The Real Threat to Conservation

The Real Threat to Conservation - Originally Printed in Wing & Clay Life - Journal 2

The goals and objectives of conservation have many existential threats which take several different forms. Some may think that poachers and polluters are the primary threat to conservation efforts around the country and the world. While these individuals certainly pose a threat, the most significant threat is two-fold. It comes from litigation and political attacks on the very funding mechanism for these conservation efforts.

Frivolous Litigation

Trained biologists, arborists, foresters, and scientists have planned science-based approaches to conservation which would provide demonstrable benefit to both fauna and flora. In so many cases, special interest groups, with their singularly focused and obstructionist mindset, file lawsuits which not only slow action on conservation plans, but they also drain vital funding from agencies that would otherwise be utilized for conservation programs.

Don’t misunderstand, this is no way an indictment of our legal system or some advocacy for a reduction in the ability for individuals or organizations, with standing, to pursue litigation seeking relief for legitimate reasons. The problem arises when groups are simply allowed to shop for activist judges and pursue legal action for ideological reasons, while ignoring solid science. These are not actions of serious people; they are actions of petulant children.

Wolf Scat

In the last edition we discussed the travesty that is unfolding in Indiana as a result of lawsuits, and its impact on good forest management. These actions are not limited to tree cutting. For example, grey wolves began a natural recovery in Michigan’s upper peninsula after having been nearly extirpated many years earlier. In 2013 the Michigan Department of Natural Resources along with the Natural Resources Commission authorized a limited wolf hunt with 43 tags available. When the hunt concluded, there had been 23 grey wolves harvested throughout the season. Both the hunt itself and the number of tags allocated were determined by the biologists, based on a solid plan of wildlife management. Groups from outside the state with activist dollars came into the state and successfully defeated two referendums that would have named the grey wolf as a game species and relegated their management to the Natural Resources Commission (these referendums were defeated primarily by voters who live 300 miles from the nearest wolf in the state).

Fortunately, these referendums were rendered moot by legislative action that put the management in the hands of the NRC. Unfortunately, once again, an outside group shopped for a judge and found one in California, who decided he knew better from 2,000 miles away than the biologists on the ground in Michigan. His order arbitrarily and unilaterally took the ability for Michigan biologists to manage wolves out of state control. More importantly, the litigation itself costs significant amounts of money that could otherwise be spent funding conservation efforts. While these frivolous, ideological, and anti-scientific lawsuits are permitted to continue, instead of being thrown out for lack of standing, conservation suffers.

Pittman-Robertson

For those that do not know what the Pittman-Robertson Act is, you need to familiarize yourself with it. This law provides for an excise tax levied on various products used for hunting and shooting, revenue which is then allocated entirely for wildlife restoration, hunter education and safety programs and state conservation grants. This program was the genius idea of Senator Key Pittman and Congressman Absalom Robertson and was passed into law in 1937. The brilliance of the program is that a stable funding mechanism exists in perpetuity to facilitate continued improvements in habitat and wildlife restoration efforts…as long as firearms, pistols and archery equipment are being purchased by consumers. Which is where we find the danger of this program’s sustainability…politics.

While public sentiment has been steady and somewhat increasing in support of individual ownership and use of firearms, this has not stopped knee-jerk reactionary political sycophants from attacking various aspects of the lifestyle which purchases these products, subsequently funding conservation. From the completely insane attack on the first, second, fourth, ninth and fourteenth amendments to the US Constitution by California’s AB 2571, to the never-ending litany of prohibitive regulation on the firearms industry by illogical politicians in some states, the potential for decreasing participation in the various legal pursuits which fund Pittman-Robertson is a real concern for conservation.

The beauty of the North American model of conservation is the societal value created by the protection and management of a given animal, as opposed to its value as a consumable commodity without attention to management. This model only works when participation is stable, and the societal perception of that value exists. This may take many forms, whether it be the deer hunter who participates in the sport, or the sport shooter who lives the shooting lifestyle purchasing larger quantities of ammunition than most, in pursuit of their sport. An impact on any of those sectors will have a wide-ranging effect on the system as a whole.

Pittman-Roberston Repeal Attempt

They say, “firearms have two enemies, rust, and politicians.” I would add conservation to that. Several pieces of legislation have popped up lately but two are quite detrimental to conservation. Congressman Andrew Clyde of Georgia decided that it would be a good idea to repeal the Pittman-Robertson Act, based on the concept that we should not be taxed on our inalienable rights. While I agree with the sentiment it seems to be a bridge too far, employing a chainsaw when a pocketknife would suffice. Further, a recent poll of shooters found that more than 80 percent supported the continued employment of Pittman-Robertson as a methodology to fund conservation, whether those individuals participated in hunting or not.

Subtitle: Nebraska Goat-Rope

The next bit of potential action you folks in Nebraska may want to keep an eye on is the potential pilfering of the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission Fund, supported by State Senator Steve Erdman. It appears the governor is moving forward with his promise to reduce property tax and the legislature, as opposed to finding savings within their bloated budget, are simply searching for other pots from which to pull from, so the spending status quo remains. This fund is fed by hunting and fishing license fees and is increased by matched dollars from the federal government. A transfer of these dollars would directly impact conservation and the outdoor recreation it supports in Nebraska.

Get involved, write letters, send emails, make phone calls, and attend these commission and legislative meetings where this detrimental, short-sighted action is being considered. There is no substitute for motivated and informed stewardship of our precious natural resources. They are counting on us.