Helen Mcginnis at COUGAR REWILDING shared Ben Shrader's commentary on THE NORTH AMERICAN WILDLIFE CONSERVATION MODEL...........We have been discussing its pros and cons of this prevailing Wildlife conservation policy at the State level and how it is flawed in its approach to carnivore management................Ben, who sits on the COUGAR REWILDING board of directors tells it like it is in his revealing article

FEDERAL EXCISE TAXES ON HUNTING AND COUGAR RESTORATION

By Ben Shrader**

Only a few decades ago, wildlife's survival was very much in doubt. The early settlers had encountered a spectacular abundance of wildlife. But, in their zeal to conquer an untamed continent, they squandered that legacy, wiping out some species and reducing others to a pitiful remnant of their original numbers.

The North American Model led to the banning of market hunting of waterfowl.  US Fish & Wildlife photo.

But as early as the 1860s, hunters and anglers were becoming alarmed at the disappearance of wildlife.  Over the next 90 years, these concerns in the United States and Canada coalesced into the North American Wildlife Conservation Model.  The model has two basic tenets: that fish and wildlife are reserved for the non-commercial use of hunters and anglers, and that these resources are to be sustained at optimal levels forever.²⁸

The Model rests on seven pillars—the Seven Sisters for Conservation:

(1) Public trust—wildlife belongs to the public.

(2) Prohibitions on commerce in wildlife.

(3) Democratic rule of law.  Every citizen has the right to participate in systems of wildlife conservation and use.

(4) Hunting opportunity for all.

(5) Non-frivolous use.

(6) Wildlife is an international resource.

(7) Scientific management.

But how to fund these goals?  The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act provided the solution. Better known as the Pittman-Robertson (P-R) Act after its principal sponsors, Senator Key Pittman of Nevada and Representative A. Willis Robertson of Virginia, the measure was signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on September 2, 1937.²⁹

P-R provides federal aid to the states and US territories for management and restoration of wildlife with a wildlife restoration fund in the U.S. Treasury. The fund consists of all revenues accruing each fiscal year from 10% excise taxes imposed on certain types of sporting goods, including most types of firearms, ammunition, and bows and arrows. The aid supports a variety of projects, including acquisition and improvement of wildlife habitat as well as research on wildlife management.  P-R pays for up to 75 percent of wildlife project costs, with the states putting up at least 25 percent. The assurance of a steady source of earmarked funds has enabled the program's administrators, both state and federal, to plan projects that take years to complete.  Short-term strategies seldom come up with lasting solutions where living creatures are involved.

To be eligible for P-R funds for wildlife restoration projects, a state must assent to the provisions of the Act and have laws governing the conservation of wildlife. Additionally, a state must have a law prohibiting the diversion of license fees paid by hunters for any purpose other than the administration of the state's fish and game department. All wildlife-restoration projects aided under the Act must be agreed upon by the US Secretary of the Interior and the fish and game department of the state where the project is located.

The state must submit to the Secretary either a comprehensive fish and wildlife resource management plan or a detailed description of proposed restoration projects. The plans must insure the perpetuation of wildlife resources for economic, scientific and recreational purposes. They must be for at least five years and must be based on long-range projections regarding the desires and needs of the public. Upon approval by the Secretary of a state's plan or wildlife restoration project, the state may use the federal funds apportioned under the Act to finance up to 75 percent of the costs of the plan or project.

The Act authorizes funds to be appropriated until expended. Any amount apportioned to a state that is unspent or un-obligated may be used by the Secretary to carry out the provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act.  One-half of the revenues accruing to the fund each fiscal year from taxes imposed on pistols, revolvers, bows and arrows must be apportioned among the states based on population. No state, however, may be provided more than three percent or less than one percent of such revenues, and Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands must each be apportioned one-sixth of one percent.³⁰

The maintenance of wildlife restoration projects established under the Act is the duty of the states. Apportioned funds may be used by the states for management of wildlife areas and resources, but not for law enforcement or public relations. States may use funds apportioned on the basis of population to pay up to 75 percent of the costs of a hunter safety program, and the construction and operation of public target ranges.3⁰ 

 There are other conditions to this somewhat complicated formula on how funding shall be distributed that you may find at referenced sites.
In the more than 70 years since P-R began, over $2 billion in federal excise taxes has been matched by more than $500 million in state funds (chiefly from hunting license fees) for wildlife restoration. Benefits to the economy have been equally impressive. National surveys show that hunters now spend some $10 billion every year on equipment and trips. Non-hunting nature lovers spend even larger sums to enjoy wildlife, on travel and on items that range from bird food to binoculars, from special footwear to camera equipment. Regions famous for their wildlife have directly benefited from this spending, but so have sporting goods and outdoor equipment manufacturers, distributors and dealers. Thousands of jobs have been created.
2⁹  

These funds can be seen in the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries 2010 Budget revenue.  They show $12.8 M (26% of the $50.0 M total budget) revenue from federal sources of which about one half came from P-R.  Looking a bit deeper on the expenditure side, only $3.6 M (7%) is being spent on biodiversity.  Species or beneficiaries named in restoration efforts are: Shad $236,400, Wetlands $157,000, Riparian and In-Stream habitat $133,700, Wildlife Management Areas $69,500, Wild Turkey $64,700, and Quail $ 57,700.  Predator is only mentioned in the VA budget under fisheries management.  Coyote, although designated a nuisance species in VA, is only mentioned in the budget under "Furbearer Investigations." 

It is all too easy for us to drool at the vast amount of funds generated by P-R and imagine what could be done for restoration of cougars in the East with some of those funds.  It is even easier to be critical of game departments for not including anything in their budgets for the big cats.  Not to be overlooked, though, is the prerequisite that the long-term desires and needs of the public would have to be justified to use P-R funds for cougar restoration.  Understanding this, we can begin to identify the challenges such as the attitudes of the general public, hunter attitudes, and troublesome myths about cougars that must be addressed before we can expect to benefit cougars with these funds or ask game departments to begin restorations.

People who live where cougars exist are usually understanding and knowledgeable about their behavior, coexisting for the most part without incident.  Public fear and myths about cougars stem from ignorance and misunderstanding.  Fear sells in media accounts and that exerts mythical impressions on the public that cougars are dangerous because someone had a confrontation, no matter how rare or unlikely such is to happen.  Hunters harbor and repeat myths that cougars already exist in the East and that game departments cover up and ignore their existence.  As such myths are repeated they become believed. 

  This phenomenon, known as source amnesia, can also lead people to forget the source of a statement and any qualifiers that suggested it untrue. Even when a lie is presented with a disclaimer, people often later remember it as true.31 

Also problematic to the goal of restoring cougars to the East is the deep divide between hunters and anti hunters who rant that all hunting is wrong.  It alienates hunters from being involved in the process and causes them to be defensive with equally repulsive attitudes and rhetoric.  Hunters are quick to claim ownership of P-R funds and take credit for all the good things they have done for wildlife restoration, and rightfully so. But the funds are not just for hunters.  The funds are public funds for restoration of wildlife whether for hunting or not.  Anti hunters need to acknowledge and understand what hunters have done for wildlife management. If they just studied what hunting is really about, some of the rhetoric would abate.

  Hunters have a lot of adjustment to do also as they slide deeper into minority status.  In Virginia only 4%32 of the population are licensed hunters.  Licenses fees pay 40% ($20 M) of the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries budget.  All must realize that the vast majority of the public is non-hunters who will have the most influence in wildlife management decisions in the future.

In searching for hunting organizations that support predators, none were found favoring wolves.  Rather than working to promote ecosystem recovery and biodiversity gains that wolf reintroductions have generated, hunting groups are lobbying hard to reduce the packs throughout the Northern Rockies. Citing recent skirmishes over wolves in the West, there is a risk that the federal courts will divest management of predators from state game departments and hunters. An especially troubling symptom is state game departments relying on flawed scientific data (see South Dakota's revised mountain lion management plan) and reacting to a relatively few misinformed, but highly vocal hunting organizations.  Hunters and environmentalists need each other to work on common goals, the major one being education of both.

The following two hunting organizations highlight attributes that benefit all outdoor enthusiasts, not just hunters: Quality Deer Management Association (QDMA) and International Hunter Education Association (IHEA).  QDMA is science oriented; an article in their magazine about coyotes demonstrates the professionalism of the organization and their acceptance of scientific facts pertaining to predators.  Membership is encouraged for all outdoorsmen.  Please read their coyote article "QDM and Coyotes."³³  Many other articles confirm that they are keenly aware of biodiversity and the need for promoting balance and quality of deer by controlling overpopulation.

Hunter Submitting To Attitude Adjustment

Most states now require new hunters to get a hunter education certificate by completing a 2-day hunter education course as a prerequisite to getting a hunting license.  IHEA offers a portion of the classes online.  This is a comprehensive course, which covers more topics than hunting, including wildlife habitat, distribution, ethics, etc.³⁴   These online tutorials and quizzes are recommended for everyone.  Be assured that if you take all of the sections, whether you are anti hunter, non-hunter or hunter, you will gain a higher respect for hunters and a better understanding of hunting. Older experienced hunters can also benefit even
though they were not required to take hunter education or had it a number of years ago. Although the courses are comprehensive, they are works in progress, changing as new information becomes available.  Everyone needs EDUCATION to keep abreast of wildlife funding, laws, ethics, and biodiversity.  Because all new hunters have to take this course, it will shape future hunter attitudes, public attitudes and define the duties of wildlife departments. 

**Ben Shrader is a private practicing civil engineer/land surveyor/soil scientist and a life long outdoor enthusiast.  He volunteers for Smithsonian Institution, doing a trail camera predator survey along the Appalachian Trail.  Ben also volunteers for the Virginia Hunter Education Association and is active in Bedford Outdoor Sportsman Association.  He is a member of the Cougar Rewilding Foundation's Board of Directors.

Editor's Note: Further questions need to be addressed.  How is wildlife defined?  Are all native vertebrates considered wildlife?  If state wildlife agencies and the commissions that make management decisions are predominantly hunters and, in the West, ranchers, is the will of the general public being carried out?  Most wildlife species benefit from programs for game species, but not all.  How are state nongame programs funded?  I hope these questions will be considered in a future issue of this newsletter.