Non Hunters Stamp

[mike rossi]

Someone mentioned a movement to create a "non hunters stamp" a month or so ago. I found this:

 

http://wildlifeconservationstamp.org/

 

 

[shawnhu]

That person is Greybeard on these forums.

Didn't you get into an argument with him over this?

X-Calibur Lighting Systems

http://facebook.com/XCaliburLightingSystems

[Doc]

Quote: "

Why a New Stamp? Our Proposal:

A Federal Wildlife Conservation Stamp would provide a robust, parallel revenue stream for National Wildlife Refuges, preserving habitat and wildlife — while also giving non-extractive users a funding tool and a stronger voice in habitat and wildlife decisions on our shared public lands.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

That sounds like just what we want to have happen. By the way, I like that term "non-extractive users" .... lol. I guess I'm an "extractive user".

[mike rossi]

I don't think it was an argument, but I think he got pissed at me. I never disputed that this was a movement, I questioned as to if this was enacted, because the tone of his writing suggested that it was or was pending. In reality, several organizations, mostly Audubon chapters, and individuals are petitioning congress and/or the US Fish and Wildlife Service to create this stamp. "Petitioning" sounds official, but as far as I know they are writing their federal representatives in the US Senate and Congress, the USFWS, and they have a face book page along with the website - not much different than we are doing at the state level regarding a mourning dove season, although they have the backing of over a dozen conservation organizations and almost 8,000 face book subscribers....

 

I think eventually they might get this stamp created, however the hang up is that their already is a stamp in place and their goal of merely distancing themselves from hunters or even undermining the existing program to further their political agendas does not fit in with conservation or the USFWS. If they come up with some legitimate reasons for this stamp, show how it adds to conservation rather than subtracts, or shows some real benefit, congress and the USFWS certainly wont turn down money. Congress even rejected proposals to apply Pitman Robertson excise taxes to items such as binoculars, bird seed, and bird manuals. You may not be aware of it, but the money spent on those items actually dwarfs what hunters spend annually. I think congress and the USFWS are looking are aware of the impact politics have on conservation, particularly when dealing with thee most successful funding strategy that has ever been created.

 

That may not be what congress and the FWS are thinking, but it is what I am thinking. So I really don't trivialize greybeard's concern. I have been outspoken about the promotion of the use of conservation lands at both the state and federal level for some time. I have also cautioned hunters in Maryland from imposing a fee for people without a hunting license to enter their state wildlife management areas (wmas). I wrote about how the volunteer base, which is worth tens of million dollars annually is no longer dominated by hunters. I described how non shooting conservationists now days outspend hunters and are more knowledgeable about conservation. I posted a video on this forum about a college with a large wildlife program has so much concern about the demographic trend in the student body, not just at their university, but through out the US, that part of their curriculum now includes a waterfowl hunting trip. How many hunters do you think have paid any attention to these things? And what are the stupid arse things they do obsess with? I want really arguing with greybeard, I was asking for clarification and putting the aspect I was aware of in its proper perspective...

 

This leads me into talking about refuges. Around Long Island and neighboring Connecticut and Mass. there are like 10 or so National Wildlife Refuges. Other than deer population hunts, I believe , but am not sure, that those are closed to hunting. However, despite the discussion on here about no access for waterfowl on LI, there is both tremendous access and tremendous bird numbers. The season dates are set excellent and NY hunters enjoy no firearm discharge setback under state law when hunting waterfowl over water. Even though those refuges are closed to hunting - they are a major factor in producing local birds and the staging of migrant birds. Closing some refuges actually creates more hunting opportunity not less... Despite having such a vested interest in these refuges, hunters are ignoring them. They are not participating in policy decisions nor or they volunteering on them. If a news release hits that a controlled deer hunt is being considered on a particular refuge, then hunters perk up, putting it mildly. But anything else they don't even notice. keep in mind, despite the majority of this board, LI has a lot of waterfowl hunters and dozens of waterfowl organizations. Despite that, there is still only a few getting involved or who know what goes on. I think that has always been the case, however in modern times we face a different political climate and numbers of people who do not hunt that are interested in wildlife and conservation. At least in the old days, inactive hunters would have some knowledge and support conservation. Today less active hunters do not have a clue, are proactive in issues not supported by the public majority, and many are quite piggish. Someone can get interviewed by the news and claim to be a conservationist and then make a statement like the only good coyote is a dead coyote or similar crap... I would rather have that so-called sportsman not on my team... The future looks interesting to say the least...

[mike rossi]

Here is their face book page:

 

https://www.facebook.com/WildlifeConservationStamp

[covert]

Pretty sure there are more non-hunters/trappers than hunters/trappers.  Why would we want to give them a greater voice?  The one thing we've always had in our favor was that we could point to the Pittman-Robertson Act and say "See that, WE fund conservation efforts" and there is no way to argue against us because it is absolutely true.  Do we really want to give up that bargaining chip?

Edited February 19, 2014 by covert

[mike rossi]

Pretty sure there are more non-hunters/trappers than hunters/trappers.  Why would we want to give them a greater voice?  The one thing we've always had in our favor was that we could point to the Pittman-Robertson Act and say "See that, WE fund conservation efforts" and there is no way to argue against us because it is absolutely true.  Do we really want to give up that bargaining chip?

 

If a corporation was loosing 10% of its revenue every year and the long term projections do not see that trend reversing, the corporation would look for new customers... Sporting License revenue has been dropping 10% I believe over the long term and as we all know other than a reversal this year that seems to be the course modern society is taking... Wildlife agencies realize they can no longer depend on sportsmen to fund conservation forever... They know they must develop new funding strategies for the future and have begun fostering a non-shooting conservation culture...

 

We already lost that bargaining chip, because we are already outspent and are donating less volunteer labor than non shooters. Anti hunters have complained for decades that they are under-represented in policy decisions. Hunters don't believe they rightfully have a say in wildlife management, but hunters are wrong about that... Anti hunters say that wildlife departments do not listen to them, but antis are wrong about that, they do listen but will only go so far. However once courts and/or lawmakers get involved science goes to the end of the line and public opinion goes to the front. There are numerous examples of such victories over wildlife agencies  for both hunters and antis. I will give you one we discussed today: Minnesota DNR was forced to temporarily lift a ban on feeding deer and burn up $170,000 of their state  conservation fund to provide feed and resources. The entity which drove this was the Minnesota Deer Hunters Association... The antis, especially the HSUS, do the same thing even more frequently than organized sportsmen...  As a matter of fact, although I am aware statistical studies follow a design, I suspect here in NY the unpopular "5,000 hunter surveys" are using that sample size to match the average number of public comment received by non hunters rather than a statistical method. The reason I bring that up now is that I believe that in NY, the antis , due to the HSUS's networking outreach, exceed hunters in stakeholder participation. If that is true, then the claim they have less voice cannot also be true. Currently there are several open public comment periods. In a few weeks the tally of public comments on the bear and swan plans will be made public. I almost guarantee that the antis will have flooded the DEC and hunters will not even have urinated... If the DEC does not compromise a significant portion of their plan to appease them, which they probably will not, the antis will complain that they were the majority and the DEC just caters to hunters because of the revenue generated - just like the hunters say when biological decisions guided by science are not consistent with their political agenda...

 

As I said, I have been publically outspoken against the promotion of the outdoors and funding conservation from non hunters without an educational outreach explaining that hunting is not inconsistent with conservation. I understand that engaging the public at large in conservation is a must, not an option, but the movement does not carry an effective message about hunting.

 

I also mentioned the changing face of wildlife biologists. The student body being trained to manage wildlife and hunters in the past was mostly males many of who were from rural areas and/or were also hunters. The demographics of the wildlife class has changed. Now the typical wildlife biology graduate is a female from a suburban or urban back ground who does not have any experience with hunting. This is further complicated by the equal opportunity law which gives hiring preference to several so-called "protected groups".  

Edited February 19, 2014 by mike rossi