This commentary is by Ryan O’Malley of Barnet, a public school teacher, husband and father. He has no political affiliations. He is active in the hunting and fishing community, particularly educating young hunters and anglers. He is a proponent of the ethical harvest and utilization of game species.
This is being written in response to a commentary that was published at the beginning of last month. It was a piece that attempted to make the case for a major change in the way we govern wildlife management in Vermont.
The piece was written somewhat compellingly, and even gave allusions to the civil rights movement. That said, it was filled with misleading information, bad statistics, and from this writer’s point of view details that were just not true. It made several statements regarding the Vermont Fish and WIldlife Board’s science denialism, wildlife funding, and the general state of Vermont’s fish and wildlife.
The first statement that I would like to address is that ”the board ignores the advice of experts on critical issues such as moose hunts.” This is an outright untruth. At the April 7 board meeting, board member Nancy Matthews, who has led the Rubenstein School of environmental resources at UVM since 2014, asked very pointed questions of department biologists. She sought to understand the biological reasoning of why the department recommended a moose season this year. She spent a good deal of time asking about the specific methodology used to craft the recommendations. At no point did the board disagree in the slightest with the wildlife professionals. This is science.
Next, in the op-ed, it was written that “worldwide, wildlife populations have shrunk by two-thirds in the last 50 years. Here in Vermont, there are now 36 animals designated as endangered and 16 animals designated as threatened.” It seems to allude to the idea that hunting is somehow responsible. In fact, the opposite is true.
Vermont’s wildlife population has ballooned in the past 50 years, reversing trends from the previous two centuries. Turkey, deer, bear, fishers and moose (as well as many other species) have all come back due to the hunter-funded adherence to the North American Conservation Model. Please fact-check this. It is amazing what we have accomplished here, and it is the envy of wildlife agencies around the globe.
The op-ed goes on to make the case that funding for wildlife conservation is no longer majorly supported by the sporting community. “The largest share comes from federal taxes, the vast bulk of which are generated by the sale of gas, pleasure craft, yachts and other products that are unrelated to hunting and fishing.” This is objectively false. Most of the federal funding comes from the Pittman Robertson Act. It is an 11% excise tax on archery equipment, sporting arms and ammunition. Additional federal revenue comes from taxes on fishing tackle. All in all, direct sporting activities bring in about 60% of the Department of Fish & Wildlife budget. Other use and sporting-related revenues account for another 15%.
Just $6.5 million of the Department of Fish & Wildlife $25.5 million budget comes from the general fund. Current funding structures are solid pillars for the department to rest upon. Additionally, the habitat stamp (available as an add-on when purchasing a sporting license) raised more than $241,968 in 2020, and that money was used to leverage more than $490,802 in federal funds for habitat conservation in Vermont. That money is used to purchase land in an effort to increase available habitat. In this day and age, habitat is the primary reason for declining wildlife populations.
Opponents of the current funding structures seek broad-based tax increases and fees to minimize the financial clout of the sporting community. Yearly canoe and kayak registration fees would be a good example of new funding structures — at first blush, that may seem OK. However, when it comes time for a young family to spend $300 to register the paddleboat, canoe, two kayaks and a paddleboard, the reality may be sobering.
So what is all of this about? There are several groups of individuals that have not achieved their desired results when approaching the board. They seek an end to bear and coyote hunting, a long-term moratorium on moose hunting (in direct conflict to the recommendations of fish and wildlife biologists) and an end to trapping in Vermont.
It really is that simple. They have been dismayed that their “alternative fact“ science has not been heeded and now seek legislative support. Who knows where that will lead? Ballot-box conservation is a key ingredient to wildlife science denialism; it often seeks to supplant science with emotion.
The current board makeup is a group of anglers and hunters who serve as a review committee to keep the Department of Fish & Wildlife human. I think the department does a great job but I still find this complementary oversight refreshing. It is foundational to good decision-making that the board thoroughly understands hunting and fishing.
I will end with the following thought. When Vermonters were asked if the department effectively balances the interests of anglers, hunters, conservation groups, and the general public, 76% say yes. Source: Responsive Management, 2015.
Help us get halfway to our Spring Drive goal. When we reach 1,5000 members, we will unlock a $10,000 match, plus 1,500 Vermont kids get a new book!
April 15, 2021 at 12:05AM
https://ift.tt/2ORpVNW
Ryan O’Malley: In defense of the Vermont Fish and WIldlife Board - vtdigger.org
https://ift.tt/35JkYuc
Fish
No comments:
Post a Comment