By now, hopefully you’ve helped make your customers aware of who foots the tab for the majority of conservation efforts in the U.S. It’s them, via contributions made through the 11 percent excise tax on purchases of long guns and ammo, and 10 percent on handguns, via the Pittman-Robertson Act, the 10 percent tax on sport fishing and boating equipment via the Dingell-Johnson Act., and the efforts of many hunting-focused conservation organizations like SCI, RMEF, DU, NWTF, MDF, and so on.
The rub here is twofold. The number of hunters in America is stagnant and actually declining as a percentage of the overall population when you figure in annual population growth. At the same time, demand for use of our precious outdoor resources is growing by leaps and bounds. Not by hunters and anglers, but by hikers, campers, birdwatchers, etc. As evidence, one needs look no further than at the demand for camping space in our national and state parks, which in many instances are booked up many months in advance.
While you’ll not find anyone who believes more than me that our government agencies are, by and large, bloated money pits in need of a serious haircut, the truth is that our wildlife and natural resources need funding in order to survive and thrive. For decades, many of us have asked a simple question: When will non-consumptive users step up to the plate and pay their fair share?
I recently read a study published on July 26, 2021, in Conservation and Science Practice entitled, “The Future of Wildlife Conservation Funding: What Options Do U.S. College Students Support?” In a nutshell, what the report says is that, while the surveyed students wholeheartedly support conservation funding — and many creative new ways to fund it — they oppose the same sort of excise taxes on backpacks, camping equipment, binoculars and so on, that hunters and anglers have supported on the gear they use since 1937 (P-R Act) and 1950 (D-J Act.) In other words, let somebody else pay for it.
Who would that be? The students surveyed strongly support taxing resource extraction companies and outdoor recreation outfitters, tapping state lottery proceeds, passing state and local bonds, and state sales tax increases, as well as continuing funding from hunting and fishing license sales and Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson excise taxes.
This is troubling to me. At the same time, state game departments realize they need future sources of increased funding. For them, the easiest way to get more money is to increase hunting (and, to a lesser extent, fishing) license and tag costs — especially those charged to nonresidents. For example, last March Massachusetts proposed a 56 percent increase in the cost of a resident fishing license ($40 from $22.50), and the cost of the necessary licenses and permits to hunt bear, turkey, pheasant, waterfowl, small game and deer (including archery and muzzleloader seasons) would climb almost four times, from $47.70 to $160. Nonresident license and permit fees were also slated to go up sharply. It would be the first increase in 25 years, but still. Louisiana, Mississippi and Arkansas also proposed increases, primarily on nonresidents.
Out West, where extremely expensive nonresident license and tag fees have already priced a large chunk of the population out of the game, Wyoming’s 2021 proposed bill SF0103 asked for huge increases in nonresident license and tag fees while capping all tags issued to nonresident hunters at 10 percent. The proposed increases were on antelope ($324 to $600, 85%,) deer ($372-$655, 76%,) and elk ($690-$1,100, 59.5%.) Thankfully, the bill failed to emerge from the senate TRW (Travel, Recreation and Wildlife) committee by a vote of 1-4. In 2019, Washington state also increased its hunting license fees. The list goes on.
The question is, of course, how will conservation be funded in the future? There’s little question that the environment and wildlife are important to America’s youth, and that’s a good thing. And seeking non-traditional means of funding is also a good thing. But we simply cannot keep increasing the burden on hunters and anglers while other user groups get a pass. As hunter numbers decrease over time, as they will, the amount of money generated by license and tag fees will fall far short of the funds required, no matter how much states keep soaking the nonresidents — who, by the way, already pay for well over half of most all western state game department budgets. Continuing to jack up these costs will continue to drive Joe Lunchbucket out of the game altogether as well. Do we really want hunting in the U.S. to become a game primarily reserved for the wealthy?
Game departments are combatting hunter decline with the R3 — Recruitment, Retention and Reactivation — initiative to try and get more new hunters into the woods and keep them there, while encouraging older hunters who may have given the game up to get back in the field. Youth-only hunts are another way game departments attempt to create life-long excitement in future hunters, though to be truthful, whether or not they do that on any meaningful scale is debatable. Still, at some point alternative funding sources will be required. As this survey shows, America’s youth — the future leaders of our country — support funding conservation efforts, but not if they have to step up and pay for it themselves. How can you help change this attitude? One way is to encourage young customers to join a true conservation organization like those listed earlier, not a pseudo animal rights group that does nothing but line their own pockets like HSUS, PETA and World Wildlife Fund. Another is to ask them to buy a duck stamp, even if they don’t hunt.
But this attitude of “somebody else but me pays” must change. Both the P-R and D-J acts were enacted at the express request of hunters and anglers, who told congress they wanted to be taxed, as long as the funds were used expressly for conservation. Isn’t it time the now-aging millennials and Gen Z’ers stepped to the plate, leading the way to a bright future for America’s wild places and wildlife, with their wallets, and not just their mouths?
What’s your take? Drop me a note at editor@grandviewoutdoors.com. I’d love to hear your thoughts.
