Wolves are rad.

[The Reverend Floater]

Lets just take it at face value that hunters and rural communities are large stakeholders in wildlife and by extension land management, particularly game species and land management actions that affect those species.

-------------

I'm struggling with the idea that because hunters pay for conservation via fees and taxes that they somehow get a bigger say in the management of a public trust. Particularly since it's not clear to me that they are actually the biggest contributors to wildlife conservation outside of state wildlife management agencies where it is obvious that fees and Pittman Robertson federal contributions make up the majority of the state agency budgets.

Can anyone point to a comprehensive economic study that looks at the totality of wildlife conservation dollars?

Some counterfactuals (but not comprehensive, thus the inquiry about a study) to the hunters are the largest funders of wildlife conservation idea:

Nature Conservancy expended ~$900,000,000 in 2022 and ~600,000,000 in 2021 on conservation program expenses and conservation land and easements. It looks like RMEF's 2020 revenue was ~72,000,000. Probably not all of the NC's expenses are US related since they are a international organization.

If your utility buys power from BPA you are paying into BPA's ~$200,000,000/year habitat restoration program (direct expenditures, their total fish and wildlife costs were like ~$600,000,000 in 2020). Maybe this is counterbalanced by the damage caused by the dams..

What's the opportunity cost value to the General Fund of the Northwest Forest Plan's reduction in timber harvest to conserve the Spotted Owl? By extension, what is the cost to the general taxpayer of the MBTA, ESA and NEPA which are certainly wildlife conservation programs and have significant expense to operate. What about all of the additional costs to taxpayers from these laws via things like in-water work periods, construction requirements, aquatic animal organism passage replacements conversions, wildlife overpasses (Cervidae in ID being a ~$3 million Federal Land Access Program funded project), highway wildlife exclusion fencing, in the PNW there is mandated stormwater treatment facilities on new impervious surface with requirements from NOAA/ESA, etc, etc, etc.

How much of Pittman-Robertson is funded by hunters versus just general firearm, archery and handgun sales to non-hunters (I've seen estimates as low as 25% of gun and ammo sales are hunting related)? Even if you assume 100% are hunters, roughly 80% is wildlife related with the remainder going to hunter ed, right? 2023 was reportedly a record year where the program raised $1.3 billion. I looks like the program has raised ~$25 billion over it's life. (Side eyes Nature Conservancy budget....)

If you are going to lump in "access" to the equation, then you should probably take a look a the massive amount of money spent every year spent via the Federal Lands Access Program and the Federal Lands Transportation Program and ERFO, which at least some percentage of could be credited towards similar access (these programs build and maintain trailhead access, river/reservoir access points, rebuild or maintain road access as well as more conventional transportation programs).



And since someone will bring it up, yes, I'm one of those hunters and fisherman buying gear, licenses and tags.

Nobody is saying that: is

A). Hunters should have more of a say than anyone else because they hunt
B). Hunters fund conservation thus have more say.

But.... consider the possibility that sportsmen/women care more for our ecosystems than many of the folks casting votes as evidence by financial contribution to conservation groups; hunters may not be solely motivated by prey populations; AND hunters have a unique perspective from wolf encounters that lends additional context.

Also, your argument somewhat rests on an assumption that TNC isn't also funded by sportsmen, when in fact, sportsmen/women like me make up a large portion of their donor base.

Sent from my SM-S918U1 using Tapatalk

[The Reverend Floater]

I'm sorry - these are my Truths >>

a quota is not a mandate.
it is nice that "only 248 wolves" were killed by "harvest" ( I have a special place for the person who applied that word. killing animals is not "harvest" - it is killing ( Again, My Truths ) .
wolves are not dogs, they are not even "wild dogs"; wolves are wolves.
" I don't hate dirty stinky mangy wild dogs that kill as much for sport as for food... " - My truth (?) This same sentence, same words, can be applied to most people who 'hunt' wolves
( Question. to what use do you put the wolf you kill ? food ? clothing? shelter? I doubt it. )

I do not consider wolves to be "apex hunters" - Man is the apex hunter ( My Truth. But I am Not a wildlife biologist, and I am a Bad politician, so our use of that term will vary. again, my Truth. )
I agree that determining this issue by a state-wide vote is a bad idea. And this is the system we have and we have no one to blame but ourselves and our elected representatives for allowing it. ( my Truth ) ;

given the chance, the wolf will survive in the 21st century, unless we prey on them as we did in the nineteenth century and early twentieth century.
There will be "losses" to wolves, that is part of the cycle of life.

Wisconsin's wolf population has grown over the last thirty years.
A recent hunt, mandated by legislation and court decision led to the killing of approximately 130% of the quota.
( Disease is always a threat to a population of hundreds )
Why was the killing of wolves necessary ?
predation -no ; over-popultation - I never saw evidence of it - no ;
wolves were killed Because people wanted to kill wolves.
My truths.

I love you guys, and this is my community. but I have great doubts about our species...

peace, my friends. skiJ

My truth: Sweet blog, almost entirely opinion and/or anecdotal. This is the problem.

Sent from my SM-S918U1 using Tapatalk

[oldnew_guy]

It’s not just licensing, money collected under Pitman-Robertson dwarfs all other sources. In 2022 over a billion dollars was given out to states and territories for wildlife conservation.

Nobody is saying that: is

A). Hunters should have more of a say than anyone else because they hunt
B). Hunters fund conservation thus have more say.

But.... consider the possibility that sportsmen/women care more for our ecosystems than many of the folks casting votes as evidence by financial contribution to conservation groups; hunters may not be solely motivated by prey populations; AND hunters have a unique perspective from wolf encounters that lends additional context.

Also, your argument somewhat rests on an assumption that TNC isn't also funded by sportsmen, when in fact, sportsmen/women like me make up a large portion of their donor base.

Sent from my SM-S918U1 using Tapatalk

So why is the financial contribution of hunters even part of this conversation? It seems to come up every time this issue gets discussed to lend some sort of credibility or authority on this topic.

I'm probably coming off as combative or antihunter here, which isn't my aim. TNC, Wilderness Society, RMEF, doesn't matter, these were just handy examples.

My point is that people make the claim that hunter conservation dollars dwarf all other sources of wildlife conservation dollars. If that's true it should be easy to find the numbers (hunter contributions/total conservation dollars, direct versus indirect, etc) and show the assumptions and the results. Like, it's really pretty simple, yet no one can show the numbers for even a single year, which makes me think it's a bullshit talking point to elevate one group in the conversation over another group. But I don't know if that is true either, thus the inquiry to see if anyone was aware of an actual analysis.

To be honest, knowing your background and connections in the hunter world I was hoping you would say "oh yeah, so and so did a study years ago: ___________".

[The Reverend Floater]

So why is the financial contribution of hunters even part of this conversation? It seems to come up every time this issue gets discussed to lend some sort of credibility or authority on this topic.

I'm probably coming off as combative or antihunter here, which isn't my aim. TNC, Wilderness Society, RMEF, doesn't matter, these were just handy examples.

My point is that people make the claim that hunter conservation dollars dwarf all other sources of wildlife conservation dollars. If that's true it should be easy to find the numbers (hunter contributions/total conservation dollars, direct versus indirect, etc) and show the assumptions and the results. Like, it's really pretty simple, yet no one can show the numbers for even a single year, which makes me think it's a bullshit talking point to elevate one group in the conversation over another group. But I don't know if that is true either, thus the inquiry to see if anyone was aware of an actual analysis.

To be honest, knowing your background and connections in the hunter world I was hoping you would say "oh yeah, so and so did a study years ago: ___________".

If I could access my old work stuff, I've seen those very numbers a hundred times and would happily share them. Not sure why it's so unbelievable...what other user group covers the entire country and is utterly dependent on habitat, access and bio management? Most people support all of the above as an idea, but that's a far cry from donating money.

The financial contribution is a defacto part of this thread because ignorant knee jerk bros antagonize hunters as cold blooded killers who don't give a shit about "the animals." So inevitably, someone references the empirical evidence to the contrary. I mean, scroll up to SkiJ's truth poem.

Sent from my SM-S918U1 using Tapatalk

[skiJ]

Nobody is saying that: is

A). Hunters should have more of a say than anyone else because they hunt
B). Hunters fund conservation thus have more say.

But.... consider the possibility that sportsmen/women care more for our ecosystems than many of the folks casting votes as evidence by financial contribution to conservation groups; hunters may not be solely motivated by prey populations; AND hunters have a unique perspective from wolf encounters that lends additional context.

Also, your argument somewhat rests on an assumption that TNC isn't also funded by sportsmen, when in fact, sportsmen/women like me make up a large portion of their donor base.

Sent from my SM-S918U1 using Tapatalk

' pot, meet kettle '

' figures don't lie, liars figure '

If the problem is the opinions and "anecdotal" information of others, "possibility" and '(alleged) assumption' have no place in the discussion.

but keep passing your "possibilities" and 'assumptions' as claims of 'fact.'

This is also the problem.

the sportsperson moniker passed for me almost thirty years ago -
sportsman =/= Conservation
( sportsman does not equal Conservation ) ;

around here, the artists are more likely to support Conservation, while the hunters and 'sportsman' goes on another trip to kill more ( animals and birds. ( and fish ))
And yet, this region also has great hunters and fishers, who do more Good to promote Nature in a year, than I will do in my lifetime
( Thank you, Mark ) .

we became a society that focuses on the argument, not compromise, many years ago ;

I want no part of this argument, nor arguments like this ;

I am tired of the pseudo-intellectual claims defending killing for 'sport'
( go hit a deer with your (vehicle), (sportsman) )

This is the problem, too. skiJ

[lifelinksplit]

I've said it before but when I was a young naive student at MSU I had the experience of sitting in on a lot of "community" meetings about wolf/livestock interaction all over Montana. I quite enjoy seeing wolves. Despite what side you fall on, I can't help but be very suspect of many organizations including RMEF, DU, etc. The very numbers yall have provided have been because of large, very rich donors, who have shown that they want to provide the exact opposite of public access. Specifically DU sided with wealthy landowners in very important river access lawsuits challenging MT stream access laws. Donate to PLWA to help keep Montana stream access laws in place.


Also I will be following CO in regards to this vote.

Sent from my SM-S236DL using Tapatalk

[skiJ]

If I could access my old work stuff, I've seen those very numbers a hundred times and would happily share them. Not sure why it's so unbelievable...what other user group covers the entire country and is utterly dependent on habitat, access and bio management? Most people support all of the above as an idea, but that's a far cry from donating money.

The financial contribution is a defacto part of this thread because ignorant knee jerk bros antagonize hunters as cold blooded killers who don't give a shit about "the animals." So inevitably, someone references the empirical evidence to the contrary. I mean, scroll up to SkiJ's truth poem.

Sent from my SM-S918U1 using Tapatalk

I've said it before but when I was a young naive student at MSU I had the experience of sitting in on a lot of "community" meetings about wolf/livestock interaction all over Montana. I quite enjoy seeing wolves. Despite what side you fall on, I can't help but be very suspect of many organizations including RMEF, DU, etc. The very numbers yall have provided have been because of large, very rich donors, who have shown that they want to provide the exact opposite of public access. Specifically DU sided with wealthy landowners in very important river access lawsuits challenging MT stream access laws. Donate to PLWA to help keep Montana stream access laws in place.


Also I will be following CO in regards to this vote.

Sent from my SM-S236DL using Tapatalk

interestingly, I cited your earlier post because I agreed with you - that a State-wide vote is a poor tool for management.
But this is what our elected government has become ;

it appears that gets me classified as a 'knee-jerk ignorant "bros" antagonizing hunters' to (it appears to me) a former bureaucrat.

a couple more of my truths -
I (ain't) in Montana. and I (ain't) trying to tell anyone in Colorado what to do about wildlife.
around here ( I claim northern Wisconsin ), hunting is a dying art replaced by shooters on four-wheelers baiting animals to their 'stand'
( when I expressed my concern to someone I respected, Bill comment was, 'without bait, he would not see any (game. in this case, White-tailed deer ) ' )

so we resort to name-calling >> 'knee-jerk ignorant 'bro" and 'former bureaucrat' -
I'll bet a buck ( one dollar ) which is more accurate.

" Sweet blog" - when X ( formerly Twitter ) is used to promote and present Presidents' proposals, This is the world we live in -
Similarly, I am old enough and ignorant enough to believe elected politicians and bureaucrats have Responsibility to All ( We the people... )
( it has probably Not been that way,,, ever. )

I appreciate the comment about the very rich donors trying to block public access.
such is my experience.
But it's just my anecdotal opinion, so let's disregard forty years of experience for someone writing a bigger check.

wolves will survive unless we prey on them as we did in the past...

I will close - and step Out of this discussion with a euphemism -
' go jump in the lake '

Happy holidays and
merry Christmas...

skiJ
' knee jerk ignorant 'bro"
😄😄😄🙄

[MiddleOfNight]

i haven't traced the history (i should), it's possible attempts were made to pass legislation during session, but failed - i could see that.
feeling under-represented, someone made a ballot initiative happen. it's actually pretty doable.

it's one issue of many - rurals influenced by majority votes from the big 10.

i hope we get updates about how the project goes. how many pups they have, how far they run, if they tie in with naturals from wyoming, all the things. they've got pretty rad collars sending out info, i'll be curious.

Wild land management is complicated. Mostly because it really isn’t wildland management as long as modern civilization (since agriculture technology anyways) continues its expansions into the land base. At best it is a compromise with our future. At worst … well we are starting to realize just how fucked me might be in a very short time.

that was nicely put.

[teleee]

I will close - and step Out of this discussion

Thank fucking god!!


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[oldnew_guy]

Not sure why it's so unbelievable.
Sent from my SM-S918U1 using Tapatalk

Simple, it has nothing to do with believing, its that no one has ever backed up the numbers and that makes my built in skeptic bullshit meter go off.

I've also worked for enough fed, state and non-profit organizations with projects that at least have a wildlife conservation/habitat restoration component that it sure looks to me like those investments aren't being considered in whatever total dollar amount people are using for their divisor.

It's also a little bit the shifting goal posts. Is it license, fees and taxes? Is it donations? Is it in-kind work? All of it combined? There are some easily google'd results countering the hunters are the biggest narrative that makes some frankly ridiculous assumptions about what counts that also peg the BS meter.


No doubt hunters are passionate about wildlife management and many are active with their time and money.

[Conundrum]

I don’t look at other states but Idaho Fish and Game’s budget is funded about 20% from Pittman Robertson and Dingell Johnson and another 45% from license and permit sales. So about 65% of the agency responsible for wildlife management comes directly from hunters and anglers.

https://legislature.idaho.gov/wp-con...pdf?1614533251

Not saying that should give those user groups a greater say on topics such as wolf reintroduction but I am saying that if one is really curious, finding these numbers is fairly simple and when having these types of conversations, looking at the numbers is helpful.

[Conundrum]

And imagine the resources for conservation if other outdoor rec user groups gave 11% of the cost of their gear. As opposed to those manufacturers and groups adamantly fighting against any such sort of tax yet still being very interested in the type of wildlife roaming the wilds.

[schuss]

I'd also add that plenty of hunters cause more trouble than they fix as my dad spent most of my childhood ripping down tree stands, replacing trespassing signs that had been ripped down and cleaning up beer cans from shitheads.
It's nice to paint them as conservationists, but you always heard the grumbling on the cost of duck stamps and whining when people blocked off their illegally made forest access.

[Conundrum]

Replace hunter with people. There are shitheads from every group of people out in the woods.

[oldnew_guy]

I don’t look at other states but Idaho Fish and Game’s budget is funded about 20% from Pittman Robertson and Dingell Johnson and another 45% from license and permit sales. So about 65% of the agency responsible for wildlife management comes directly from hunters and anglers.

https://legislature.idaho.gov/wp-con...pdf?1614533251

Not saying that should give those user groups a greater say on topics such as wolf reintroduction but I am saying that if one is really curious, finding these numbers is fairly simple and when having these types of conversations, looking at the numbers is helpful.

I already acknowledged this upthread.

Hopefully I'm being clear that it seems obvious that there is alot of other money flowing around that's being used for wildlife conservation. I don't think the numbers are so simple to get at.

For example here is a wildlife conservation project funded by the FLAP program: https://itdprojects.idaho.gov/pages/cervidaeoverpass



(Since there was a post that was deleted):

This project is identified as being on a critical wildlife habitat linkage. FLAP is funded out of the Highway Trust Fund, which is funded by federal gas taxes. Pick your percentage of that $3.2 million project cost is wildlife conservation related and then extrapolate that across many, many other projects.

RMEF writes grants for prescribed fire for habitat enhancement. USFS/BLM do alot of prescribed fire with federal tax dollars and I would imagine that if you dig into the NEPA documents for those you are going to find wildlife habitat enhancement as one of the justification. Again, pick your percentage.

So again, I don't think its easy to get at what the divisor is when someone says "X group is the majority funder of wildlife conservation."

[CarlMega]

I'd also add that plenty of hunters cause more trouble than they fix as my dad spent most of my childhood ripping down tree stands, replacing trespassing signs that had been ripped down and cleaning up beer cans from shitheads.
It's nice to paint them as conservationists, but you always heard the grumbling on the cost of duck stamps and whining when people blocked off their illegally made forest access.

Oh man, I can write a book on the habitat destruction, dumb fuckery and litter from (largely but not exclusively) out of state hunters here. Complete shitshow. I see it (and fix it) every year, year after year.

And, yeah, it's true that their tags fund a big portion of the agency. But, that's because it's a mandatory pay to play. Not benevolence. It's like saying that car drivers love to fund road maintenance because they pay fuel tax. Make that shit optional / donation and poof - most of the funding would disappear.

So give credit where credit is due - they fund a lot. But it's also disingenuous to grant every hunter the title 'conservationist'. They just want to do their thing - which is fine. But when you factor in the horseshit some of their advocacy groups play in trying to get my activities restricted on public land, I ain't praying to that altar. Honestly, fuck those groups - their antics have me voting down their bullshit and providing public comments like clockwork. I'm fed up with it.

[Conundrum]

And I do agree that overall conservation funding would be tough to pin down. But in the state I live, with wolves, it’s fairly simple to see where the money comes from for wolf management. And it’s the wolf thread. I’m not saying hunters are conservationists more so than other groups. They just tend to pay for a good chunk of it and you can see the amounts whether they want to pay or not. I can’t think of another specific group of people that can be defined and tracked from a budget perspective.

[schuss]

Oh man, I can write a book on the habitat destruction, dumb fuckery and litter from (largely but not exclusively) out of state hunters here. Complete shitshow. I see it (and fix it) every year, year after year.

And, yeah, it's true that their tags fund a big portion of the agency. But, that's because it's a mandatory pay to play. Not benevolence. It's like saying that car drivers love to fund road maintenance because they pay fuel tax. Make that shit optional / donation and poof - most of the funding would disappear.

So give credit where credit is due - they fund a lot. But it's also disingenuous to grant every hunter the title 'conservationist'. They just want to do their thing - which is fine. But when you factor in the horseshit some of their advocacy groups play in trying to get my activities restricted on public land, I ain't praying to that altar. Honestly, fuck those groups - their antics have me voting down their bullshit and providing public comments like clockwork. I'm fed up with it.

Yep, same story where I grew up, though plenty is blamed on "out of state" that can be traced back to some lazier/more irresponsible locals that don't like the heat their actions generate and won't own it. Even among the hunters I know in my more modern circle, I'd say only 1 in 5 even thinks about the environment much, which to your point it isn't an entry requirement, but lets call a spade a spade.

[oldnew_guy]

And I do agree that overall conservation funding would be tough to pin down. But in the state I live, with wolves, it’s fairly simple to see where the money comes from for wolf management. And it’s the wolf thread. I’m not saying hunters are conservationists more so than other groups. They just tend to pay for a good chunk of it and you can see the amounts whether they want to pay or not. I can’t think of another specific group of people that can be defined and tracked from a budget perspective.

My suspicion is that the specific group of people who fund the majority of wildlife conservation is just the average American taxpayer who has voted for politicians over time that have put a myriad of laws, programs and funding in place for wildlife conservation.

[Conundrum]

You’re probably correct. PR and DJ acts only bring in about 10% of the appropriated budget of USFW.

[Svengali]

[plugboots]

Well that was pretty OK.
I’ve been wondering what the family that runs Diamond M ranch was like. Now I have a pretty good idea, and it’s maybe worse than I thought. What a bunch of fucking dipshits.

[MakersTeleMark]

https://www.thefencepost.com/news/co...-grand-county/

I pretty much nailed the release location.

[John_B]

I was out cougar hunting today using an electronic caller and called in a wolf that spent about 15 minutes circling around me to get my wind then hung out a couple hundred yards away howling at me. It was a cool experience and was pretty fun to "talk" with the wolf using some of the wolf howls that were preloaded on the e caller.

[MakersTeleMark]