The United Stated Department of the Interior recently rolled out their vision for America’s next generation of nature lovers while establishing an Office of Youth in Natural Resources at the Department of the Interior. Apparently, the conservationist of tomorrow will brandish a rifle in one hand and a fishing rod in the other.
The new $70 million 2010 budget proposes $40 million for Youth and Careers in Nature. This initiative designed to prepare young people for public careers in conservation seems innocuous enough. It’s the other $30 million that concerns me and should probably concern you. That sum is earmarked for an initiative titled Educating Young Hunters and Anglers.
Why?
Anyone who has followed the deplorable state of conservation politics in the United States knows that the hook and bullet club — anglers and hunters — enjoy outsized influence. Ted Eubanks at BirdSpert delivered a fiery, incisive sermon against the folly of this logic, hoisting the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on its own petard:
According to the agency’s (USFWS) own research, there are 30 million anglers, 12.5 million hunters, and 71.1 million wildlife viewers (in each case, age 16 and older) in the U.S. Of these wildlife viewers, 47.7 million watch, feed, and photograph birds…
…Finally, according to the same agency’s assessment of the economic impacts of national wildlife refuges (Banking on Nature 2006), 82% of the total expenditures are generated by nonconsumptive activities (wildlife viewing) on refuges. Fishing accounts for 12% of expenditures, and hunting generates 6%.
Ted’s entire post is worth reading, particularly because he underscores the impotence of the organizations that allege to represent the interests of U.S. non-extractive wildlife watchers. When not a single cent out of $70 million is proposed specifically for attracting new young birders, naturalists, and photographers to this 21st Century Youth Conservation Corps, we have to acknowledge massive systemic failure.
Where are OUR lobbyists, our influence peddlers? Who sits elbow to elbow with legislators to remind them of the phenomenal contributions of money and effort this nation’s naturalists devote to sustainable conservation? Why can the Department of the Interior get away with issuing the following nonsense without being called to the carpet for lack of balance:
Hunting and ?shing have long played an important role in our Nation’s development and served as the roots of today’s conservation movement. Today, hunting and ?shing groups help guide and in?uence our conservation policies. In his campaign for President, Barack Obama committed to support America’s hunting and ?shing traditions, including providing State ?sh and game agencies with additional resources and encouragement to reach out and educate young men and women about hunting and ?shing opportunities, hunter safety, and the basic principles of ?sh and wildlife management.
Let me be up front in declaring that I am not against responsible, sustainable, ethical hunting and fishing. I don’t speak for my colleagues in this but I have no problem with dropping a hook in the water now and again, especially for a little catch-and-release. Plus, the uncontrolled hordes of white-tailed deer roaming our highways and byways pose an ecological menace the likes of which should call all able Americans to arms. But I am first and foremost a birder and observer of nature. The interests of wildlife watchers may sometimes dovetail with those of hunters and anglers. Indeed, we often hang out in the same refuges and pursue the same quarry. Still, we are not the same. Although our populations overlap, our successes do not always compliment each other. Sometimes we even operate at cross purposes.
In many countries, birders and wildlife watchers have a voice. In the United States, we simply do not. The first question any self-described American birder or naturalist needs to answer is, “Do you want one?” The next question obviously should be, “What are you going to do about it?” because those that should be speaking for you have been curiously silent.
All the talk of “tradition” is a bunch of pablum. It’s all about the money. Between fishing and hunting licenses and the passive funding of Pittman-Robertson, the government can make money on hunters and fishermen in a way they can’t for wildlife watchers.
Until we can quantify our impact in dollars in a way that separates us from hunters and fishers, FWS will never give us anything.
A lot of conservation organizations do employ lobbyists or policy makers. I’m thinking primarily of the National Wildlife Federation, Defenders of Wildlife, and the National Audubon Society; most of the others probably do, too. However, most of these are not birder-specific and direct most of their energy towards preventing encroachments on public lands and getting funding for preserving vulnerable species (of all taxa), plus climate change advocacy. Those issues themselves require a full-time effort, and I’m not sure that they can or should be lobbying on behalf of recreational birding (and general wildlife viewing) in addition to their other responsibilities. A more narrowly-focused group like the American Birding Association could do much more in that regard, but for whatever reason the ABA doesn’t seem to be as interested in advocacy.
The US Fish and Wildlife Service and state agencies could definitely do more to market birding and general wildlife viewing. It might get more people interested in nature and would definitely bring in more revenue. Even the push to get birders to buy duck stamps has largely come from individuals and small organizations rather than the national organizations or the USFWS.
One other thing – birders already do contribute financially to the USFWS through entrance fees at many wildlife refuges.
Hi Mike-
Thanks for this info. To answer the questions you posed, Yes – as a naturalist, birder, and wildlife watcher – I want a voice in our policy-making decisions. I will certainly be thinking about what I can do about this. As a first step, like-minded individuals banding together for a common cause is a pretty natural occurrence. I think you’ve started the banding-together right here, with your post. From your description of your views, I can say that I am like-minded. As for money – it plays an undeniable role in policy-making, as well as our individual lives. I can’t help but think about the good that lobbying dollars would do for wildlife and their habitats, if spent directly on care and preservation, rather than political influence. This poses some tough questions regarding immediate vs. long-term, greater-good goals. For what it’s worth, I’m on it.
Mike, thanks for carrying this argument to the masses. I will be posting additional information about this issue later in the week. However, here is a place to start. Call, write, or email the DOI and ask that wildlife watching (viewing, photography) be included in the funding being generated by this legislation. Here is a contact at DOI:
Ray Rivera
Director of External and Intergovernmental Affairs
Office of the Secretary
Department of the Interior
202-208-1923
Ray_Rivera@ios.doi.gov
More later.
I’m seeing this happen in my state, and I assume it’s happening elsewhere too, but as a cost-cutting measure in increasingly tight state budgets (NC alone has a $2 billion shortfall this year), state game agencies are laying off or not filling positions for non-game agents.
Look too, to California’s plan to shutter 80% of their state parks, and one assumes, laying off the rangers who are mostly non-game specialists.
If there aren’t any agents advocating non-hook and bullet issues from within the organizations we can’t really expect them to do anything without. It’s simply not seen as a priority.
This DoI initiative is simply an action on a larger scale of what we’ve been seeing on a state level for the last year or so.