Conservation Funding Under the Microscope

[mike rossi]

I don't agree with all of this, but some of it is true. In any event, it signals that there are more and more discussions about change. These sort of articles and internet chatter are becoming more and more common. Agencies are starting to make formal change as well. There also is an active  movement to get congress to approve a "wildlife conservation stamp" nicknamed the "non hunter stamp". 

 

Notice specific reference made to trophy hunting, predators and coyote contests... All of this has been on the radar for some time, this isn't brand new, but I would still consider it the tip of the iceberg.... 

 

http://www.wyofile.com/study-non-hunters-contribute-most-to-wildlife/

 

 

 

[Curmudgeon]

Thanks Mike, this is important information for hunters to read. For many years I have heard hunters claim to be the original conservationists. Game and non-game alike benefited from the protection of large areas of public land that resulted from hunter advocacy and funding. However, hunters must take care to not appear totally self serving. Those attitudes are not missed by an informed public that wants more say in wildlife management decisions, and clearly has different priorities.

[Four Season Whitetail's]

This kind of points to whats going on over in BC with non residents. They bring in more money for animals so they are starting to cater to them. This also points to the direction hunting is headed...Again!  Sure makes the ones that own property..and those rights...Glad they own land and should make those that want hunting in their future to......................   Go Get Ya Some!

[mike rossi]

I have seen papers that appear to be legitimate, but after a closer look, are not. The majority of references on the last three pages tell me to look closer. 

 

Statistics can be summarized to say anything you want. Although the numbers in this paper are not statistics, it seems the story is told in a way that meets the agenda of the two authors, one an engineer the other a retired physician,,,, 

 

It will take a long time to tear this paper apart though, they did a heck of a fact scrambling job. 

 

Never the less, the funding isn't the real issue. If people were not opposed to certain activities, and hunters had a more varied line of premises, the funding would not be challenged. I had cautioned not only about hunter behavior and certain forms of hunting, but also about trivializing the contributions of non hunters. I was correct, this paper is going to be the main weapon of the antis... I know I don't have the time to debunk it, like I said these two did a bang-up job of twisting the facts....

 

Here is the actual paper:   http://wyofile.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/SMITH-1.pdf

 

[Four Season Whitetail's]

I have seen papers that appear to be legitimate, but after a closer look, are not. The majority of references on the last three pages tell me to look closer. 

 

Statistics can be summarized to say anything you want. Although the numbers in this paper are not statistics, it seems the story is told in a way that meets the agenda of the two authors, one an engineer the other a retired physician,,,, 

 

It will take a long time to tear this paper apart though, they did a heck of a fact scrambling job. 

 

Never the less, the funding isn't the real issue. If people were not opposed to certain activities, and hunters had a more varied line of premises, the funding would not be challenged. I had cautioned not only about hunter behavior and certain forms of hunting, but also about trivializing the contributions of non hunters. I was correct, this paper is going to be the main weapon of the antis... I know I don't have the time to debunk it, like I said these two did a bang-up job of twisting the facts....

 

Here is the actual paper:   http://wyofile.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/SMITH-1.pdf

Those that want the public to believe something have very good ways of twisting things so people believe. Look what they did with disease's. Twist wording to make sound devastating.

[JoeHunter]

This is a RUSE by the ANTI-hunters to move towards banning hunting, trapping, ect.  The whole “NON-Consumable Conservationist” is one of the most ridiculous terms I’ve ever heard! 

“Animal and Tree Hugging PRESERVATIONIST” would be a more appropriate term.

 

[mike rossi]

This sort of thing is STUPID: (and not all bird watchers are opposed to hunting)

 

http://media.spokesman.com/photos/2012/03/08/Birdwatchers_sign_t470.jpg?84974f3f373deb0dda0f75a22ddd9b7d3a332b26

 

[Curmudgeon]

Many bird watchers want more hunting, especially of deer. They know why the understory of many forests have become "fern parks". The degrading of habitat by over-browsing affects many species of plant and animal.

[mike rossi]

Many bird watchers want more hunting, especially of deer. They know why the understory of many forests have become "fern parks". The degrading of habitat by over-browsing affects many species of plant and animal.

 

Both the Nature Conservancy and Audubon contributed to the legalization  of the crossbow in NY, citing the Nature Conservancy study of the impact of deer on the forest understory. And some of the  lands owned by these organizations are open to hunting. Sometimes lands they own are transferred to the DEC. However, the individual members who do not understand hunting are not encouraged to change their outlook by the attitude of that sign. Which, by the way, has been widely circulated around the internet for some time, as well as a similar one... 

[mike rossi]

I still do not intend on delving into sorting out the assertions of this paper, but I want to clarify my earlier statements about the paper's references.

 

On the last page of the references, the authors' list the USFWS's and US Census Bureau's financial reports. I am familiar with those and nothing in them supports the authors' conclusion hunters pay for less than 6% of conservation.

 

The other two pages of references indicate sources such as the HSUS, the world's largest anti hunting organization. Obviously the HSUS's data is not credible and citing them makes the paper questionable... Furthermore, since the paper was formatted according to journal guidelines, and one of the authors was a medical doctor, I am sure they know to list ALL sources of their information, if not in the reference section, citing within the text (for ancillary info). It isn't good enough to list, for example, that the Nature Conservancy spends X dollars on land. Not only is the information source unclear, but the use of the land is not described in express terms, only implied to be conservation lands. Additionally, some hunters are Nature Conservancy members and donate to them.

 

The biggest misleading premise of this paper is that taxpayers contribute X dollars. because hunter's pay taxes too.. It would be more accurate to say hunters pay 6% more than the average taxpayer on conservation, and other conservationists also pay more than the average taxpayer. Instead, the paper concludes that "hunters only pay 6% of the amount invested in conservation." That argument is akin to manipulating statistics to validate a premise. 

 

I think (think) I already know the charade they are playing, it is a game of context and they are taking it upon themselves to redefine conservation spending. Never the less this is a mess that likely will have to be dealt with. I wonder if the organizations representing hunters that have not been 100% accurate on these matters will pay THEIR attorneys to sort this out to the tune of a lot of money? Lets hear it SCI, CSF, NSSF, USSA, and to a lessor extent the NRA, are you all going to untangle this mess? 

Edited January 18, 2015 by mike rossi

[JoeHunter]

Like I said it's a ruse. As soon as I seen them mention HSUS and Defenders of Wildlife i knew it was simply was an effort to minimize our (hunters) positive impact on conservation. In fact HSUS and defenders and the other PETA tree and animal huggers have NOTHING to do will Conservation!  Ther MO is whacked PRESERVATION

 

[mike rossi]

Joe,

 

First off, NYDH is looking to fill positions, however, all positions for calling people liberals, tree huggers, and complaining about the democrats are filled. As a matter of fact we are trying to phase out those jobs and lay off many people. Problem is the unions are fighting us, the CSCF, USSA, TRCP, NSSF, SCI, NRA and other trade unions who actually (per their websites) receive donations from Shell oil ("titanium supporter); Exxon mobile ( platinum supporter); PB oil and gas ( gold supporter); American gas association (bronze); duke energy corp - bronze; independent petroleum association of america- bronze; Hess corporation- bronze... 

 

The references to the organizations that you listed (hsus, defenders) do indeed indicate a red flag, so does the fact this paper is not published in any peer reviewed journals, although the authors in the acknowledge section offer thanks to some hsus lady for her review; they also thank a former state biologist.... 

 

This paper, although flawed, is never the less serious business. The hunting community as well as state wildlife agencies will be confronted with this paper soon, often, and for a long time, perhaps forever... The seriousness is so grave, that addressing it with the typical sportsmen's rant is only going to worsen the situation. As I said, the average tax payer pays for conservation, Assuming the figures of this paper are correct, the average hunter pays the same as all tax payers, plus six percent more. The average bird watcher or nature enthusiast, will pay the same as all tax payers and then, according to this paper more than six percent extra of hunters. While the attitude you and other hunters express rejects the bird watcher,  (this papers underlying message) claims the birder and all tax payers who don't even realize they are paying for this; are all on one side against the hunters. And/or hunters are getting the most benefit thus robbing other groups money. When hunters alienate nature enthusiasts they are actually reinforcing the propaganda aspect of this paper.

 

Another point of the paper, that you seem to be missing, is that some anti hunters do want part of conservation. They just want different approaches. The paper is advocating for their participation. Please rethink the last two sentences in your post number 11 with that in mind. You are restating the stock argument used by hunters and wildlife agencies that hunters pay for conservation and those opposed to hunting do not. However the paper is purposely debunking your statement... If you tell me the sky is blue, and I say no it is red, and then you give reasons why it is blue, my response should not be restating no, it is red. My response should address your rationale for saying it is blue. Otherwise , I sound like an idiot... If i call you names and/or stereotype you, I sound like a bigger idiot. Most impartial observers would then side with you without any motivation to hear any more from me...  

 

 

[JoeHunter]

Mike. My main premise that you seem to miss isn't who pays, but rather they anti's are NOT conservationist but PRESERVATIONIST (which means NO use of nature to include trees or wildlife), which is the most damning and dangerous.

Joe

[Curmudgeon]

Mike. My main premise that you seem to miss isn't who pays, but rather they anti's are NOT conservationist but PRESERVATIONIST (which means NO use of nature to include trees or wildlife), which is the most damning and dangerous.

Joe

 

There are a lot of assumptions in there.

 

My experience with anti-hunters is that they view animals as individuals and don't particularly care about populations, habitat, or the ecology of native habitats. Even my observations - which I consider careful - could be subject to debate. "Preservationist" is too big a category. It's use here is too ambiguous to have any meaning.

[Doc]

Most of the anti's that I have had conversations with do not even understand the differences between conservation and preservation, and really don't want to learn. All they know is that wild creatures are cute and fuzzy and have personalities and abilities to perform logic and utilize emotion. These people in my experience have never invested in any research beyond Walt Disney's movie, "Bambi". I have never encountered a discussion with an anti-hunter that didn't go emotional within a few minutes. That is not anything to do with assumptions. That is pure experience and first-hand encounters that have involved many people with never an exception.

[mike rossi]

They want participation and representation in conservation, but some label their approach to conservation as "preservation". Even some wildlife professionals make a distinction between preservation and conservation, but that concept has little relevance  to who funds conservation. 

 

 

[Doc]

They want participation and representation in conservation, but some label their approach to conservation as "preservation". Even some wildlife professionals make a distinction between preservation and conservation, but that concept has little relevance  to who funds conservation. 

I think the concern is that those who do the funding seem to be taken a bit more seriously in terms of the politics of game and habitat use and management. When you consider the level of input sought and taken in by the DEC from hunters, it is understandable why hunters don't want to see that search for input expanded to those who could care less about wildlife and habitat management but are equally considered simply because they have put a few dollars into the till. Whether we like it or not, game and habitat management is still influenced by those who foot the bill. The reality is that the DEC is a political entity, and like any political agency, money talks and BS walks. And if those political decisions are being influenced through funding by those who have no clue about the difference between preservation and conservation, I would just as soon that they keep their money and butt out.

[mike rossi]

I think the concern is that those who do the funding seem to be taken a bit more seriously in terms of the politics of game and habitat use and management. When you consider the level of input sought and taken in by the DEC from hunters, it is understandable why hunters don't want to see that search for input expanded to those who could care less about wildlife and habitat management but are equally considered simply because they have put a few dollars into the till. Whether we like it or not, game and habitat management is still influenced by those who foot the bill. The reality is that the DEC is a political entity, and like any political agency, money talks and BS walks. And if those political decisions are being influenced through funding by those who have no clue about the difference between preservation and conservation, I would just as soon that they keep their money and butt out.

 

Doc,

 

The paper concludes that hunters are NOT paying for it. Also, your statement is reinforcing the secondary message of the paper, that non hunters are not given equal access into the policy making process.

 

The premise that non hunters do not have equal participation in policy decisions is not true. Those who wish to participate can do so. However, participation does not mean drive unsound policies or demand the agency adopts an anti-hunting stance. The recent mute swan controversy right here in NY is a prime, recent example of everybody's ability not only to participate, but to persuade a state wildlife agency - anti hunters did indeed influence policy. Even though the law NY legislature passed which would have FORCED the DEC to do what they want was VETOED; the DEC is still planning to compromise with the antis even though not mandated by law. it is a farce that anti hunters or non consumptive users do not already have a voice in wildlife policy, they do. Anti hunters however, classify an agency not adopting their ideology as not having a voice. They have a voice and when you.others imply they do not or should not , it fuels the myth and facilitates their agenda. If you throw in "because hunters pay and they do not" as you did, you load more fuel. Based on the paper (valid or not yet to be seen) not only is it fuel, but you position yourself into a losing argument...

 

 

You and others want to beat to death the Preservation Vs. Conservation mantra; which is an oversimplification that really bears no relevance to this issue. You guys pounded on both sides of killing a deer with a crossbow is the same as a compound for what 3 years? And meanwhile the entire issue was considering other things. That seems to be the path this discourse is trying to go.

Edited January 20, 2015 by mike rossi

[mike rossi]

This paper is also flawed by the following incorrect premises:

1) Composition of advisory boards prevents access to policy participation by non hunters

2) Non hunters do not otherwise (outside advisory boards) have access to policy participation

 

Referring to the argument made by the paper is that the composition of (advisory) committees are favorable to hunters. This is indeed true. The appointees of these committees are always hunters and/or farmers or ranchers. Anti hunters have argued for years that these boards should have anti-hunters on them. 

 

A couple things come to mind about that. First, as a conservationist,  small game and waterfowl hunter I myself do not feel well represented by these boards either.

 

Second, in every state, including NY; state wildlife agencies (DEC) are limited in what regulations they can enact without legislative approval. For example, the Commissioner of the DEC (currently Joe Martens) can close any hunting season, but cannot authorize a new hunting season without legislative approval.

 

So, the anti hunter or non consumptive user, along with the so-called unorganized hunter (doesn't belong to a club or has his own views) have access to the policy making process during the public review period, which is almost always part of new regulations or changes to existing regulations. During this 6 to 8 week public input session individuals and organizations may express their viewpoints. 

 

Conservationists, anti hunters, and hunters alike often complain that the public input sessions are just games and seem to believe that just because they commented that their recommendations should have been followed. Obviously, it doesn't work like that. 

 

Even when someone's idea is not accepted by the DEC during public input;  organizations and individuals still have an opportunity to influence policy through the legislature. We often make inferences that politics do not belong in conservation policy, but the reality is that in every state and at the federal level as well, the system is indeed structured so that lawmakers have the ultimate say so. This is actually a form of checks and balances against the charges made by this paper (and elsewhere)  of collusion between sportsman and wildlife agencies. The system does not necessarily fail when the outcome favors hunters; but the system does fail when lawmakers make unscientific decisions and hand back to the DEC ideology-based frameworks from which to work.

 

To bring this back around to the primary point: the charges that the composition of advisory committees limit the influence of non hunters fails to consider the legislative part of policy making. That charge is particularly wrong in NY for a variety of reasons. First, the districting of the assembly favors down state. Second, both the Senate and the Assembly Environmental Conservation  Committees ( which are not to be confused with the citizen advisory committees discussed up to this point) not only have down state representation; they also are seated by a number of anti-hunters. For example Senator Avella is an anti hunter who is a member of the SECC. Assemblyman Cyronowitz is an anti hunter who is a member of the AECC. It is not accurate to say that anti hunters do not have a voice in conservation policy in any state, but especially in NY.

Edited January 20, 2015 by mike rossi

[Doc]

Actually, if you want to learn more about what people are the biggest influence on deer management issues, refer to: http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7207.html But don't be thinking that game and habitat management do not have political influences beyond the DEC. And of course if our (hunter's) money does not subsidize environmental conservation, then I guess I want my Pittman-Robertson contributions back, and my license fees returned, or some investigation conducted to see just who has absconded with that money. Nobody is saying that all these activities are 100% funded by hunters, fishermen, and trappers, but the amounts of cash that we do send their way certainly is something that is not insignificant. And if that selfishly buys us some influence, then I say more power to us.

[Mr VJP]

The paper is a propaganda piece that tries to say everyone contributes to conservation, so everyone should have a say in it's application.  Well, everyone pays taxes, but only sportsmen pay additional fees to specifically fund conservation.

 

Just paying taxes into the general fund doesn't give anyone the right to be on any committees that run the military, education, commerce, etc.  That is what taxpayers have representatives for.  The anti's have representatives in government, just as sportsmen do.  There is already a system in place for them to be heard on conservation issues.

 

They have no right, and no authority, to request anything, regarding any monies contributed by sportsman alone.  Let them pony up equivalent funding and then they can ask for a seat at the table.

 

I doubt they will be able to do that though.  I believe they know it too.  The current desire is to be able to achieve power and control over the issue, and that will be the ruin of effective conservation in America.  Letting any type of "activists" have a say in anything that currently makes fact based decisions, is a recipe for disaster.  The history of gun control proves it.

 

[mike rossi]

The paper and the accompanying article also mislead readers with the part about predator control. Modern game management uses much less predator control to enhance game populations than in the past, and in reality it is more common for  wildlife agencies and hunters to  disagree about predator management strategies. Granted, out west, there is more political pressure for agencies to manage predators due to the lobby of livestock ranchers and elk hunting guides, but even in the western states, the predator strategies are different than the ones of 80 years ago. The authors want to reinforce the belief that hunters dollars and monopoly presence on advisory commissions influence outdated predator strategies. That belief is  fostered to get conservationists to side with the antis. 

 

The topic of the paper is about who pays for conservation funding, but the part about predator control doesn't fit into the topic. Why is it included? Obviously because this "study" is a propaganda piece... Irrelevance is one tip off to propaganda... 

Edited January 20, 2015 by mike rossi

[Jennifer]

Besides educating ourselves on these issues, in your opinion, what is the best course of action to take? These sorts of publications aren't going anywhere and I can only anticipate it will get worse. Using a lot of half-truths and flawed thought-directing that sounds legitimate and correct can have a large influence on the general public.

[mike rossi]

If you are asking me my opinion, I don't know. As I said, this paper is going to be one of those things that sticks around for a long time. The authors did a real good job of  building a  complex maze and I wouldn't be overly surprised if this paper will necessitate one agency or another to waste resources debunking it. 

 

I think the best course of action is not setting ourselves up for this in the first place. I and others have cautioned against alienating nature enthusiasts, the contribution of non hunters to conservation, being informed and being thorough.

 

Some in the hunting community enjoy fighting with the antis and some pro hunting organizations make a good buck from these battles. I for one,who does not profit from it,  am tired of fixing what others break. One suggestion I will make, is be prudent about which hunting organizations you support. Some are over the top and instigate this sort of thing. 

[Curmudgeon]

They have no right, and no authority, to request anything, regarding any monies contributed by sportsman alone.  Let them pony up equivalent funding and then they can ask for a seat at the table.

 

 

Actually, they do. Pittman-Robertson money can be used for any mammal or bird species. It can pay for game management or Bicknell's Thrush research.