Who should pay for conservation efforts?
Hunters and fishermen played a vital role in preserving our natural wildlife over 100 years ago.
Led by fellow sportsman President Theodore Roosevelt, these early conservationists called for the first laws restricting the commercial slaughter of wildlife. They urged sustainable use of fish and game, created hunting and fishing licenses, and lobbied for taxes on sporting equipment to provide funds for state conservation agencies. These actions were the foundation of the North American wildlife conservation model, a science-based, user-pay system that would foster the most dramatic conservation successes of all time. National Hunting and Fishing Day
Today, however, there are not nearly so many hunters and fishermen. Americans have turned to wildlife viewing, rather than wildlife hunting. These “non-consumptive” visitors come to public lands in increasing numbers to view the diverse wildlife, but often do not pay for the upkeep of these lands. Hunters and fishermen pay not only the park fees, but must also purchase a hunting or fishing license and pay an extra tax on hunting and fishing equipment.
U.S. hunters paid $152, on average, in fees for licenses and using public land in 2001. Anglers averaged $66, while nature watchers averaged $30, primarily as admission to public land. Placerville.info
This is important because this revenue is the primary source of monies to support our nation’s wildlife preservation efforts. Should there be a tax placed on items such as birdseed and bird feeders to help make up the difference as “consumptive” park visitors steadily decrease? It has been tried in the past, with considerable protest, but perhaps there is also a greater awareness of the need to preserve our nation’s wetlands and other habitats important to the wildlife we love?
Don’t forget the comment contest going on for the month of August here at 451 Press. Every comment counts!
wildlife, conservation, birding, hunting, fishing
August 28th, 2007 at 8:21 am
If a person purchases birdseed and feeders aren’t they already contributing to wildlife preservation? I realize that the government needs revenue but it wastes so much of the money it receives I don’t like to give it more.
August 28th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
I don’t think so, but I could be wrong on that…I’ll check into it.
I think the taxes imposed on fishermen and hunters has been very successful. But if I remember correctly, they have had a lot of say in how it is set up. I don’t think it is a bad model and has provided a lot of money for needed conservation and land use issues, but on a voluntary basis. After all, you do not have to hunt.
You know me…I am not generally supportive of too many government programs. But these licenses have been run differently, with a lot less waste if I remember correctly.
August 29th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
When I mentioned that purchasing seed and feeders is helping conservation I didn’t mean monetarily but in the general sense of helping birds flourish. I think I missed the point of your question earlier because I always tend to resist more taxes voluntary or not.
The only problem I see is in taxing bird seed and feeders is that it creates more paperwork for business owners.
In Idaho individuals can purchase license plates with the state bird on them. The revenue goes to support wildlife conservation. I think that is a good idea.
So what should the role of government be in conservation? I’m thinking those decisions should be in state control as opposed to federal. What do you think?
September 4th, 2007 at 11:12 am
Local control is always preferable in my mind.
The regulations on the fishing industry are similar, I think. Fisherman know there have to be some limits in order to ensure their livelihood. But there will always be those who are willing to go for the short term benefit of overfishing. So they asked for regulation.