Conservation Pays

An op-ed piece by DU CEO Dale Hall, which appeared in the Feb. 22 edition of the Atlanta Journal Constitution

The Congress and Administration began in earnest their jousting over the budget last week when the president submitted his fiscal year 2012 proposal and the House of Representatives debated HR1, the bill to fund the remainder of fiscal year 2011. The debates surrounding these two actions will likely define the approach that will be used to reduce the massive budget deficit that all agree is crippling America's economic recovery. At Ducks Unlimited, we strongly urge budget cutting efforts that actually work to reduce the deficit. We do, however, believe that won't happen through political rhetoric, but rather through legitimate analysis of the costs and benefits of all programs.

I am extremely disappointed with the approach taken in HR1 to eliminate conservation programs, such as the North American Wetland Conservation Act (NAWCA) grants, that have proven successful at every level of analysis, including the amount of money returned to the federal treasury through taxes each year. For every federal dollar invested through this program, $3-$4 dollars of non-federal monies are secured as matching funds. This program alone has protected and conserved more than 25 million acres of essential habitat for migratory birds and also serves hundreds of non-game species. In addition, every year hunters, shooters, anglers and boaters pay special federal taxes that are returned to the federal treasury for specific conservation use. That amounts to about $1 billion each year going directly to the state fish and wildlife agencies to manage and conserve fish and wildlife in each of the states. Further, nearly $2 billion each year is secured through the sale of licenses to hunt and fish. Simply stated, the state fish and wildlife agencies could not exist without these two sources of funding, both voluntarily paid from the private sector.

Hunting and fishing is about an $80 billion per year industry. Billions of dollars per year – a net gain for the federal treasury - are returned through direct taxes paid by those who work in that industry: manufacturers, guides, outfitters, the hospitality sector, retail, and others who support getting hunters and anglers into the field. The father of modern conservation, Aldo Leopold wrote about the importance of the citizen conservationist nearly a century ago. Since that time, the cost of conservation has been freely carried on the shoulders of hunters and anglers. But the federal government needs to do its part.

The government's contribution to conservation each year is less than $5 billion. Yes, a fair amount more is appropriated to carry out laws and regulations to keep things from getting worse, but in the effort to improve and advance conservation, the federal government is not the leader in the funding of those efforts. The states and private conservationists are the leaders. For what federal taxpayers receive in return for their investment, and the small amount the government provides in partnership, these programs should be upheld.

Finding ways to reduce the massive federal deficit simply must be done. But in doing so, let's make sure to support those federal investments that pay for themselves several times over and be critical of those that are truly wasteful. Conservation has always, and continues to, pay for itself. Congress and the Administration should approach the budget challenge with facts and analysis, not a meat cleaver.

Guest opinion: Conservationists must again battle bad, old ideas about public lands

Guest opinion: Conservationists must again battle bad, old ideas about public lands
By JIM POSEWITZ The Billings Gazette | Posted: Saturday, January 15, 2011 12:00 am


It was once said that bad ideas die with the people who hold them. If only that were true. In viewing the opening of the Montana Legislature, it is apparent that the anti-conservation, anti-environment, anti-public land and anti-wildlife philosophy of Montana's most notorious politician is vigorously alive in 2011.
By way of refresher, William A. Clark was our U.S. senator from 1901-1907. At the time, it was a position filled through vote of the state Legislature. For Clark, it was “... a position he had initially purchased with bundles of crisp $100 bills handed out to legislators in monogrammed envelopes — W.A.C. stamped on the fold, $10,000 per vote,” according to Tim Egan in “The Big Burn,” published in 2009. Clark's defense at the time was, “I never bought a man who was not for sale.”
The prize then, as it is now, was privatization and commercialization of natural resources. Clark and conservatives like Idaho's Sen. Weldon Heyburn and “Uncle Joe” Cannon of Illinois championed privatizing all of America. Their opponents believed that in America some natural resources were best shared. Their names are less eroded by time: Gifford Pinchot, George Bird Grinnell, and Theodore Roosevelt.

Montana's public land legacy

In order to protect forests and wildlife, Roosevelt, Pinchot, and Grinnell created the Boone and Crockett Club to introduce the sporting code and conservation to a nation.
In 1891 they lobbied a bill through Congress to allow presidents to reserve unclaimed land as forest reserves. When Roosevelt got to be president he used that authority — with vigor. In response, Clark, Weldon, Cannon and other anti-conservation conservatives attached a “rider” to an appropriations bill to prohibit the president from creating any new forest reserves in six western states — including Montana. In the seven days he had to either sign or veto the bill, Roosevelt added 16 million acres of national forest reserves in the states that Clark and his allies sought to reserve for the corporate robber barons. For Montana, those seven days meant the Big Hole, the Big Belts, the Little Rockies, the Cabinets, the Lewis and Clark and the Custer national forests. A couple of years later Grinnell led the fight to add Glacier Park to the list of protected places.
The battle between exploitation and conservation has persisted through the century that followed, generally with pseudo-conservatives attacking conservation budgets, vilifying those carrying the conservation message, and purging progressive political thought from their own political ranks. We are only one year away from the 100th anniversary of Republican Party bosses denying Theodore Roosevelt the nomination as their party's presidential candidate in 1912. As the years passed we have responded to Reagan's “Sage Brush Rebellion,” Interior Secretary James Watt's effort to “bomb” the Bob Marshall Wilderness with oil exploration, and numerous other attempts to sell off our public lands or diminish their protection.
Welcome to the 2011 Montana legislative session and its promise to: privatize and commercialize our
/read more:

TR the conservationist president

I just finished reading Edmund Morris's The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt. I highly recommend it if you haven't read it yet. I didn't realize that Roosevelt was in Vermont attending a luncheon of the Vermont Fish and Game League on Isle La Motte when president McKinley was shot on Sept 6, 1901. Better known is Roosevelt was on Mt Marcy in the Adirondacks when McKinley died and he became president.
I found the following write up on the Sagamore Hill National Historic site web page that contains an interesting view on Roosevelt's role as a conservationist and how hunting and trophy hunting was compatable with his leadership in this role. Click on the Handbook for Leaders button for more interesting information
More at http://www.nps.gov/sahi

Conservation, Preservation, Taxidermy, Hunting Trophies,
(Dead Animal Parts on display in Sagamore Hill)

TR is often held up as the first conservation president, and indeed his record of conservation and preservation is
almost unmatched. But, how does one explain all the taxidermy on display in his house? It is one of the paradoxes
about this complicated man that needs examination and explanation in order to come to an understanding.

First of all, it is a general rule of examining history, that we cannot use the standards of today to judge the stan-
dards of another time. Today we think of preservation and conservation in very rigid terms. The only thought of
going on a safari in Africa today would be to collect photographs and film footage, but TR was hired by the Smith-
sonian and the American Museum of Natural History to collect samples for display in these museums. In TR's
youth and even during his presidency there was a general feeling that the natural resources were almost inexhausti-
ble.

During TR's youth, there was a huge wave of exploration and investigation of uncharted lands and the emphasis
was on identification and documentation (maps, charts, etc.) and, by extension, the species of flora and fauna that
lived there. The motivation of documentation required the collection of the life forms, so samples were taken for
later classification. Plant samples were collected, pressed and dried, and animal species were killed and preserved
in various ways for later cataloging and documentation.

TR had come from a well-to-do family who lived in bustling Manhattan. The earliest mention of his fascination
of wildlife forms was after he visited a market where a dead seal (yes, seals used to live in the waters surrounding
New York City) was displayed. The sight of this dead seal prompted a life-long curiosity, fascination with and
study of natural history fauna life forms. Indeed he began collecting specimens as a youth which he displayed in a
closet in his boyhood home and called the "Roosevelt Museum." We are not sure if this coincided with his father's
founding of the American Museum of Natural History.

But TR, a sickly child troubled by asthma, who often suffered greatly as a result of its effects, was granted two
rather unusual wishes as a youth: Boxing lessons (as a form of exercise suggested by his father to help build up his
strength); and taxidermy lessons. TR began his collection, classification and display of taxidermy samples early in
his life, and this collection continued throughout his life. Many of these (75 objects) are displayed at Sagamore
Hill in various forms: Rugs, trophy mounts, three are fashioned into decorative or "useful" objects (elephant tusks,
an elephant foot as waste receptacle and rhino foot as an ink well).

In addition it was very much the fashion to display and decorate with animal trophies. The curiosity that drove the
exploration of strange lands was tangibly shown by using these trophies as decorative objects, and they were very
much status symbols. In the same way we join certain organization or clubs, drive particular makes and models of
cars, and wear certain shoes or garments, these items were a way of stating to all a certain status level.

For further thought:

What are the status symbols of today, --what watches, shoes, jackets, cars or trips to far-off lands do we regard as
marks of status?

How about collections?

Does anyone collect sea shells? Do people realize that a shell is actually a dead animal part, that the shell was the
outer protective covering of an animal.?

Note: Shells are a good way to bring collecting animal trophies into discussion. There are few people that have
the same reaction to a shell collection as to animal trophies, yet for all of them the animal had to die to permit dis-
play of the item, whether head, skin antlers or shell. While shells may be collected at the shore where the animals
presumably have died of natural causes, most serious collections result from collecting the live animal, so that the
shell or shells are pristine and not buffed by the waves.

But how about leather shoes? How about fur coats? Animals die for these common items in our life today.

Conservation and preservation and TR

TR is often regarded as the first "conservation president" because he saw and began actions to conserve natural
resources and preserve sites of archaeological significance, particularly in the Southwest.

Conservation is the term usually used for the act of preserving and saving natural resources, (forests, wildlife-
preserves, lands, etc.). America had gone through a period of growth and development during which the use of
these natural reserves, originally seen as inexhaustible, began to become depleted. The move to limit this usage
and development was not at all popular because merchant developers saw this activity as a limitation of their in-
come-producing ability. Forestry and logging for example, especially in the Northwest, threatened the destruction
of the vast reserves of trees that had taken centuries to develop. The naturalists John Muir and Gifford Pinchot,
though their individual goals differed considerably, were among those who encouraged Roosevelt to develop his
conservation ethic as they saw these reserves being depleted. In addition to the conservation efforts of TR¸ the
development of the science of forestry by Pinchot (who endowed a Chair at Yale), and the establishment the Sierra
Club, (Muir) and the Boone and Crockett Club were direct outgrowths of this conservation effort.

Further investigation:
Those wishing to investigate this area further may wish to look up the following items: Gifford Pinchot; US For-
estry Service; John Muir; Sierra Club; Boone and Crockett Club

Profile of a responsible hunter

We've all seen slob hunters - similar to the description of pornography by one of our Supreme Court Justices - "you know it when you see it". That is one extreme, but what criteria needs to be met to be a responsible hunter? We all think we are one, but are we?

Here is my opinion of the criteria that needs to be met:

1) Safe - bottom line is you must follow the safety rules for gun handling and hunting. If you endanger yourself, others or property you are not a responsible hunter.

2) Lawful - Game laws can be complicated and tempting to bend or break. But they have a vital purpose and must be followed to the letter and spirit.

3) Clean Kill - Responsible hunters only shoot at game they know they can kill, not to see if they can hit it. Stuff happens, but we do everything we can to make one-shot kills. Excuses like I didn't have time to sight in, or practice or check my pattern don't make it. Taking shots byond your ability to hit the vital area, moving shots if you are proficient at them and high risk angle shots are other no-no's. Among the worst are the "bowhunters" who brag about sticking deer - ahhhh - a great way to lose hunting.

4) Full Utilization - If you kill it; you (or someone else) eat it. If you don't like mergansers and don't know anyone who does - don't shoot them. For game like moose, it takes planning ahead to be sure you can get it out of the woods and cool it down before it spoils, not as easy as you might think. The exception to this rule is damage shooting. But that is different than hunting and I still think the critter should be used if at all possible, even if it is just cleaning the coyote skull for the local Boy Scout troop.

5) Practice Fair Chase - If it is a 100% guaranteed kill or the animal can't get away, it is not an ethical hunt. The outcome of the hunt must be in doubt up to the instant the trigger is pulled. Anything else is just shooting or slaughtering. Within this definition is lots of room and it will vary between hunters and even for the same hunter at different times of their lives.

There is inherent conflict between fair chase and clean kill. If you erect to high a barrier to harvest, say using a homemade stick bow, you could without a lot of discipline, set your self up for wounding animals because your skill level is not high enough to be successful under reasonable conditions. More on fair chase and hunter preference in future posts!

6) Support Conservation – This applies primarily to more experienced hunters. I don’t think you can call yourself a responsible hunter unless you are actively supporting wildlife conservation beyond buying licenses and paying tax on equipment and ammo. We need to be in the arena supporting scientific management and environmentally sound policies both politically, physically and monetarily.

I also don’t think paying dues to a hunting club or conservation organization is enough. It is a great start but not enough. We need to be actively engaged with that club, doing habitat work on the ground and making those phone calls to legislators. It also means building support for conservation and hunting, like taking a kid hunting and showing the neighbor kids how to read sign.

As you can see, I think there is more to being a responsible hunter than what happens at the instant you touch the trigger. All of this together is what makes hunting such an engaging and ever new and challenging activity.

I’d love to hear your thoughts ….