either out of sportsmans’ pockets directly in the form of a license fee, or indirectly, through a federal trust that’s been accruing money since the 1930s from taxes on guns, ammo, and fishing equipment. In Maine, about 5 percent comes from the general fund. In New Hampshire and Massachusetts, 0 percent.

While I don’t have a percentage to give you that breaks down the time/resources the Department spends/allocates catering directly to hunters/anglers/trappers versus time spent on the public good, it’s safe to say that the general public is not paying a proportionate share. Here’s how Cerulli puts it in the piece we published:

Over the past century, the scope of state agencies’ duties has widened enormously. In addition to managing fish and game species, public lands, and fishing access facilities, they now review development proposals, assist towns and landowners with habitat work, and run educational programs, including youth conservation camps. They also conduct research on – and implement protections for – a wide array of species and habitats. For agencies with in-house law-enforcement divisions, responsibilities include enforcing not only hunting and fishing laws but also boating laws, off-road-vehicle laws, and general environmental regulations. They also conduct search-and-rescue missions and provide backup for police in non-wildlife law enforcement situations.

In theory, fish and wildlife agencies still operate on a user-pay, user-benefit model, where hunters and anglers pay for – and benefit from – the conservation, propagation, and management of game and fish. In reality, agencies’ diversified efforts now also serve wildlife watchers, paddlers who use boat-access areas, people who appreciate the fact that someone else picks up roadkill, homeowners who call for help when there’s a nuisance bear in the neighborhood, landowners who value stream-bank protection, town conservation commissions seeking technical assistance, teachers and students learning about conservation, farmers whose crops are damaged by hungry deer, and business owners dependent on wildlife-related recreation, among many others.

And so it seems to me that the first step to bringing more non-consumptive users to the policy table is to figure out a way to make them financial stakeholders.

The other point I’d make in response to Walter’s op-ed is a cynical one…I’m trying to think of a nice way to say that I don’t trust the collective wisdom of the masses. As a sportsman, I’m all for non-consumptive users paying more into the system, and in exchange, the Department broadening its focus to include even more non-game habitat and conservation and recreation-focused work. This would undoubtedly enrich human and animal lives. The elephant in the room, though, is the animal rights faction of society who actively loathes hunting, fishing, and trapping and who will be demanding their seat at the table. You just saw an example of this in Maine, where The Humane Society of the United States, a Washington D.C.-based animal rights group, spent almost $2 million dollars trying to ban three forms of bear hunting on “ethical” grounds. They lost the vote by just four percentage points – the second time this has happened in 10 years.

The point is that if we’re going to try to make fish and wildlife departments more diverse, the sporting community is going to need some assurance that traditional activities like hunting, fishing, and trapping are not going to come under threat from big moneyed outside interests. Figuring out a way to do this seems like another first, crucial step toward reform.

Discussion *

Dec 18, 2014

I was Commissioner of Mass.F&W in the 80s and then worked at Malden Mills, producer of Polertec.  In the early 90s there was a move to tax outdoor sporting equipment (not organized sports).  The hiking, camping, etc. industries (I forgot the name of their lobbying organization) easily killed it.  I say, let’s give it another try and be forceful about keeping the fringe liberationists out.
Walter Bickford

Walter Bickford
Nov 30, 2014

I’m a very long time hunter and landowner who is excited to see this white stuff on the ground in advance of the muzzle loading deer season.  That said I recognize the fact that the “People” own the game despite hunters and fishers stepping up to the plate so generously.  Whether the non-consumptive users pay anything the deal has always been that if we hunt or fish we pay for that right to consume. 

I would love to see a Pittman-Robertson type tax on binocs and bird feed etc.  We could preserve lots of land for future generations and get the non-consumptive users to pay their fair share.  They are going to take their place at the table anyway so lets get it done.  Not worried too much about hunting rights.  Deer are going to keep doing what comes natural and there will always be a constituency for reducing collisions, Lyme and crop depredation. Look at how the urban areas are bending over backwards to get deer hunted in the backyards. 

A friend in suburban MD has and fills an “Urban Deer Permit” that allows him to hunt closer than 150 feet from houses with a bow.  Let’s get all of the People at the table and get their ideas on how to fund all the tasks our F&W agencies are charged with.

Tom

Leave a reply

To ensure a respectful dialogue, please refrain from posting content that is unlawful, harassing, discriminatory, libelous, obscene, or inflammatory. Northern Woodlands assumes no responsibility or liability arising from forum postings and reserves the right to edit all postings. Thanks for joining the discussion.