This is purely an opinion piece but please post data if you have it.
In your opinion which species, game or non-game, moves the conservation needle the farthest and why? You can view it from dollars generated or from awareness and action.
Go...
This is purely an opinion piece but please post data if you have it.
In your opinion which species, game or non-game, moves the conservation needle the farthest and why? You can view it from dollars generated or from awareness and action.
Go...
Last edited by Glenn; 06-11-2019 at 08:45 AM.
Avian predators and loggerhead turtles
Lions and tigers and bears oh my
Psalm 23
The yankee wimmen on the coast get right fired up over the sea turtles.......
Causing an uproar, I'd have to say elephants and lions, could probably throw giraffe in there. Anything "cute".
Baby giraffes are so cute
Woodpeckers.
American red snapper.
Pitbulls
On a national level I'd venture to say ducks have raised the most money. Alot of money has been spent on quail and turkeys in the south.
Conservation is a big word. I don't know that I'd call this conservation, but as far as private lands and the average person in the south I suspect the most money is spent on deer. Between food plots, corn, protein, etc deer are easier to feed and attract. But the goal there is bigger and healthier deer, not really conservation. Management is probably a better word for that.
Interestingly enough most of the animals I think of when I think of conservation are birds. Not sure what that says. Other than maybe they are the most easily impacted.
Personally I get excited about bringing something back that used to be here. I heard tales of my dad hunting quail in these woods when he was little. It does my heart good to see and hear them. Not as local, but the reintroduction of elk into the Appalachian mtns is cool to me.
Last edited by uga_dawg; 06-11-2019 at 09:13 AM.
Whitetails from a dollar standpoint. All the licensing (in and oos), leased ground, taxes on guns and gear, etc. A lot of shit gets paid for because dudes like to shoot wood goats. Lord knows they get enough money out of me.
buncha comedians up in here.
From a dollars contributed through Pittman/Robertson act, whitetails have to be at the top of that list. They are by far the most hunted species and dollars spent on them have to have a major impact.
There are a lot of species that have been described as charismatic mega-fauna that certainly move the emotional needle and generate a lot of headlines and publicity. However the people screaming the loudest do not contribute financially to any sort of land, water or wildlife conservation. Hunters fund those efforts through their pursuit of wild game.
My opinion is while some non-game and endangered species may get all the publicity they do not generate the money needed to prop up their habitat and survival. Without deer and deer hunting these ancillary non-game species would suffer as would lesser hunted game species. The numbers, season lengths, bag limits and interest just isn't there for them to make an impact.
Good points. Conservation is defined as "wise use without abuse" and you can apply that to water, land, trees, wildlife and reefer if you so choose. The question is then, does the improvement of the habitat for one species have significant benefit for others? Meaning if I manage my land for deer and turkeys are other non-game species going to benefit from those efforts and from the dollars generated through P/R? I say yes. Without deer I firmly believe you would see huge losses across the board.
What about billfish, Glenn?
Good question and one way outside my knowledge base. I do know there are way more people who buy a fishing license and fish than buy a hunting license. Most hunters will buy a combo type license while dedicated fishermen don't buy the combo as often. The money generated from Dingell-Johnson, the fishing version of Pittman-Robertson, is significant but way less than the money P/R generates.
My guess is that it is a sport with a high barrier of entry so while dollars contributed per person may look high the overall effect would be pretty low. But again I'm speaking on speculation and not education.
One thing that has been discussed and I would love to see happen is for Pittman-Robertson be extended to camping, hiking and mountain biking goods as well. That's a group that talks a good game but rarely puts their money where their mouth is. If they love public land and wildlife like they claim one would think they would be leading the charge to make that happen.
Last edited by Glenn; 06-11-2019 at 09:41 AM.
They already have a seat at the table. The only difference is now they're eating for free.
I can see the scenario you mentioned playing out if they had to buy WMA permits or use permits to access public lands etc. I'm talking point of sale contact no different than when you and I buy a case of shells. Let the Patagonias and North Face crowd contribute at the cash register and you won't hear a peep out of them.
I would have to agree that Pittman Robertson has surely made Deer #1 in mammals, probably fish over all game. Privately raised, ducks #1 with DU sucking down 9 of every 10 conservation dollars out there. I have no idea how much Pittman Robertson money they get as well.
I gotcha. Reading comprehensions be hard sometimes. Lol. Just adding those goods to PR would be great. Access permits would open up a whole nother can of worms.
Bookmarks