I think the idea of birders paying to preserve habitat is excellent (how
about a "Birds Unlimited" to buy habitat of special interest to birders?).
It would be great if there was a way for those of us who enjoy just
looking in the refuges to pay and have our payments registered on the side
of "not hunting" (do the agencies in question keep track of this?) For
one thing, this would generate clout for non-hunting use of wildlife
refuges, etc. At any rate, I would be surprised if the revenue generated
by sales of licenses, etc., to hunters covers the cost of having refuges
and running the agencies that administer hunting.

I have no gripe against hunters per se, and I recognize that they are
responsible for preserving a lot of habitat in the US -- especially back
in the dark ages when it was considered wierd (if not un-American) to want
to just observe animals. I do, however, resent that essentially all
public lands outside urban areas and National Parks are given over to
hunters in the fall in the state of Washington. There are *are* unsafe
hunters out there, and being in the field with them in the fall is an
unecessary risk. Hunters do *not* foot the bill for having State Parks,
State Forests, and National Forests, and those of us who want to enjoy
being outdoors on these public lands in the fall should be able to do so
in the absence of gunfire. There are windows of time during hunting
season when there is not (e.g.) deer hunting for a week or so in a given
area, but the only way to find out when these occur is to get a copy of
the hunting regs and page through, species by species, (and
method-by-method -- bow vs blunderbuss vs rifle) and look to see when each
hunt is on in each area. But there is an open season on many "small game"
species throughout, so you can never avoid it entirely. (I called the
National Forest in Wenatchee once to find out if there was any
large-mammal hunting in a section of their forest on a given weekend and
got a "it's not my job to know" response. This hardly constitutes
"multiple use" in my book.)

The hunting issue is not black-and-white, for-or-against. I'm not against
hunting, but I would like to see larger blocks of time in the fall when it
is possible to go into Parks and Forests without having to deal with
gunfire, including hunting of "small game" species (and clear
identification of those times for nonhunters). It's not 1950 anymore, and
there are an awful lot of people nowadays besides hunters who want to use
public lands in the fall.

David Wright
dwright at u.washington.edu
Seattle, WA

======================
From: Kay Annette Bristol <abristo at TENET.EDU>
Subject: Re: Hunters and Birders

The local Audubon society (Frontera) requests that those of us who
are not hunters buy hunting licenses anyway. Maybe there's a limit
on the number of licenses availabe???

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Annette Bristol S. TX
Internet - abristo at tenet.edu
K.Bristol at genie.geis.com
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

===========================

From: Burton Guttman <guttmanb at ELWHA.EVERGREEN.EDU>
Subject: Re: Duck stamps

Let me add an alternative viewpoint to the thread about duck stamps and
paying for wildlife preserves. I could start from any of a number of
statements by Chatters who have commented about this, but I'll use part of
what Laurie Larson wrote: "Regarding the buying of duck stamps, etc.: I
agree that it is reasonable for recreational users of federal and other
properties to pay some fees. I have no problem with that." Well, while I
agree partially, on the whole I want to disagree. I'll propose a broader
view.

We shouldn't think of wildlife refuges and similar lands as just being
preserves where birders and hunters can pursue their hobbies or sports.
Our society ought to be preserving as much land as possible for the much
larger values of ecology, conservation, preserving biodiversity, and so
on. Requiring people to pay a fee to enter and enjoy these areas, and to
learn to appreciate them, offends me for several reasons. (1) It supports
the viewpoint that these are only lands with limited recreational value
and that only the people using them for these special purposes ought to
pay for them, rather than their being areas of intrinsic value to our
whole society (to the whole world, in fact), so all citizens ought to pay
for them. (2) It encourages government officials and agencies to take
this viewpoint and to think that (a) they don't have to put very much
money from general tax revenues into preserving such lands and (b) they
ought to "manage" these areas for those limited recreational purposes.
(Someone else--I can't look at my messages now to see who it was--pointed
out how badly they can be managed to encourage ducks and geese.) (3) It
puts another small obstacle in the path of people who aren't avid birders
or naturalists but like to occasionaly visit such reserves; in other
words, it discourages the very people we ought to be encouraging to visit
natural areas, enjoy them, and learn from them. (I love seeing the young
families out walking around our local Nisqually NWR, enjoying them the way
the natural world ought to be enjoyed, and it offends me that they have to
pay even a penny to do so.)

Like most of you, I spend a _lot_ of money every year on travel, motels,
and the like to pursue this wonderful avocation, so the few dollars spent
on entrance fees are trivial, but I think there are some important
principles here that we ought to consider before jumping on a bandwagon
for additional private support of wildlife preserves.

Burt Guttman guttmanb at elwha.evergreen.edu
The Evergreen State College Voice: 206-866-6000, x. 6755
Olympia, WA 98505 FAX: 206-866-6794

===============================

From: David Wright <wrightdb at PIGSTY.DENTAL.WASHINGTON.EDU>
Subject: hunters as conservationists

It seems that some people are trying to paint hunters as patron saints of
conservation, citing as evidence the fees that hunters pay for hunting
licenses. These fees are not voluntary donations, folks, and they fail to
impress me as evidence for a universal (or even widespread) conservation
ethic among hunters. How many hunters would pay these fees if they were
voluntary? I realize that some hunters contribute voluntarily to groups
like Ducks Unlimited, and that's great. But what proportion of hunters is
this (numbers, please)? I doubt it is greater than the proportion of
birders (cast as hypocritical cheapskates by the hunter defenders) who
contribute voluntarily to the Nature Conservancy and similar
organizations. More can, and should, be done, but I can't believe that
hunters as a group have a stronger conservation ethic than birders as a
group. I contribute time and money to local and national conservation
groups. The other birders I know do likewise. It's not unusual as far as
I can tell. Don't try to tell me that some guy who pays 15 bucks for a
hunting license and another 6 for a duck stamp so he can go out and shoot
at ducks has a stronger conservation ethic than the people I meet birding.
And don't forget that it is a matter of historical record that large
numbers of hunters and the hunting industry fought strenuously against the
migratory waterfowl act and other conservation measures that are now law.
I guess that resistance to "government meddling" died out in the 40s, huh?
Care to predict the reaction of many hunters when it is suggested that
some species that aren't as abundant as they were in the good old days be
removed from the list of fair game, bag limits reduced for others?

Again, I'm not against hunters or hunting -- that's not my point. Just
spare us the hunter-as-saint and birder-as-hypocrite nonsense, OK?

David Wright
dwright at u.washington.edu
Seattle