>Hmm, do the license fees and excise taxes really cover the cost of
>staffing and running the agencies that administer hunting (excluding
>non-game programs)? If so, then hunters do "pay their way." If not,
>then hunting is subsidized by general taxes.

Well ... the question would largely be moot if they hadn't bought the
land indirectly through excise taxes. You wouldn't be asking, "do
hunters pay the operational costs of hunting on the Sauvie Island
Refuge?", but rather, "sigh, wouldn't it be wonderful if half of
Sauvie Island had been held in refuge from agriculture? Think of
all the birds that would be there!". Please keep that in mind.

(which is the case: 1/2 of this island is set aside as a wildlife
area, purchased by hunters, and enjoyed by many non-hunters - there's
now a parking fee, which I heartily endorse, even though the first
funds were spend uncreatively on portable shitters and permanent
gates - probably necessary - rather than trails)

They have certainly paid their way in regard to acquisition. In
regard to operational costs, I do know that in Oregon at least most
costs are covered by licensing, etc. Of course, the increasing
urbanization of our population, anti-hunting sentiments, and the
like decrease the numbers of folks hunting, meaning prices must
rise, meaning at some point folks who really do hunt to fill the
locker will find it just as cheap to run down to Safeway and
stop buying deer tags, meaning that your question is, in part,
meaningless without further context.

What's the incremental cost? Certainly, if hunting were banned
we couldn't just get rid of enforcement efforts - we'd still want
to stop poaching, wouldn't we? Or would you rather replace a
relatively large hunting populace with a much smaller poaching
populace based on the presumption that poachers would kill fewer
critters, even though they're outlaw, immoral, unethical scum?

This might be cheaper - but would it be better?

>(But even if hunters
>overstate their case, the moral of the story remains that paying fees
>and excise taxes buys clout; TWW is an opportunity for birders to buy
>some clout.)

CLOUT? How about : acres. Square miles. Sections.

>From that follows clout. It's the primary reason why ODF&W pays
attention to hunters regarding access regs for Sauvie Island, for
instance. Though they pay as much attention to farmers (in this
case, it's the threat of damage suits due to "excess" geese numbers
due to "excessive" dusky protections, and similar stuff, that leads to
this).

>I do, however, gripe about hunters having the
>run of nearly all public lands in the fall, and the rest of us having to
>work around the hunting schedule. In Washington, any public lands except
>national parks and (some of) those within city limits and other populated
>areas are open to hunting (fide Fish and Wildlife person at their
>information number). National forests, state parks and forests, etc.,
>were *not* paid for by hunters.

All this is true, but isn't part of Peggi's first spin on the issue,
which was about "why aren't refuges refuged from hunters?", to which
the simple answer "because the *friggin* hunters BOUGHT them!" suffices.

These additional issues are state issues, hunting is allowed on USFS
and BLM lands because the right to control hunting is delegated to
the states except in some very limited circumstances (requiring
specific legislation not likely to be supported by folks sensitive
to the hunting lobby).

For instance, in Florida one can road-hunt deer, even in National
Forests, while of course many western hunters would view that as
being a hangable offense. This is true because Florida, the state,
sets the rules for hunting deer on all lands, including federal.

On the upside, this means that legislation like the banning of
bear-baiting and dog-hunting of cougar in Oregon applies to
federal land in the same way the Florida's love of road-hunting
does.

Personally, though, I'm not intimidated by being in the woods in
hunting season. I mean - if hunters feel safe out there, why
shouldn't I? I don't dress up with deer antlers or anything stupid,
but I've only had one scary experience with a hunter. I've had
many more scary experiences driving, or in the city, or even in
airliners, or even even banding hawks on top of the Goshutes,
"lightning rod of eastern Nevada!".

There are risks in the woods in all seasons, and I think you'd
be hard-pressed to prove that a late September sojurn into the
back country is more dangerous than a June sojurn, when you may
find yourself swimming in four feet of snow without warning (actually,
come to think of it, that happened to me over the 4th of July about 20-25
years ago).

> To determine when it is safe to visit
>these lands (i.e., without dodging bullets) in fall and early winter it
>is necessary to obtain a hunting schedule, page through this poorly
>organized booklet to determine which "Game Management Unit" a particular
>locality is in, then wade through, game kind by game kind, to determine
>if that GMU is open to hunting on a given date. If Fish & Wildlife also
>provided a simple summary by area (GMU by GMU) of when hunting is
>scheduled, it would be easier to work around hunting, and easier to
>believe that F&W serves all of Washington, not just its hunters.

Again, hunting laws are set by lawmakers, and your F&W enforces them.
I'd agree with a lot more of what's being said if F&W references
were replaced with "shithead legislators". Our non-game program
is largely shut-down, and along with removing the phrase "advocacy
for wildlife from the ODF&W mission statement was a move to restrict
them to essentially being license cashiers and hunting law enforcement,
with ALL conservation elements removed (game and fish as well as
non-game).

This bullshit came uncomfortably close to passing.

I suppose they could do more to inform the non-hunting public as
to when hunting occurs, but in Oregon at least, funding for such
stuff is non-existent. Again, this is legislative. We've seen
non-game funding in Oregon slashed by 1/2 or so in the last several
years. Believe me, much of ODF&W would like to see non-game on
equal footing with game management. This is one reason I react
so strongly to some of the characterizations I've been reading.
But, when the money-folk say "fire 1/2 your non-game staff", what
do you expect them to do? Resign so some traditional deer bio
can take over? (actually, when I had the opportunity to get
to know the non-game bios for ODF&W I was amazed that they were
all deer/duck bios who were volunteers, and 100% charged up over
learning all about dicky birds and the like - some of the best
folks to teach in the field that I've ever dealt with, and
entirely behind the mission-change in the wind at the time, which
unfortunately has been shitcanned in the interim).

Anyway, quitting isn't going to replace stolen funding. The key
is the same as the key at the national level: get rid of the
gawdamned far-right Republicans. If that means sacrificing
what remains of the moderate Republican middle, traditionally
favorable towards conservation but fiscally conservative, well,
that's the path the party chose and I feel they have to live
with it. The Dems can be as bad, i.e. Clinton's folding on
the Salvage Rider, Dick's position on forest issues, but more
and more conservation is becoming the discriminate between the
two parties in the PNW.

My key message is: place the blame in the primary place, which is
in the law which drives your local F&W agency. Don't be overly
harsh when they simply follow the law. Afterall, that legislative
authority is the basis of this democracy most of us love, sometimes,
hate othertimes, oh well :)


- Don Baccus, Portland OR <donb at rational.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, at http://www.xxxpdx.com/~dhogaza