"Who really pays for our Wildlife Conservation" Article

bighornhunter

Member
Messages
61
I was just emailed an article along with a study that basically states that hunters don't actually pay for the majority of wildlife conservation/management. While I don't necessarily trust the study, because one of the authors of the study worked for Defenders of Wildlife, it made me think about our predicament with increasing hunting prices. Even though its hard to pay for the increasing expensive tags and fees we the hunters need to be willing to pay the bill for wildlife conservation if we want to have the ultimate say of how wildlife is managed. If the general public's tax money is being used more and more for wildlife agencies they are going to be able to have more say on how wildlife is managed. Which in turn could decrease our hunting opportunities because its not news that hunting is becoming more faux pas to the public. I'm sure this study will be used by anti-hunting groups to get leeway into how our government agencies manage our land, wildlife, and our hunting privileges. I encourage everyone to read the article.

The article and study are linked below:
[https://www.hcn.org/articles/non-hunters-contribute-most-to-wildlife]

[http://wyofile.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/SMITH-1.pdf]
 
Thankyou for sharing bighornhunter.

It seems I speak, MM members gets upset and then a couple of years go by and yall see I haven't been lying to you.
 
I won't argue with you Ben (Tristate) only a fool would. But I will point out people tell you that you are wrong and are lying because that is the truth. Notice I do not.

I'm not sure I need to check the credentials of an internet author named Angus Thuermer or his credibility I'm guessing an internet check is going to show me he's not a hunting supporter. Even with that stipulation old Angus says in the artlicle:

Hunters have been key players in conserving wildlife in the post-frontier era, a development that's come to be called the North American Model of Wildlife Management. Wyoming Game and Fish Department says 55 percent of its budget comes from the sale of hunting and fishing licenses and fees, and that hunters contribute even more through taxes on guns and ammo. " (Angus Thuermer)

Maybe this isn't as much as some of us believe but it's still the main source of wildlife funding in the U.S. Thanks for posting bighorn but again credibility of this Op Ed is not that outstanding.
 
On the Second Article Nevadans for Responsible Wildlife Management it is the most blatantly anti-hunting site around, a bunch of granola eating, weed smoking Reno hippies so why would you trust their word? This is their site below three main things I got from it.

1. Wolves are good!!!!!
2. Hunting is bad and Hunters are slobs.
3. Figures lie and liers use numbers to make the naive believer theirs lies.

https://www.facebook.com/NevadansForResponsibleWildlifeManagement
 
Cornhusker,

I think you are confused and believe that I think this has credibility. First let me state I don't come look read and write on the internet for credibility. You know hunters contribute tons of money to American wildlife. I know that too.

What I am stating is what I have been pointing out on here since I first started posting here. These emotional zealots are realizing how weak and fragile the NACM really is. They will exploit the weaknesses of it. Our conservation organizations latched onto the NACM and bastardized it into propaganda to feed their causes and these people have learned from it and will do the same. Here's what I want you to get from this. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THE TRUTH.
 
While this seems true at its face value, this article is a stretch at best. The total appropriations to the forest service in
FYI 2013 was about $5.5 billion. (Interestingly that is below the FYI 2012 appropriations). There were also revenues, which total about $700,000,000. (Timber, grazing, etc.). Not sure how they stretched that to $9.7 billion, but probably because of matching grants, etc. So, when the forest service puts gas in their trucks that is a non-consumptive wildlife use? I think not. Again, easy to just take mass totals, and make blatantly false statements such as "The forest service contributes $9.7 billion to wildlife".

Also, the author stated that the non-hunting conservation organization totals are 87.7 percent of the total non-profit expenditures. Again, we need to look at where the money was spent (ie how much towards conservation, and how much in fundraising). More importantly, it makes it seem that ducks unlimited is a non-hunting group (confusing). I do know that close to $250 million was spent between RMEF, NWTF, and ducks unlimited. That is with just three of the many hunting conservation groups. That also doesn't take into consideration that many hunters, (myself included), belong to other conservation organizations. I have been a member of The Nature Conservancy, and I hunt!

If you add the pittman robertson funds, other taxes on hunting gear, payments to fish and game offices for licenses and tags, and contributions and donations to conservation organizations, as well as our IRS taxation (the total funding for the forest service, blm, etc. also comes out of our checks), I believe this author severely skewed this article.

http://www.nssf.org/factsheets/PDF/PittmanRobertsonFacts.pdf

http://www.rmef.org/Portals/0/Documents/2013 Financials.pdf

http://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/budget/2013/fy2013-overview.pdf

http://www.nwtf.org/annual_report/2013-Annual-Report-1.pdf

Be proud to be a hunter, and keep the faith!

www.hunthardcore.com
 
I could give a crap if it's true, half true or total lies. Tax payers, like you and I pay for Golf Courses, I don't golf, we pay for swimming pools, I don't swim, we pay for abortions, I don't have abortions, we pay for schools, I don't have kids in school, we pay for fire departments, there are no fire departments my community, we pay for sidewalks, there's no sidewalk in front of my house, we pay to go to the moon, I won't be going to the moon, we pay for surgery for indigent tobacco users, I don't use tobacco, we pay for wine/health studies, I don't drink wine, we pay for roads to and from Reno, I never go to or from Reno, we pay for public health care, I pay for my own, we pay for boreal toad studies, I don't need boreal toads, we pay for subsidized housing, I bought my own housing, we pay for food for the needy, I pay for my own.. .......................................................................................................... .............................................. we spent $3.45 trillion dollars on a hell of a lot of things I will never see, use, or care about, things I'll don't need, will never need, and never see a return from, so cry me a river if some of their tax dollars goes to take care of a few things I do care about, need, and see a return from.

When the rest of the country starts paying for every thing they want and nothing more, then I'll be willing to do the same. They can kiss my as....

DC
 
hunters pay the most ,do the most, and care the most, don't let any body bs you,,!!!( and that's a fact jack)
 
Guys you do understand you are preaching to the Choir. That article named in the original post is not aimed at us hunters. It is aimed at the majority of non hunters who may not question if it is truthful or not. Those non hunters outnumber us hunters by a very good margin. Also how many state and federal lawmakers are hunters? Very few and it is aimed at those lawmakers.
Those are the people you need to get your message across to, not the choir which is fellow hunters.

RELH
 
Very true RELH, but a well organized and dedicated Choir can work wonders. ie: ISIS,
Al Qaeda, Nazis, Red Chinese, Berkley Hippies, NRA, Ducks UnLimited, Tea Party, U.S. Founding Fathers, even Ross Perot and Ralph Nader, Madalyn Murray O'Hair, Modern Feminist Movement, Amnesty International, Green Peace etc. A very few changing the world for the millions.

Number of hunting licenses sold in the U.S in 2013, approx. 251,046 in California, 952,989 in Pennsylvania, 635,165 in Wisconsin. Nationwide 14 million plus and holding steady.

There isn't an organization listed above that has or had any where near 100,000 members when they started to preach their message, there was only a small handful that started the movements that changed the world, for good or otherwise, but those that started these movements were united, committed and believed in the cause, beyond there own individual interests and they didn't let anything stop them from their mission.

Sportsmen, yes including sportsmen in California, and every other State have enough power and strength, if they would unit into a single, committed sportsmen's organization to change laws, change the outcomes of elections, change regulations, and take control bureaucracies.

The Choir can change the world Robert, they've done is since the beginning of human time. Sportsmen can have what ever they want, as soon as they decide they want it. The models are in place, as soon as a handful of sportsmen with good leadership choices to adopt them.

As soon as we get tired of getting crapped on we'll find leadership, get united and take back our business, or not. Let's not blame our losses on the Friends of Animals, if we aren't will to take care of business ourselves. We certainly have the numbers to do it, we simply lack the will.

DC
 
Seems to be cultural differences across the US concerning that model. Here I'd have a hard time believing the non-hunting public comes anywhere close to the hunting public on conservation and money put directly towards wildlife.
 
I agree 2Lumpy, how do we get that message to the 70% majority? (non-hunters). The established organizations don't do it well. (NSSF, NRA, RMEF, SCI, etc.) The message primarily goes to the choir. Although I believe that the RMEF has the right idea building wildlife viewing outlooks that provide the message.

Ideas could be school literature, a cartoon hunting show, take a kid hunting, mentored hunting programs...

www.hunthardcore.com
 
Outdoordan, let me try to answer your question, "how do we get that message to the 70% majority? (non-hunters)."

Answer: WE DON"T!

We do it by using the same Model as other's use and use very successfully and it doesn't involve the 70%. You do your work long before the 70% ever have any say in the process.

Here are the rudimentary steps in the Model:

1. You don't need to get the message out to the 70% majority, you don't need the support of the majority. You need the support of the politicians that represent the majority. In most cases that means you only need the support of "one individual" so you focus your small group of your "activist sportsmen" at that one person.

You do this by studying the political election system and election process, to determine how an individual, from either the Democratic or Republican Parties, get's their name on the final election Ballet. Each State has a unique system and you need to learn it backwards and forwards. In every State, a small number of citizens actually decide who in their party gets on the election Ballet.

Once you know how your system works, you focus your small organization on determining the outcome of the "early" election process, that gets that one person (representing either the Repub. or the Demo Parties, you can ignore any third party or independent representatives, in nearly all elections). In most cases, 25 motivated sportsmen, their wives and 21 year old children, can act together and literally control, by your vote, the early election process, and determine who gets their name on the Ballet, for the 70% to vote for. (Some precincts may need more than 25 but most to do not.)

As you work through this process, the politician you're supporting will come to understand that "your involvement and early participation" in the election process is going to determine whether they are going to get on the Ballet or not. If they aren't on the Ballet, they can't be elected by the 70%. So you make it clear to that individual that you're going to make sure they get on the Ballet and someone else does not. You make it clear why you are supporting this individual and make it abundantly clear what your issues and what your expectations are, if the individual becomes elected. That is, after all, why your working to get the individual elected.

You begin understanding that this process doesn't happen over night, that your going to have to stay in the process for 10 years or longer before it starts to get easier. You begin in one precinct of the State and you help get one politician elected. then a second and a third, and so forth, one at a time, until eventually you have enough elected politicians to determine the outcome of regulation, department appropriations, bureaucratic administrator appointments, funding appropriations, etc. This will take a few years but it will happen, if your committed and stay united, and give your support to good sportsman leadership, even if you have to compromise on some deals, on the front end the process. Compromise because the whole is more important than any single part that you personally find distasteful.

2. You let other sportsmen know what your doing, how your doing it and what your goals and outcomes regarding hunting and fishing regulations are. As you begin to gain strength, others will want to help, because something good is happening, even if it's not always exactly what they each want, it's moving the political system in the right direction, rather then in wrong direction. You must ignore the haters, the 70% that don't know or care about hunting and fishing, You must also ignore the few sportsmen haters that have any of a hundred reasons for wanting your "activist group" to fail. You just stay focused on your goals and keep inviting more and more sportsmen to help take control of "their" political system (that is presently kicking their butt).

3. You organize fund raising activities that will start to generate the money's you need for your core leadership to travel and meet with the movers and the shakers in the political system. There are many legal ways to raise money, find one that works for your area. You fund positive public efforts to improve wildlife for fishing and hunting, you let people know what your doing and way. You invite them to help, then give them something specific to do so sportsmen get a return on their support and let them have a positive experience for been part of the effort.

4. As your numbers and your influence grow, you will be able to go directly to "non-supportive" politicians and politely explain to them what you are doing and why and ask them for there support. One of two things will happen, because by now the "non-supportive" politicians will know who you are and that your "activist group" has done in getting other politicians elected and they'll know how you have done it. (They all know how the system works.) They will beginning to see things your way or tell you right out to go to hell or they'll ask you how they can help. At which time you decide if you need to organize your sportsmen in that individual's political district and work to unseat them and put a more supportive person in the non-supportive politicians chair. One way your the other, if they decide to fight you, it costs them a ton of money or you save them a ton of money because it costs them limited campaign funds or it saves them much need campaign funds. to get on the Ballet before the real election campaign ever begins.

5. After you have unseated a politician or two (by changing who actually gets on the Ballet, not by trying to beat them during the general election) the rest of the politicians in the State begin to understand that they need to help or they'll be gone too.

6. Once all of the politicians learn that your group has the means to unseat them, liife will change in your State, regarding hunting and fishing regulations.

You can take the position that politics is a dirty business, control by special interest groups and you won't get in the mud with it, and continue to loose your hunting and fishing life-stye, or you can decide you've had enough and get busy implementing the Model. It's not brain science, it's the process that is kicking our asses right now and it can be stopped by using the same methods (Model) that is being used against us.

If we us the Model, the lifestyle will continue and even grow, without the 70% ever knowing or caring or we can continue the present course and continue to live with the results of the anti-hunters, who are controlling the system today.

This Model has nothing to do with sportsmen and everything to do with the political system and it's the political system that must be controlled. Once the political system is controlled, through political "propaganda" (for lack of a more palatable term) the 70% are taught what is moral and what is immoral.

Now, do I like this reality, nope, I don't but, it's how it's been done for 300 years and isn't not going to stop in our life times, so if you want to preserve the outdoor live-style, the Model is the only way your going to be able to do it.
DC
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom