Subject: [Tweeters] Re: [obol] Mind-numbing federal budget information so
Date: Jan 22 09:35:55 2010
From: Bob Flores - rflores_2 at msn.com


I encourage those interested in Federal Duck Stamp program to do their own
independent research. I have read several postings from Oregon and
Washington and find them riddled with inaccuracies. Please look for your
self if interested. Duck Stamp funds ONLY land purchase and long-term
Conservation Leases. Yes, hunters had been the driving force, and may still
be, behind the sales of Federal Duck Stamps but there has been recognition
among those charged with managing and setting land purchase priorities that
wildland purchases begin to look at larger ecosystems and not just wetlands.

Also the Land and Water Conservation funding are monies that do come from
appropriations. Theses funds also are used to purchase wildlands and parks.
Under the last Administration these funds were cut to almost nothing the
current Administration has promised to restore the funds.

Bob Flores
Ridgefield, WA

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Joel Geier" <joel.geier at peak.org>
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 8:47 AM
To: "Oregon Birders OnLine" <obol at oregonbirdwatch.org>
Subject: [obol] Mind-numbing federal budget information

> Hello folks,
>
> Lars is correct that Duck Stamp revenues don't go directly to stocking
> ring-necked pheasants or boosting mule deer populations, at least in
> Oregon, where those conversations tend to be within the state fish &
> wildlife department. I would have been more accurate to mention
> "boosting huntable mallard, pintail, and cackler numbers" as an example
> for this specific program, since those are goals that are specifically
> mandated by the federal statute that governs Duck Stamp sales.
>
> The USFWS's work on boosting mule deer populations in Idaho, Colorado
> etc. is mostly paid for out of other funding pots, as is their work on
> boosting pronghorn herds for hunting here in Oregon. I don't think they
> directly stock ring-necked pheasants anymore, anywhere. But it would be
> tough to prove that none of their $75 million in annual grants to state
> F&W agencies (including $1.1 million to ODFW in 2009) goes toward that
> end. Or for that matter, their additional grants & joint venture efforts
> with hunting groups, for example:
>
> http://www.pheasantsforever.org/page/1/PressReleaseViewer.jsp?pressReleaseId=21
>
> Another thing to bear in mind is that, when you purchase a federal duck
> stamp, you're feeding money into the nationwide budget of the Service,
> not the local budgets for Ridgefield NWR, Finley NWR, Baskett Slough NWR
> etc. Your anonymous donation gives you, as a birder, ZERO clout in
> deciding nationwide USFWS budget priorities.
>
> You could do better by making a direct donation to the local refuges,
> where direct donations go to things like:
>
> "Willamette Valley NWR Complex, (OR): Contributed funds have been used
> for the maintaining and improving the Woodpecker Loop Trail...."
>
> "Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (OR): Contributed funds were used in
> 2008 to conduct a seabird mortality study...."
>
> To see how Duck Stamp purchases by birders fit into the overall USFWS
> budget process works, here's some information from a fun little document
> called: "DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
> Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Justifications" (630 pp.).
>
> Annual duck stamp revenues amount to about $22 million. So far as the
> 2010 budget document is concerned, those revenues come from stamps
> purchased by waterfowl hunters. There is NOT ONE PEEP in this document
> about duck stamps being purchased by birders, unless you read between
> the lines of the statement that up to $1 million of that revenue can be
> spent "to promote duck stamp sales." So if you bought duck stamps just
> to help out with bird conservation, there's your recognition.
>
> Duck stamp revenues go into a pot called the Migratory Bird Conservation
> Fund, along with an equal amount that comes from import duties on arms
> and ammunition. If in 2009 you imported guns to help fuel the ongoing
> street battles in Los Angeles, or if you stocked your bunker in Montana
> with ammo for the coming apocalypse, the federal government thanks you
> for your contribution to migratory bird conservation.
>
> A bit over 1% of the combined stamp & guns & ammo revenues in 2009 went
> into the Migratory Bird Conservation Program -- which is a great program
> for non-game birds -- but it's a small percentage of duck stamp revenue,
> and it accounts for less than 1% of that program's total budget.
>
> Duck stamp & ammo revenues that come into the Migratory Bird
> Conservation Fund can also go toward purchase of lands that benefit one
> or more of nine "National Resource Species." Those species are
> enumerated in the budget document: mallard, pintail, cackling Canada
> goose, white-fronted goose, canvasback, redhead, wood duck, American
> black duck, and Pacific brant. In other words, mostly huntable waterfowl
> populations.
>
> Of course there are incidental benefits to other species, so this does
> come around to benefit birders. Just don't imagine that your anonymous
> duck stamp purchase gives you, or the birding community at large, any
> sort of seat at the table when decisions are made about priorities.
>
> If you're a big fan of more wetlands, good for you. If you'd rather see
> upland prairies as a priority, you'd better hope that some
> forward-thinking individual in the USFWS can find a way to finagle those
> into the purchase (as Bill Finley famously did in Oregon; see Dave
> Marshall's account in Oregon Birds).
>
> The emphasis on managing wetlands for huntable waterfowl can also
> sometimes skew ecological priorities. In the upper Midwest, nutrients
> from goose poop are now a significant factor in lake & river
> eutrophication (I didn't believe it when my agronomist cousin who sells
> farm fertilizer in Minnesota made this claim, but when I did a
> calculation to show him how wrong he was, I found out that he was
> right). According to Canada's wildlife service, snow goose populations
> have also become detrimental for Arctic-nesting shorebirds.
>
> Also, don't imagine that your duck stamp purchase will give birders any
> influence on how $497 million are allocated for "Sport Fish
> Restoration," or how $422 million is allocated for "Federal Aid in
> Wildlife Restoration."
>
> The latter category sounds pretty good, right? But in 2010 this includes
> a line item of $25.2 million -- that's right, more than total duck stamp
> revenues -- for this purpose:
>
> "to help the States, and their regional associations ... to accelerate
> outreach to urban and minority youth ... to forge and fortify the
> connections of these youth to nature through hunting and fishing
> programs .... A generation disconnected from nature will learn the
> traditions and practices of hunting and angling, and the conservation
> ethic that is key to both."
>
> As a birder, you might think, "Why not just get those kids out birding?"
> That way they could be learning a conservation ethic that promotes
> species diversity, rather than focusing so strongly on huntable
> wildlife.
>
> But you don't have a voice in that discussion, because there's no
> identifiable stream of revenue that comes out of the birding community.
> Hunters and anglers will continue to have the main seat at the table,
> and push for expenditures that promote their hobbies first and foremost.
>
> Birders will only have that kind of seat when we start to pay our share,
> in a way that the federal and state governments can see in this kind of
> mind-numbing document. Buying a few duck stamps, as anonymous
> individuals, won't get us there.
>
> Happy birding,
> Joel
>
> --
> Joel Geier
> Camp Adair area north of Corvallis
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> obol mailing list
> obol at oregonbirdwatch.org
> http://oregonbirdwatch.org/mailman/listinfo/obol
>