80 Years of Duck Stamps

[Mr VJP]

If you get into a debate about hunters not being conservationists, you can use this to prove it.

 

http://guide.sportsmansguide.com/news/80th-anniversary-first-day-sale-duck-stamp-approaching/

 

[mike rossi]

I guess you can argue, if you choose to argue, that a legal requirement of hunting is the purchase of stamps and licenses and that conservation tax is built into the manufacturer's production cost of guns, ammo, archery items, and certain types of hunting equipment.

 

However, it would not be wise to defend the position hunters are "conservationists". Unless you are a poacher, you are buying licenses and thereby contributing to conservation. However, even the poacher who buys ammo contributes to conservation. But that doesn't make either the legal hunter nor the poacher a conservationist. Very few hunters actually are conservationists, and some nimrods actually do fit the negative image projected about hunters.

 

A better statement would be that hunting contributes to conservation and hunting is the center of the North American Conservation Model.

 

That being said; there is currently a movement to create a federal non-hunters stamp. This organization seeks to enumerate the financial  contribution to conservation of non-hunters from hunters. The rationale behind that is the belief the antis share with hunters, that state wildlife agencies and the US FWS can be bought by the highest bidder. If congress eventually approves this stamp, they will find themselves disappointed.

 

A decade or so ago the Duck Stamp was only sold at post offices. Sometime since, a law change by congress allowed sales at other locations. That went on for some time and then anti-hunters got the idea that if they sell them, they can enumerate non-hunters from hunters among their sales, assuming hunters are not obtaining their stamp from them. I only recently learned of this. Although enumerating non-hunters provides important data, the intention behind this is disingenuous.

 

I posted not so long ago about a solicitation for comments on changes about The National Survey. I suggested you guys give some thought about the enumeration of "stay at home bird watchers". Just about anybody from Wayne Pacelle to Dick Cheney can claim to be a stay at home birder.

 

I caution against interpreting this post as suggestive we should make the bird watching community enemies, because they are not enemies, but can easily become one. Bird watching is participated in by more people than is hunting; however hunting is as old as the first human and birding is by comparison a very new activity and they are beginning to become organized and politically involved. FYI: The Nature Conservancy and Audubon NY had much to do with the recent legalization of crossbows in NY. They own a lot of land and some, but not all of their lands, is open to hunting as well. The point I am trying to make is that birding is in its infancy and the animal rights movement is trying to recruit them to their side of the fence.

 

The same exact thing can be said about the "Locavore" movement. The locavore movement is very young and animal rights organizations are working very hard to create an association between locavorism and veganism; however, the philosophy behind  locavorism is NOT animal rights nor veganism.

 

Another problem with the hunting community touting being conservationists is along with that they often claim to be (generally) more knowledgeable about wildlife and conservation. This may have had more truth in the past; but with only a small number of exceptions, hunters (generally) do not know very much about wildlife nor conservation, even the game they hunt and the conservation funds they generate.

 

If a hunter is going to be a spokesman for the sport and/or advocate a specific issue, he should be aware of the previous. I am not suggesting every hunter needs to be educated about all of the above. I am, however, cautioning hunters from misrepresenting the facts and/or boasting in a way that provokes conflict.

 

The same logic applies when engaging an issue with another sportsmen. If someone is trying to promote an idea, others should at least have a little background knowledge about the subject before they "debate" it. We spend more time undoing the undermining of other sportsmen than we do projecting our message. And we know that some of you are playing games and/or just spiteful blowhards. We tell the senators and assembly members, that we are relatively young, we are recruiting and educating  those younger than us, and therefore the agendas we are pushing will be around longer than their political careers. So undermine all you want, we like to fight...