I seldom find a way to hold my residence state of Oklahoma up as an example of enlightened governance. However, the state has found a way to encourage non-consumptive users of natural resources to contribute to management. Like other states, Oklahoma has some state owned lands that are set aside for wildlife management, some of them rather large tracts. In the past, a hunting or fishing license was required to access these lands. Some of them actually are primarily for management of non-game populations, such as shorebirds, or threatened species of fish or mammals. Birders in particular like to visit the properties.
As of this year, a non-consumptive user may purchase a document resembling a hunting or fishing license, in support of wildlife management. The document allows access to the state owned lands, and the money goes toward management of non-game populations and provision of facilities for non-consumptive users, such as bird watching blinds and canoe/kayak launch sites. This new provision for management funds has proven popular. However, I do find that many states, Oklahoma included, has priced the poor out of outdoor recreation, and therefore out of concern for the state of nature. People who have little or no contact with nature have a hard time appreciating it. Though some states charge little for hunting or fishing privileges, others charge very large amounts. The same goes for access to publicly owned properties. In Texas, a family of four finds that a weekend at a state park has become so expensive that they simply can't afford it. Lottery programs for hunting rare species are very pricey in some states. It would be more politic to simply protect those species, and enforce the ban on taking. Rare species like Desert Bighorn Sheep are seldom poached, and individual cases usually turn out to be perpetrated by the same privileged folks who might enter the hunting lottery. They sometimes even spend very large sums in the poaching activity. mcneely ---- "Wixted wrote: > Wayne, > > I understand your point that some people feel it may be expensive to buy > hunting and fishing licenses, tags, permits, etc. However, that money goes > directly into the resources they are using. In Maryland, 77% of our state > wildlife program income is generated by the sale of hunting licenses and a > federal excise tax on hunting equipment. Very little funding for wildlife > conservation comes from state taxes or other resources and as the years go > by, our general funding from the State has shrunk tremendously. > > For $24.50, a hunter (aged 16-24) in MD can take up to 11 (10 anterless, 1 > antlered) deer in firearms season in addition to other game species. A hunter > can choose to spend an extra $6 to get a bow or muzzleloader permit which > would up their bag limit to 22 deer taken between the two seasons. For > $36.50, you can take up to 33 white-tailed deer in MD in addition to other > critters. If you want an additional antlered deer, then it is $10/per season > (muzzleloader, firearms, bow). Note: those numbers are for the southern and > central region of the state. We have one lottery system in the state for > Black bear hunting permits. It is an additional $15. Less than 10% of > applicants receive a Black bear permit, but the excess permit funds go into > programs to compensate MD farmers from agricultural damages caused by bears > and into Black bear population studies. Frankly, I feel hunting fees in > Maryland are very reasonable. > > As Justin stated, people aren't forced into poaching, they choose to do so on > their own free will. Even when fees aren't charged, people poach. A great > example is American ginseng in WV- you don't have to pay a dime or submit a > permit to collect ginseng from the wild. However, I found quite a bit of > poaching while conducting demography studies on ginseng in graduate school. > People were taking plants which were too small, on protected land and/or out > of season. When prices for wild ginseng increase, so does the amount of > poaching. > > While I can't speak for other state wildlife programs, I know many of them > also rely heavily on hunter generated funds for wildlife management and > conservation. As I stated before, much of the funds from hunters go directly > into managing the resources, but we also have a lot of wildlife education > programs for children and adults. In addition, some of the funding from > hunters goes into conservation of rare and non-game species. To allow people > who are less wealthy to hunt without imposing such fees would require more > state or federal tax dollars to fund the necessary management programs. > > Sincerely, > Kerry Wixted > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson > Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 12:31 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Ecosystem Management and Wild Game Games WAS: [ECOLOG-L] > the precautionary principle makes sense and should be applied to GCC arguments > > Honorable Forum: > > I'd like to see some serious discussion of how ecology as a science and > ecosystem management as a subdiscipline could better inform "game" > management as a professional practice and a political phenomenon. > > Increasingly, it seems that we, as a society, are regressing back to the > time when the King's and Queen's owned all wildlife. That is, the people who > actually live in the wild are effectively prohibited from hunting and > fishing, for example, through supposedly "democratic" lotteries for "tags" > that the unwealthy can't afford. This forces those priced out of this > "market" to poach, and what little data comes from the occasional arrest is > worse than useless. The King's and Queen's from distant cities fly in, bang > their buck, and the local businesses get a bigger bang for the buck from > servile service to these head-hunters than from the local customers they > already have--those who aren't in jail or who have had to allocate the > scarce discretionary income they can scrape up to the government, money they > can't spend in local stores and for local services. This, of course, is > primarily a political aspect of the issue, but has its roots in a > well-intentioned conservation "ethic." > > I'd like to hear from across the spectrum what biologists and ecologists and > others interested have to say about this subject in general and the cited > hypothetical in particular. > > WT > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Michael E. Welker" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 9:55 PM > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] the precautionary principle makes sense and should > be applied to GCC arguments > > > White-tailed Deer and Beaver? > > MW > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Wayne Tyson > To: [email protected] > Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 1:32 PM > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] the precautionary principle makes sense and should > be applied to GCC arguments > > > Passenger pigeon, anyone? > > WT > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "James Crants" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 10:35 AM > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] the precautionary principle makes sense and should > be applied to GCC arguments > > > > On the contrary, examples exist (sea mink, cod) of animal communities > > being > >> greatly diminished at the hands of the very people turning a profit > from > >> their harvesting. > >> > >> Phil > > > > > > The tragedy of the commons. The benefit from harvesting a resource > > accrues > > only whoever collects it (and probably to some middlemen), while the > costs > > are shared by everyone with a stake in the resource. The economically > > rational thing to do, on the individual level, is to harvest as much as > > you > > can, but this produces the collective result of putting all the > harvesters > > out of business. The only way for them to stay in business is for them > to > > accept some set of rules (either their own or someone else's) that keeps > > them, collectively, from over-harvesting. If the resource is very > scarce, > > the rules might say not to harvest at all, on the assumption that all > the > > rule-breakers will harvest at unsustainable or barely-sustainable rates. > > > > It's an economic theory, but while almost every ecologist I've talked to > > about it seems to be familiar with it, every time I've mentioned it to > an > > economist, I've gotten a blank stare in return. > > > > Jim > > > > > > ----- > > No virus found in this message. > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3511 - Release Date: 03/16/11 > > > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3511 - Release Date: 03/16/11 -- David McNeely
