Great Outdoors Meter Is Running

Conservation of wildlife is everyone’s responsibility because it benefits us all. But it has been hunters and anglers- along with the timber industry - who have paid the lion’s share of the bill in the past, through license fees, hunting tags and taxes.

Now, hunting and fishing are declining, and so is the money those activities have poured into wildlife programs. At the same time, wildlife observers are increasing, spending an estimated $29 billion nationwide last year. Unlike hunters and fishermen, however, they pay minimal fees to enjoy their pursuit.

This has stressed wildlife agency budgets, leading to cuts in employees, closure of fish hatcheries and boosts in hunting and fishing fees.

So, how do we close the revenue gap?

Agency spending must be scrutinized, with an eye on bureaucracy and the efficiency and value of programs.

In addition, wildlife observers ought to start carrying their fair share of wildlife management costs.

User fees have been an accepted practice at campgrounds, parks and ski facilities for years, and those may have to be raised. But adding a user fee to public lands where wildlife watchers congregate will be a tougher proposition. Most of that land is widely scattered in an intermingled checkerboard of state, federal and private properties. Adding gates or patrolling with rangers is not a cost-effective alternative.

A small, well-placed tax increase might be a better choice. Hunters and fishermen have been paying an excise tax on their equipment for years. A proposal is afoot to institute a similar tax on the manufacturers’ cost for wildlife recreation products. This tax would add only $2.50 to the price of a $100 backpack. But there is a problem with this plan, as well. Because the tax would be paid before consumers even see the product, they would not know the money was earmarked for wildlife management and preservation - something most purchasers would support. All they would know is the price of their favorite backpack just went up - something most purchasers would not support.

To make the connection clearer, voters may be asked to earmark a modest sales tax increase on recreation-related goods for parks and wildlife management. This may be the fairest way to spread the cost of conservation to all who enjoy the beauty of the environment.

Whatever mechanism is chosen, it should spread the burden fairly to the admirers as well as the consumers of wildlife.