TRAPPERS CONTRIBUTE LESS THAN 0.1% TO NATURE-BASED ECONOMICS

Here’s another excellent piece uncovering the mythology about the economic benefits of hunting and trapping. In short, hunters fund about 5% and trappers 0.1% of the total wildlife-based economy.
————————————————
A price tag was put on the nature-based activities Canadians undertake in a quietly released report earlier this month. The 2012 Canadian Nature Survey – and yes, it was released in June 2014 – took a look at how much time and money Canadians spend on their nature-based activities, which includes everything from hiking to photography to – you guessed it – hunting and trapping.

Eighty-nine per cent of Canadians enjoy nature in some manner, with the majority simply relaxing or having a picnic (71 per cent), viewing or reading about nature (66 per cent), hiking, climbing and horseback riding (64 per cent) and gardening or landscaping (51 per cent).

The report indicated that in 2012, an estimated $41.3 billion in “natured-related expenditures.” That is a lot of money.

Of that $41.3 billion, roughly 5 per cent was figured into the hunting and trapping category, representing expenditures of $2.02 billion in 2012. But what the trappers may not want that well known is only 2 per cent of that 5 per cent is from their community, a total of 0.1 per cent contribution to our nature-based recreational economy.

Further, the eight broad categories offered during the survey (nature-based recreation; nature-based leisure; nature education; motorized recreation; nature conservation; fishing; birding; hunting and trapping) illustrated how frequently people who were actively engaged participated in the various activities the last 12 months. Hunting and trapping?

Eight per cent. When broken down even further into more specific categories, this note was found in the report:

“The small number of respondents that reported participation in ‘trapping wild animals’ is below the threshold for statistical reliability and is therefore not shown in Figure 11.”

The take away from this report is pretty simple for us: Canadians love nature. They love being in it, surrounded by it and participating in it. They don’t love trapping. And the proof of that is in the numbers.

Click here for the full paper.

The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation in Wyoming: Understanding It, Preserving It, and Funding Its Future

Excerpt

In 2013, both the Wyoming Legislature and the public lambasted the
Wyoming Game and Fish Department (Department) for requesting license fee
increases to help fund the agency. They argued that hunters and anglers already
shouldered the bulk of the fiscal responsibility for managing wildlife, and a new fee
increase could discourage some from purchasing licenses. Ultimately, the funding
measure failed, but the debate brought to the forefront the risks and challenges of
relying exclusively on the funding model known as the North American Model of
Wildlife Conservation—an ideology developed over the past several generations
to manage and protect the future of all Wyoming’s wildlife…..Wyoming Law Review NAMWC Who Pays for Wildlife 2014

Authors:  David Willms and Anne Alexander

Wildlife Funding & Entitlements

Continuing with our educational snippets, two entities that in my eyes are good candidates for elimination as unnecessary in this day and age are the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners and the County Advisory Boards to Manage Wildlife. They are a product of decades ago….an unfortunate historical “accident”…when lawmakers thought it would be a good idea to make wildllfe management a user-fee based system, thereby eliminating the need to provide general fund tax dollars to fish and game agencies. While that idea may have had merit, given the tenor and nature of the times, it is now, in my view, more trouble that it is worth. Sportsmen….and their hunting license purchases…are in the decline over past decades. Funding for fish and game agencies comes increasingly from other sources (at least here in Nevada). Sportsmen license and tag sales provide…maybe..30% or so of the annual budget of the Nevada Department of Wildlife. We’ll discuss other sources of funding later.

The problem this system has produced is a sense of “entitlement” among some sportsmen who overlook the fact that wildlife is a public asset (see NRS 501.100) and appear to favor the view that they “pay” for wildlife. Therefore they are “entitled” to be in charge…as they are with 5 of the 9 seats on the wildlife commission designated for them, 2 more for a rancher and farmer who are mostly indistinguishable from sportsmen at least as to their votes on issues of concern to us. That leaves 1 seat for a member of the General Public which, until a couple of years ago, had always been filled by a sportsman or sympathizer, and a “conservationist”. Not very “democratic” and in violation of one of the sacred “Sisters” of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation which sportsmen like to tout.

North American Wildlife Model

Our friend, Steve, raises some important questions about who and what is honored in the North American Wildlife Conservation Model designed for all wildlife and for all people. Take note!

While we appreciate what true sportsman did for wildlife conservation, significant excise tax from guns and ammo also comes from many guns purchased for personal protection such as handguns, or target shooting. In contrast, there is no excise tax on traps.

“The North American Wildlife Conservation Model

The North American Wildlife Conservation Model is the only one of its kind in the world. In the mid-1800’s hunters and anglers realized they needed to set limits in order to protect rapidly disappearing wildlife, and assume responsibility for managing wild habitats. Hunters and anglers were among the first to crusade for wildlife protection and remain some of today’s most important conservation leaders.

History
As early settlers made their way West, North America’s wildlife populations diminished due to market-hunting and habitat loss. Many species were on the brink of extinction. Elk, bison, bighorn sheep, black bears—even whitetail deer—had all but disappeared across the country. Hunters and anglers realized they needed to set limits in order to protect what they loved and assume responsibility for the stewardship of our natural resources.
Hunters like Theodore Roosevelt and George Bird Grinnell rallied fellow sportsmen. They pushed for hunting regulations and established conservation groups to protect habitat.

Basic Principles
Their efforts are the backbone of the North American Wildlife Conservation Model. The model has two basic principles – that our fish and wildlife belong to all Americans, and that they need to be managed in a way that their populations will be sustained forever.
The principles of the North American Wildlife Conservation Model are explained more fully through a set of guidelines known as the Seven Sisters for Conservation.

Sister #1 – Wildlife is Held in the Public Trust
In North American, natural resources and wildlife on public lands are managed by government agencies to ensure that current and future generations always have wildlife and wild places to enjoy.
Sister #2 – Prohibition on Commerce of Dead Wildlife
Commercial hunting and the sale of wildlife is prohibited to ensure the sustainability of wildlife populations.
Sister #3 – Democratic Rule of Law
Hunting and fishing laws are created through the public process where everyone has the opportunity and responsibility to develop systems of wildlife conservation and use.
Sister #4 – Hunting Opportunity for All
Every citizen has an opportunity, under the law, to hunt and fish in the United States and Canada.
Sister #5 – Non-Frivolous Use
In North America, individuals may legally kill certain wild animals under strict guidelines for food and fur, self-defense and property protection. Laws restrict against the casual killing of wildlife merely for antlers, horns or feathers.
Sister #6 – International Resources
Wildlife and fish migrate freely across boundaries between states, provinces and countries. Working together, the United States and Canada jointly coordinate wildlife and habitat management strategies. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 demonstrates this cooperation between countries to protect wildlife. The Act made it illegal to capture or kill migratory birds, except as allowed by specific hunting regulations.
Sister #7 – Scientific Management
Sound science is essential to managing and sustaining North America’s wildlife and habitats.

Wildlife Funding
Hunters also recognized the need for a significant and sustainable source of funding for wildlife stewardship. In 1937, sportsmen successfully lobbied Congress to pass the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act, which put an excise tax on the sale of all sporting arms and ammunition. This was followed in 1950 by the Dingell-Johnson Act, which placed a similar tax on fishing equipment. Today, every time you buy hunting and fishing gear, you contribute to this fund. It generates upwards of 700 million dollars every year. This money has been used far and wide to conserve America’s key wildlife habitat. When you combine funding from the excise tax with the state license and tag sales sportsmen pay each year, it constitutes the majority of funding for wildlife in North America. It’s not just funding for huntable wildlife, but for ALL wildlife.
( Source: Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation)