David Wright:

>You started out arguing that hunters get attention from F&W because
>they paid for land that F&W administers, and they pay fees and taxes
>that birders don't.

The discussion began specifically about wildlife refuges, and the
rights, if you will, of hunters to have first call on those refuges.
I explained that this came about due to the fact that many, indeed
most, I believe, of them were purchased by excise taxes on ammo
and guns. The enabling legislation for this tax does specify it
be used for enhancement of game species, for the specific purpose
of maintaining populations at a healthy level capable of sustaining
harvest by hunters.

The situation on public lands, where deer and the like are typically
pursued, is a separate issue in my mind - I don't mind talking about
it, but please be careful to keep public lands hunting separate in
your mind from the issue of hunters rights to hunt refuges they've
paid for!

ODF&W, at least, predates this legislation, but the growth in state
services and the USF&W really does stem from the growth of the
refuge system, which itself stems from this excise tax.

And, of course, state F&Ws (at least, mine!), get to keep license
and fee revenues because of legislation - and that same legislation
does require that these fees go to the game side of ODF&W.

So, the chicken-and-egg aspect of your question doesn't seem terribly
interesting to me. The reality is that my state game agency (by that,
I mean the one in my state - I presume everyone knows I don't work for
them) is locked into this role by law. The agency has been struggling
to broaden its mission for years, and indeed had some success in the
mid-eighties. The legislature, which has been increasingly controlled
by right-wing rural representatives, has worked to trim the non-game
function of the department (that being part of the push to remove
"advocacy for wildlife" from their mission - to stop education
efforts). They worked to trim this function only after efforts
to abolish the non-game program entirely failed.

Politics may be different in Washington - I don't follow them, but
think one house is still controlled by the Dems, right? Things
are especially harsh in Oregon at the moment. There will be another
move to turn the agency strictly into a license-collecting/harvest-managing
agency next session.

>Obviously there are many progressive folk in Wash F&W, but whoever
>determined the format of the hunting schedules (presumably F&W staff,
>not the legislature) was not concerned with summarizing this info in
>a manner that is convenient for non-hunters as well as hunters to use,
>even though this is the only source the public has for this info (which
>affects vast amounts of public land in Washington, not just wildlife
>refuges). The only part of F&W that the public sees reflected in these
>schedules is the part that revolves around hunting.

Can't speak to this, really. I find the Oregon schedules easy to
follow. And I don't necessarily avoid the woods during hunting
season, being aware that historically, nearly half of hunter-inflicted
gunshot wounds come from a gun in the hunter's vehicle, and an overwhelming
majority of the rest are shot by either their own weapon or a companion's
who is walking something like 25 feet away or less (might be 10 feet,
it's been a few years since ODF&W and the Oregonian took delight in
analyzing the stats). Most of these involve alcohol, of course,
otherwise the idiots would unload before racking their weapon in
the truck, would engage the safety while walking and/or could do
so upright!

Speaking of evolution-in-action events, last year a kid was killed
when he was a passenger in a car driven by his dad. Dad let him
clean the weapon while he was driving - staring down the barrel.
It was loaded - then unloaded, so to speak. Scratch one kid.

If the NRA would get out of politics and back to education
maybe this shit would stop - but I doubt it!

>TWW is a opportunity to strengthen the nongame part of F&W.

The nice thing is that the states can't divert it, as I understand
the legislation, just as they can't divert the ammo excise tax.
Cram nongame down their *effing* throats, is what it amounts to.

Regarding the desire of state F&W agencies wanting to embrace
non-game work, the organization of these agencies (I forget the
name of their club, unfortunately) has been among the most
vocal supporters and pushers of the concept. They know they
can't make the changes they want unless they have a source
of funds insulated from state political shennanigans.

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