Editorial Opinion

It is time for non-hunters... especially avid wildlife-watchers to pony up and help pay their own way.

According to a new U.S. Fish & Wildlife Survey, hunters' ranks are shrinking dramatically. The USFWS says that the number of hunters 16 and older declined by 10 percent between 1996 and 2006 - from 14 million to about 12.5 million.

At the same time hunters' ranks are declining, the survey shows that the number of avid "wildlife watchers" has increased by 13 percent. More than 71 million people participated in at least one type of wildlife-watching activity including observing, feeding, or photographing wildlife.

So what's that got to do with anything?

Nearly every state wildlife agency, including the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, is funded primarily by the sale of hunting and fishing licenses. Therefore a decline in participation means a decline in funding... which will ultimately mean a decline in wildlife, for hunters AND for watchers.

Most people believe that those funds only go to benefit the game species that the hunters hunt and the fishermen fish for. No one should deny... that might be the primary motivation for buying those hunting & fishing licenses. But the fact is, the management programs that benefit the game species also benefit the non-game species.

The Hiwassee Wildlife Refuge near Birchwood, Tenn. is just one of many great examples. The primary purpose of Hiwassee to attract waterfowl that might benefit area hunters. However the wildlife refuge also attracts more than 10,000 wintering sandhill cranes that in recent years, have attracted thousands of tourists to Southeast Tennessee.

Absolutely "ZERO" tourist dollars went to benefit Hiwassee Refuge. Every dime provided to manage that incredibly productive and quality wildlife area comes from hunters and fishermen.

That is just one of numerous specific examples of hunters' dollars being used to benefit everyone. It's just not fair that they continue to shoulder the burden alone.

For two decades wildlife managers have struggled to try and find a way to have the non-hunting public help fund wildlife management efforts. TWRA once offered a voluntary "Non Game Permit," that was a dismal failure.

Fifteen years ago there was a formal coalition created called "Teaming With Wildlife." The coalition hoped to pass legislation that would tax items that the non-hunting public might use... items such as binoculars, bird feeders and even boots.

After years of work, that effort evolved and the coalition presented the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) before the U.S. Congress in 2001. The effort passed the House but failed to come before a Senate vote. It now seems to be completely dead in the water.

Congress did pass "The Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program (WCRP)," which authorizes federal funding to state fish and wildlife agencies for wildlife conservation and related recreation and education.

However, while the program is on the books, it is not currently receiving ANY funding.

So the problem which serious wildlife managers first recognized two decades ago continues today.

Understandably most wildlife watchers don't mind letting someone else pay the freight. There is little or no incentive for them to do otherwise.

Here is one simple suggestion... if I want to go hunting on a wildlife management area such as Prentice Cooper on Suck Creek Mountain, or the North Chickamauga WMA in Hixson, I must buy a special permit.

If non-hunters want to go there to hike the trails or watch the wildlife, they don't pay a dime.

I say let's change that... make WMA Permits required for anyone who "uses" a designated Tennessee wildlife management area... not just those of us who hunt there.

It's a small step... but we've got to start somewhere.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Richard,

I read with great interest your Op-Ed regarding a potential source of funding from non-game oriented activities for our State's fish and wildlife programs, as administered by the TWRA. I hunt and my wife is an angler; we are both birdwatchers and frequently visit State Parks, WMA's, and other locations to hike, birdwatch, and bike.

We both purchase hunting and fishing licenses, the revenues TWRA uses to support their various management programs, some of which are non-game oriented.

Is it fair, then, for us to have to pay again for our non-game oriented activities?

Absolutely!

Until folks get off this "me first" kick and actually start contributing to supporting both game and non-game programs, everyone is going to lose. It is not appropriate for hunters and anglers to bear the costs of fish and wildlife management alone - it is way past time for those of us who benefit from non-game interests to help pay our fair share of the management and acquisition costs associated with our enjoyable, recreational activities.

Now, it might be fair to say those persons who have purchased a hunting and fishing license are exempt from the additional fees you mention, and this approach is especially true for folks with sportsman's or life-time licenses.

In conclusion, while I do not disagree with your position, it just seems to me that the solution you offer will fall far short of attaining the funds necessary to effectively continue TWRA's programs. Until Tennesseans either allow TWRA to r ceive a share of the tax revenues (as states with highly effective agencies have done), or come up with another comparable or better funding alternative than tax dollars, we're getting closer and closer to the day when our wildlife agency will have to reduce operations below meaningful levels and shut its doors.

It's time to stop complaining and passing the buck - the longer we wait, the greater the losses and more expensive the recovery.

Thank you for voicing your opinion on what is a serious problem for our wildlife agency, anglers, hunters, and non-game enthusiasts. Keep up the great work.

Monty Halcomb

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

To say that wildlife watchers are "Getting a Free Ride" is a gross misrepresentation of the of the seventy one million Americans who participate in watching wildlife. Eighty two percent of wildlife watchers feed the wildlife they watch, fourteen percent maintain natural areas or plant animal friendly vegetation. This translates to more than sixty million people who spend their own time and money in order to be able to watch the wildlife. The article failed to accurately cite the survey it claimed justified its' conclusions (http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/FHW01.pdf)

Making birdwatchers subsidize deer hunting is the wrong approach. The TWRA has become a good-ole boys club for hunters, meanwhile deer are an unmanaged menace and danger on our roadways. Migratory waterfowl are a nuisance and health hazard on private property. Coyotes are an increasing threat, according to the TWRA "Small pets (cats, rabbits, small dogs) are favorite prey of coyotes" (http://tennessee.gov/twra/coyote.html). The shy and reclusive Wild Turkey is now a frequent visitor to crowded Chattanooga subdivisions. Wild hogs are big nuisance in our national forests and in managing our fisheries the TWRA seems to always be playing catch-up to the changing ecologies of our reservoirs.

I believe the TWRA needs to rethink its' mission before it asks us to bail it out.

Steve Campbell

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I agree with you 100% about wildlife watchers getting a free ride. The crane viewing days at Hiwassee Refuge is a big thorn in every duck hunters side. We pay for the plantings, the cranes eat it up, the ducks get left out and the bird watchers reap the benefits and the TWRA is in there spending our money to sponsor it all.

Barry Derrick

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Where does the $$$ for bluebird "watchable wildlife" license plates go ???

Seems to me I have seen both ducks, geese, and cranes all enjoying a meal at Hiwassee Refuge, side by side...

Perhaps we could learn from the wildlife!

Doug Geren

Note: $30.75 of the $35.00 additional fee (for Bluebird Plates) is deposited in the Watchable Wildlife Endowment Fund to be used exclusively for the preservation of non-game and endangered wildlife species.