This is a conservation challenge that really needs discussion. For over 100 years hunters and anglers have carried the load when it comes to wildlife conservation. This has produced mostly good results -- restoration of elk, pronghorn, waterfowl, bighorn sheep and many other huntable species. It has also produced some unfortunate results -- extirpation of large predators over much of the American west, for example. (Okay, a lot of this was also a result of livestock industry pressure, but hunters supported predator removal both financially and politically.)
Programs for increasing hunted wildlife have provided benefits for non-hunted wildlife also, primarily as a side result of habitat restoration and improvement aimed at game wildlife. However, non-hunted wildlife species make up nearly all of today's wildlife recovery challenges. State wildlife agencies are mostly restricted from directly spending hunter and angler dollars on these other wildlife species. So there is a real need for the non-hunting public to step forward, partner with the hunters and anglers, and take on this financial responsibility. This has happened to some degree in some states through funding initiatives such as general sales taxes (Missouri and Arkansas), lotteries (Arizona, Colorado and Maine), or an outdoor equipment sales tax (Texas and Virginia). There are also several minor but insufficient funding initiatives such as state income tax refund check-offs, special license plates and nongame stamp and print sales. For most states, adequate funding for a wide range of wildlife conservation programs has not occurred. This needs to happen, and a wider range of conservation organizations need to get directly involved and supportive of wildlife conservation programs at the state level. This is where much of the meaningful wildlife conservation action (and inaction) occurs. I have been researching and promoting this change for some time, so I have a lot more information (and opinion) in case anyone wants to take this topic farther down the road. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, Oregon -----Original Message----- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James J. Roper Sent: Tuesday, 14 August, 2007 17:56 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: hunting & conservation/was ECOLOGY Conservation Principles and Transformations Re: primate watching I think it is a sad state of affairs when the people who pay for conservation are the hunters and the fishermen, and the people who do not pay are the rest. I think that if conservation is ever really going to happen, people need to learn how to live WITH nature. There are many species that will never be hunted or watched, yet we (most of us, I hope) believe that they should be preserved too. Who will pay? It seems a particularly American way of thinking that Nature must pay for itself, whic= h usually means we sell permits to hunters and fishermen and use that money for conservation. If the species has no appeal, who will speak up for it and pay for it? There are many places in the world where hunting on a larg= e scale does not happen, here in Brazil, for one example (legal hunting). Many Brazilians don't like the idea of having guns so readily available to anybody in order for hunting to work (fishing is a different story, but it still does not generate conservation dollars). Be that as it may - if conservation depends on the people that kill the animals being preserved, I find it both philosophically and scientifically problematic, and it says much for the apathy of the non-hunters, who should also be willing to pay for conservation. Jim On 8/13/07, WENDEE HOLTCAMP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This is a really interesting point. I wrote an article about Louisiana > black > bears about a year ago, a threatened subspecies of American black bear. I > spent a week in the field while biologists relocated bear mommas and cubs > to > a different habitat in efforts to expand their range. One comment by one > of > the people there that week was that "the best thing that could happen to > the > LA black bear is to make it a game species." Hunters channel a lot of > funds > that ultimately (usually) go into conservation. > > I'd be curious to know how MUCH money exactly has been channeled into > conservation through hunting of various species - particularly somewhat > rare > species hunted in a limited manner? And in what types of scenarios does > funding generated from hunting/fishing of rare species outweigh the > conservation efforts obtained by listing the species as threatened or > endangered? > > I know, for example, in Texas they give out a very small number of very > high-priced permits to hunt bighorn sheep - and as I understand it, a lot > of > this money goes to conservation/management. I've been told the species is > rare enough to be listed as threatened, but as far as I know no "stink" > has > been raised about the issue by any group. I would think that the money > from > hunting a few benefits the overall conservation more than putting it on > the > ESA. > > Likewise, Guadalupe Bass, Texas' state fish is nearly extinct IF You > consider hybrids not really Guads. Pretty much all Guadalupe bass have > hybridized with their introduced cousins - smallmouth and largemouths. > (There is one pure population which, ironically, was introduced outside o= f > its range). But listing this species on the ESA would not only be an > utterly > logistical nightmare (distinguishing them from stocked fish? Nearly > impossible if you're talking about genetics and not morphology) it would > probably NOT be the most beneficial thing for the species. Any thoughts? > Any > other similar cases? This has the makings of a great article :) > > Wendee > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Wendee Holtcamp * Freelance Writer * Photographer * Bohemian > http://www.wendeeholtcamp.com > Bohemian AdventuresBlog* http://bohemianadventures.blogspot.com > The Fish Wars: A Christian Evolutionist http://thefishwars.blogspot.com > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Online Writing Course Starts Sep 15. Sign Up Now! > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson > Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 2:43 PM > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > Subject: ECOLOGY Conservation Principles and Transformations Re: primate > watching > > Bill and Forum: > > Speaking of weak analogies, primate hunting may not be a sufficiently > large sport for the duck-hunter analogy to be of much value, but one > of the most insightful ecologists I have ever known, Dick Vogl, used > to lecture widely on the value of the Ducks Unlimited approach for > habitat preservation--an ironic but useful route to success, > especially when heavy industries with political clout tend to like > filling wetlands for their oil and gas depots, etc. Few took his > eco-logic seriously, many rejecting it out-of-hand. > > Then there's the just-beginning-to-be-explored "transformational" > concept (struggling though it may be). To illustrate, Dayton Hyde > once told me that he finally figured out that probably the real > reason he took up hunting ducks was to get a closer look at their > incredible beauty. He told of the moment this dawned on him. Having > picked up the corpse of a duck he had just shot, he was struck by the > iridescent colors and beautiful form of the bird, and realized that > he had just diminished that beauty (not to mention the structural and > real violence used to appreciate it). He realized that the real > beauty was in the live duck and its environment--earth, water, and > the fire in its heart and mind, once beating and cycling much like > his own. He resolved, in that moment, to work in defense of > waterfowl, and that decision paid off handsomely for him, internally > and financially.* A transformational moment? Hunting: a necessary or > useful transition? I could tell you similar tales . . . > > WT > > * This, of course, is my version of Hyde's story; it may have > suffered in the retelling, for which I apologize in advance. > > > At 03:40 AM 8/13/2007, William Silvert wrote: > >This is an interesting idea, but the analogy to bird-watching is weak. > There > >are only a few primates that are serously endangered, mostly the great > apes, > >and I think that anyone motivated by life lists would simply head for > >Madagascar and count lemurs. I suspect that getting a lot of spotters > into > >the field would have a negative impact on the species being spotted. > > > >It is worth keeping in mind that one of the most successful measures in > bird > >conservation is the habitat preservation by Ducks Unlimited, whose motiv= e > is > >to shoot ducks! > > > >Bill Silvert > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "WENDEE HOLTCAMP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> > >Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 7:19 PM > >Subject: primate watching > > > > > > >I read something recently where someone was pondering whether we could > > > create a system of primate watching, similar to birdwatching, as a wa= y > to > > > channel funds into primate conservation. So instead of life lists for > > > birds > > > (or in addition to) they would have life lists for primates. I though= t > > > this > > > was really interesting and was just going to try to pitch an article > on > > > it, > > > but now I can't seem to find it anywhere - I didn't find it from a > google > > > search and I can't remember if I saw this in the news or a scientific > > > journal TOC, or what. I am pretty sure it was a primatologist or > > > biologist/ecologist making the statement. > > > > > > > > > > > > Does this ring any bells for anyone? If so please contact me offlist > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > Wendee > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > Wendee Holtcamp * Freelance Writer * Photographer * Bohemian > > > > > > <http://www.wendeeholtcamp.com/> > > > http://www.wendeeholtcamp.com > > > Bohemian Adventures Blog * <http://bohemianadventures.blogspot.com/> > > > http://bohemianadventures.blogspot.com > > > > > > The Fish Wars: A Christian Evolutionist > > > <http://thefishwars.blogspot.com/> > > > http://thefishwars.blogspot.com > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > Online Writing Course Starts Sep 15. Sign Up Now! > > > > > > > > > > > > > --=20 James J. Roper, Ph.D. Ecologia e Din=E2micas Populacionais de Vertebrados Terrestres ------------------------------ Caixa Postal 19034 81531-990 Curitiba, Paran=E1, Brasil ------------------------------ E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Telefone: 55 41 33857249 Mobile: 55 41 99870543 ------------------------------ Ecologia e Conserva=E7=E3o na UFPR <http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/> Personal Pages <http://jjroper.googlespages.com>
