Mike Price shouldn't hold his breathe waiting for bird people to get off
their keisters to exercise the economic clout with politicians so that
nonconsumptive users of wildlife are given equal consideration to
consumptive users like hunters and anglers. It has been my experience
that only a pitiful few take l0-l5 minutes of their time to even write a
letter to the powers that be. The vast majority won't even do that
because of their busy, busy schedules like jumping up and down in ectasy
when they add a bird to their weekly, monthly, yearly and perhaps life
list. Whoop-dee-doo!
Most do nothing for the welfare of birds they see. A few plant
vegetation that birds utilize. No quarrel with that.

Hunters and anglers have to buy licenses. In addition there is a l0%tax
on sporting arms and ammunition and also on fishing gear. Through the
Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnston bills. This is returned to state
fish and wildlife agencies based on the number of license buyers and
other conditions for use of their programs. So its no wonder hunters and
fishermen are given first consideration. It's mother's milk for the
agencies. A few have nongame programs, but they're usually bottom man on
the totem pole. Birders are grousing about the requirement to buy a
license to enter a state wildlife area. A lot of those areas were the
result of the taxes paid to these agencies by hunters and fishermen.
Also grousing about a proposed national tax on equipment they use for
wildlife watching. A tax similar to the two aforementioned bills. They
are literally getting a free ride for their form of recreation.

Some time ago I wrote a brief summary of the l996 National Survey of
Fishing, Hunting, and Other Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Also the
l996 National and State Economic Impacts of Wildlife Watching based on
the the Survey. It went over like a lead balloon.

The survey was conducted by the Bureau of the Census and the Economics
and Statistical Administration for the Departments of Commerce and
Interior. They contacted 80,000 households in the nation and followed up
with in depth interviews of 22,758 anglers and hunters and ll,759
wildlife watchers three seperate times. They found that 32.2 million
people fished and they spent $35 billion when so engaged, while l4
million hunters spent $2l billion. Now get this, 62.9 million persons
watched wildlife and the spent $29.2 BILLION in l996. That was a hell of
a lot more money spent by hunters! Something that should be brought to
the attention of the powers that be. But it won't be by most birders.
Wildlife watchers have a hell of a lot economic clout, Mike, if they
would use it. Maybe you and I are just racing our engines and spinning
our wheels. Think of all the l00 plus birding festivals plus birders
going to Belize and other places in Central and South America, Asia,
Galapagos, Arctic and Antarctic, Africa, Europe, Canada, Alaska. All
spend big bucks. Birders indeed have economic clout. But its the old
story that the squeaking wheel gets the grease, and they won't squeak.

I contacted some so-called outdoor writers from various newspapers and
told them where they could get copies of the reports. No
acknowledgements. They have a mindset just to write about hunting and
fishing. So-called sports writers who I call Wannabees or Never Will
Bees that write countless reams of words in every which way about the
gladiators. The only statistics they don't keep (maybe they do) are the
number of times players spit or scratch their tail feathers. Oh, well.

An old, really old, broken-down retired wildlife biologist/refuge
manager/administrator. Eugene Kridler, Sequim, Wa.