FWP takes measured approach to adding new wildlife stakeholders
LAURA LUNDQUIST, Chronicle Staff Writer September 15, 2013
Autumn can seem distant if you’re a hunter with a license burning a hole in your pocket and more than a month left until rifle season.
Big-game rifle hunters must bide their time, sighting in their scopes or scouting their locations while waiting for Oct. 26. Meanwhile, bird hunters and archers are already out in the fields, enduring summer temperatures as they make the best of the time they have.
Such has been the fall ritual for many Montanans.
But just as fall now has fewer cool days, it also has fewer hunters.
That doesn’t bode well for Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, which depends on sportsmen’s dollars.
FWP is reassessing its finances to decide how much to increase license fees to manage wildlife through another decade. The dwindling number of sportsmen may require FWP to turn to a new funding pool: the nongame user.
Wildlife watchers and photographers are a growing segment of the population that outnumbers sportsmen 5-to-1 nationwide. In 2011, wildlife watchers spent more than $400 million on viewing equipment and travel in Montana.
While some wildlife watchers agree that they should contribute to wildlife agencies, the details of how to target a fee and what it should pay for have eluded managers for more than 20 years.
“State Parks had that challenge, and they got those license-plate fees,” said Montana Audubon Program Director Janet Ellis. “The Legislature needs to figure out how FWP can get a little slice of something like that.”
For a century, sportsmen have been the financial backbone of state wildlife management because of license fees and taxes on guns, ammunition and fishing gear.
Prior to the digital age, such funding was solid.
According to a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service national survey, conducted every five years, the number of hunters with Montana tags has been fairly steady since 1991, bouncing around 200,000.
In 2011, when the number of hunters appears to have rebounded nationwide, 50,000 fewer hunters ventured into Montana’s wildlands, according to the survey.
That estimate is not exact, but FWP financial analyst Hank Worsech said license sales supports that decline.
He calculated that license sales have declined 2.5 percent over the past three years. Last year was the first that nonresident hunting licenses didn’t sell out.
The Wildlife Society calculated a 36 percent drop in the sale of Duck Stamps, required for all who hunt waterfowl, since the 1970s.
Some claim nonresident hunters aren’t coming to Montana due to perceptions that predators have eliminated game.
But states without wolves have similar problems. For instance, Vermont had a 50-percent drop in nonresident hunters.
A more worrying explanation is that older hunters are retiring from the game and fewer youth are coming in. Half of hunters are 50 or older. Young people tend to be more interested in video games and social media.
“Western states are competing for less and less people,” Worsech said.
Fishing has managed to hold on to greater popularity, but it too has seen a decline.
The trend could destabilize future FWP funding.
FWP depends on license sales for half its budget because it receives no money from the state’s general fund. Federal money accounts for most of the rest.
“We operate in a world of, ‘We have a product to sell and we run on the revenue we collect.’ We’re different from other state agencies — we run more like a business,” said FWP Finance Division administrator Sue Daly.
License sales were brisk enough until four years ago. But since 2009, sales totals have decreased while the bills continued to increase, putting the agency in the red.
Part of that deficit is planned.
Montana’s Legislature, like those in several states, considers license fee increases every 10 years. During the ensuing decade, the FWP bottom line slides from black to red as inflation rises.
This time, it’s different.
Fewer license sales have combined with inflation to force the bottom line down faster. To slow the decline, FWP cut some programs, and committees are proposing to eliminate some discounted licenses.
If the negative-sales trend continues, legislators will have to hike license fees significantly to keep the budget on par.
That’s bound to prompt complaints from some hunters.
But some, like Randy Newberg, think Montana’s fees are low considering the hunting opportunity they provide and the conservation efforts that benefit the state economy.
“We need to tie (fee increases) to an annual consumer price index. Small increases are easier to swallow than a big increase,” Newberg said. “If hunters aren’t willing to pay more, they’re saying, ‘I’m willing to give up my seat at the table.’”
That table may get a bit more crowded in the next few years.
“I’m trying to sell my members on (fee increases) because there is pushback,” said Montana Wildlife Federation spokesman Nick Gevock. “But we need to look beyond hunters and anglers because everyone enjoys wildlife. Funding will be the conservation challenge of the 21st century.”
FWP has watched as other states recently confronted that challenge.
Wyoming Game and Fish had to cut its 2014 budget by $4.8 million because of declining license sales and the Wyoming Legislature’s refusal to approve a fee increase.
Last summer, after watching its license sales decrease by 25 percent, Idaho Fish and Game organized the Idaho Wildlife Summit to find alternative funding.
“As far as trying to find non-consumptive funding, that was never the overall plan. But we knew we were plowing new ground,” said Idaho game spokesman Mike Keckler. “Since then, the regional working groups have helped us come up with a few ideas for funding nongame programs.”
Keckler said the summit was meant to renew enthusiasm for wildlife.
But some hunting groups weren’t enthusiastic because wildlife watchers include wolf watchers. So controversy overshadowed the search for solutions.
Some groups, such as Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, accused the Idaho Summit and the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies of favoring wildlife viewers and photographers over hunters.
Non-consumptive users shouldn’t have a say in the wildlife management that sportsmen have paid for, according to a Lobo Watch blog post written by Toby Bridges.
Big Game Forever spokesman Ryan Benson said wolves caused the financial problem, along with associated lawsuits.
“I don’t think we should scrap the user-based model,” Benson said. “States couldn’t protect their wildlife because of a federal program. The federal wolf recovery was a major contributing factor so there should be some help from the federal level.”
In Montana, FWP Commissioner Dan Vermillion recently suggested that wildlife advocates could contribute to that user-based model.
When wolf advocates claimed thousands opposed increasing wolf-hunt quotas, Vermillion suggested that they buy wolf tags. If FWP saw a sudden surge in license sales, then they’d have a better feel for the number of wolf advocates, Vermillion said.
That didn’t go over well with wolf advocates, but Vermillion said FWP needs to find ways to bolster hunters’ contributions.
“I think we’re tricking ourselves if we don’t recognize that Montana and the U.S. are changing. Look at Bozeman – it’s full of wildlife enthusiasts,” Vermillion said. “Hunting and fishing are important, but we need to bring new stakeholders to the table.”
Wolves of the Rockies spokeswoman Kim Bean said advocates would never buy tags because they fund only collaring and lethal control.
Wolfwatcher Coalition executive director Diane Bentivegna said her 250,000 members would send contributions to wildlife agencies in every state that manages wolves but there’s a catch: The money could go only toward non-lethal wildlife programs.
“Under current budgetary structure, we aren’t allowed to say where our contributions go. We would like to introduce legislation that would allow us to fund agencies and have it go toward the programs that we support,” Bentivegna said.
Not every species has a support group, and direct donations aren’t regular enough to help.
Wildlife agencies need to find a vehicle, such as a tax on equipment or a license plate fee, that provides a steady flow of money if non-traditional contributions are to be helpful.
Montana has a non-game donation that residents can make when they file their taxes, but it brings in only about $27,000 a year.
This summer, FWP non-game section chief Laurie Hanauska-Brown organized a meeting to “have the first discussion” with wildlife and birding organizations about how to bring more users in.
“The message can’t be communicated as, ‘C’mon you non-consumptive users, it’s time to step to the table,’” Hanauska-Brown said. “We want to make sure we’re covering all the species so that we can bring more people on board.”
FWP is taking a very long-term approach with non-consumptive funding and will focus on more concrete options first, Hanauska-Brown said.
Newberg, although not opposed, is skeptical that recreational users will step up. He cited the failure of the Conservation and Reinvestment Act in 2000, when several manufacturers and groups rejected a tax on outdoor equipment.
“It was finally their chance to do what hunters do, but they bailed out,” Newberg said. “Hunters and anglers pay an excise tax. It’s disingenuous to say, ‘We want a say in wildlife, but we don’t want to pay for anything.’”
Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson, 2013. All Rights Reserved
Exposing the Big Game 
Most of the cost is not wildlife management, it is management of hunters to prevent them from completely irradicating wildlife. Are watchers to be taxed for having there eyes open.
Now way, any fees collected by non-consumptive wildlife appreciation must only go to securing habitat (closed to hunting, of course)
Obviously, the economy is a major factor. People are working two or three jobs, gas is way too expensive to drive on long, un-needed trips and if they need to feed their kids, they will use food pantries, and other community based help. And a small percentage will be jacking deer and other wildlife that wanders through their backyards.
The states could tax the hell out of ammo like they do cigarettes and alcohol in states with a sin tax? I know in Maine, ammo is harder to find and expensive. Or so folks say around town. I’m not hearing a lot of gunshots on weekends so I guess this is true?
As for taxing us wildlife photographers and wolf watchers, nope… has to be voluntary and tied to non-lethal wolf education for farmers and ranchers. And education of children about the true benefit of wolves and ambassador wolve’s educator travel expenses etc. If it was to help any animals survive, sure, I would help if able! I would never give if the donation could be in any way used in killing any animal.
Here’s how to target the “non-consumptive” “user.” First, charge twice as much for a “watcher” license as for a killer license. Then, for every “watcher” license sold, one killer license is taken off the table. I’d be beating down their doors to pay for a chance to put one hunting license out of commission.
We have to realize that these “wildlife agencies” (hunting/trapping) were originally set up decades ago for hunters and trappers, i.e. “users” of wildlife. The whole concept of animals as “commodities” is the core problem. The word “consumptive/non-consumptive” is another piece of agency jargon, which many of us refuse to accept–or use. These agencies continue to inflate hunting numbers, yet the reality says it all: hunting/trapping is declining. Yet, the NRA and other animal killing lobbies remain strong with lots of $$$ to pump into the political arena, so even presidential & other political candidates must show a “hunting photo op,” to appease this industry. The problem we face is that while the majority of people don’t hunt (at least 94-95%), the actual number of real anti-hunters is smaller. Many caring people have fallen for the lies that are perpetrated by game agencies, and erroneously believe that wild animals need to “be managed.” Read The Fallacy of Wildlife Conservation by John A. Livingston–a great discussion of this myth.
Exactly! And I will back up your point using their terms just so the trolls will get the point. Wolves are far better wildlife managers than any human on the planet and it would take a small army of men just to plant trees for the birds and butterflies and all creatures benefit from. To plant grass along streams where elk have eroded it. To keep the fit creatures alive to breed. Ridding the population of weak and sick animals, which help feed bears to birds to bugs. Everything in balance. And wolves do this all for free. In this time of budget crunches, the states could avoid thousands of man-hours spent on ‘wildlife management’ and do more useful things like nailing poachers and other human trash in the woods. Gee, if wolves do all this for free, guess we wouldn’t need wildlife services-the agency- anymore. 🙂
And all those guns being sold now-a-days, most are for ‘human management’ because watching the news could make anybody a bit paranoid! You know, they make people see an eye doctor to get glasses, why not make people see a head doctor to buy a gun? So we can’t harm anyone but ourselves with a pair of glasses that don’t have the right rx but we humans can mow down a whole playground of kids with an assault rifle with a joke of a background check and no note from a shrink? And we humans think we are so evolved.
I would like to see CARA brought up again and hopefully get corporate support (which is didn’t have last time). I think the only way to level the playing field is to have non-consumptive users foot some of the bill. The reason game and fish agencies consider the hunters and fishermen their “clients” is because they are the ones funding them (and because almost everyone working for those agencies got into that line of work because they like to hunt and fish). The economic argument goes away if non-consumptive users start paying the bills.
The state game and fish agencies keep complaining about declining numbers of hunters and fishermen, but given declines in wildlife populations due to habitat loss alone, the opportunities for “consumption” are also declining.
Chris, like you, I’d like to see CARA stand a chance again, particularly since the numbers continue to grow in favor of the non-extractive demographic. I must disagree, however, with the idea that non-hunters do not pay their share. I’m an administrator of the Wildlife Conservation Stamp project which is a grassroots effort to at least begin the process of a wildlife watcher’s fee stamp, parallel to the Federal Duck Stamp. And one of the myths and memes we consistently encounter is that hunters the the primary conservationists — without enough scrutiny as to what and how much they do pay and how much non-extractive users actually contribute themselves.
Just a few examples. The Duck Stamp has funded around 3 percent of Refuge land purchases. A significant portion of other monies come from public sources and Congressional appropriations. Although groups like Ducks Unlimited do a lot of habitat conservation on behalf of hunters and game birds, when you tally the total acreage of non-hunting land trusts, conservancy lands, national parks and other taxpayer or donor-funded conservation projects, they are greater in scope. In terms of Pittman-Robertson which does tax weapons and ammo, a majority of gun owners are not hunters and they also pay these taxes, so it’s a bit of a misnomer to say those state funds all come from hunting monies. Volunteer hours contributed by wildlife advocates like myself aren’t counted toward the greater whole, either.
There are so many more examples and none of this is to detract from contributions made by conservation-minded hunters, even if their interests could be construed as self-serving. But part of the reason these lop-sided priorities of wildlife agencies persist is because people have been led to believe, from numerous sources, that non-hunters are essentially free loaders who partake of wildlife activities with no commensurate contribution. Nothing could be further from the truth. Even non-birding, non-wildlife citizen contribute greatly to North American conservation through their tax money and Congressional appropriations.
Would it be beneficial for non-extractive users to have more easily reconciled and single-sourced streams of income like Pittman Robertson? Absolutely, and that’s part of what we’re trying to do in a smaller way, with the stamp. But that doesn’t mean that what we hear repeatedly about hunters being the greatest conservationists is necessarily the full picture as it exists.
Ingrid – Thank you for your excellent comment and your work on this issue. I didn’t mean to imply that non-hunters don’t contribute, rather that there are fewer options and less-well known options. I’m so glad to hear someone is actively working on it.
Your çomments were very helpful! Thank you!
My husband gave the exact argument that hunters pay for agency costs with their licences so, he says, they should be the only ones who get to vote on wildlife issues! So I told him that I thought he was smarter than to say something so ignorant and to pull his head out of the 1950’s, times have changed! Then he tried to channel Ron Paul, I guess, and quote the constitution. So I said, “yes, way to go Skip, back yourself up with a document written by only White, landholding rich men! (Very sarcastically) I then said “The same crop of folks who owned slaves and voted them a sub-human species, which ofcourse didn’t stop them from raping slave women”. Not exactly an enlightened bunch. And anyway, Thomas Jefferson ripped off the Iriquois Convention’s constituition, which was actually a whole lot better, if you ask me! So then Skip says ‘Well, things ran a whole lot better when the Congress was made up of White, landholding men!” So I said “Quit playing the Devil’s advocate!” But this is a chilling reminder of the mindset of the far right Tea party mob. They objectify anyone and all animals that are not prone to the same anti-logic. When they can’t win a constitutionally based argument, they go running for their Bible. Gee, also written by White men. The way it looks to me is not much has changed since then, elites of male dominated societies, be it the Roman Empire to our own crooked, ignorant bafoons in congress? (Our congresswomen are working together to find common ground and solutions) Sorry for the rant, I don’t hate men, ha-ha, I married one. I just wish some of them, we know who they are, would evolve beyond all sharing the same one worn out brain cell. Remember Boston Legal where Denny thought he had Mad Cow Disease? That would explain a lot! 🙂
Reblogged this on Ann Novek–With the Sky as the Ceiling and the Heart Outdoors.
I should mention that my argument with Skip started out with the Maine Bear hunting laws being ignorant, cruel and outdated. A referendum by the Humane Society to stop bear hunting with dogs and over bait. He never puts himself in the position of the Animals being killed and abused, I have to remind him that he is an animal, too!
Bridges and Benson had the nerve to say non-consumptive users have no right to have a say. I say to them, “Go crawl into a trench and drop dead, you tosspots.”
Well said.