Is It Time for an Upland Bird Stamp?
Chad Love blogs most excellently for Field & Stream and Quail Forever, and recently “penned” a doozy titled How Much is Upland Hunting Worth to You? We’re sure we’re all in the same boat – the Mastercard “priceless” category.
If that’s the case, would you pay an extra $15, $20, $25 to beef up upland bird habitat nationwide? That’s what Chad’s column is about. Some excerpts:
> It wasn’t that long ago when duck hunters were the ones asking themselves if this was the beginning of the end [as upland hunters should, in some areas, be doing now]. And if it was, they were at least going to go down swinging. So began the federal duck stamp program in 1934. Anyone wishing to hunt waterfowl would be required to buy a federal migratory bird hunting stamp. The result is, of course, our beautiful, priceless…completely self-funded national wildlife refuge system. Where would modern American wildfowling be without the myriad benefits of the duck stamp program? I don’t know, but I’m pretty sure it’d be nowhere near what it is today.
> With that in mind, here’s a question: How much is upland hunting worth to you? Can you assign a monetary value to the experience of watching your dogs work a field, or taking your child on their first bird hunt?
> Here’s a question I’ve been kicking around in my head for a while now: would it be possible to emulate the structure and the success of the duck stamp program, but with upland gamebirds as the target species? And if it were possible, would now be the time to do it?
> I think the parallels between the basic problems facing ducks at the turn of the century and upland birds now are obvious: precipitous declines in populations brought on by a steep and ever-accelerating loss of habitat. Of course, there are also some fundamental differences, too. Ducks and geese are migratory and therefore require a certain level of federal involvement, whereas most upland species are not. For lack of a better term (and for better or worse) upland birds like quail are “states’ rights†birds.
Our Thoughts
We can say unequivocally that we would buy such a stamp, every year. We’d even look forward to it, plus the associated art contest and print-buying. No doubt.
BUT we’re tripping over the word and concept of “federal.” While many good folks work at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, they don’t run our federal government – and honestly, we’re not sure if anyone does, hence the problem: Those jokers couldn’t manage the finances of a corner lemonade stand.
So even though the decline of upland birds is a national problem (South Dakota and a few other states possibly excepted), does a federal agency have to appropriate and distribute the funds?
Even if some quasi-state or -private organization somehow got those funds, we’d still have to make sure:
> The funds are permanently earmarked for their intended purposes, meaning no cash-grabbing by politicians.
> If state game agencies receive the funds they must be used for their mandated purpose (same deal on the cash-grab thing).
On the other hand, maybe the cleanest, easiest way to do this is just to append an upland program to the federal duck program.
Other than that:
> Keep the cost of the stamp as low as possible. This ain’t the time to be ramping up costs for hunters.
> Bear in mind that in the 1930s, hunting was cool. Decades of animal rights nuttiness and suburban/urbanization have changed the landscape significantly. So bear in mind that if this effort happens, there will doubtless be some ridiculous punches thrown from left field.
Don’t read any of that to mean we’re not 100% in favor of the concept because we are. Props to Chad for voicing it. Head-slap for not thinking of it….
So, who’s going to grab the bull by the horns? Our vote is for Pheasants Forever, the best folks in the bird conservation biz.
Category: Feds, Habitat Conservation, States, Upland Bird Stamp
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
I don’t think it’d work well. Each species has their own habitat needs. Some over lap, but in the end there will be a species that gets left out.
Then enters the politics of the organizations running the habitat management. PF, and RGS both would advocate for completely different measures.
The non-hunting public get involved too. It’s not their money being spent, but they have a voice in what happens on public land. Right now there is a bill im Mass that would ban clear cutting on state lands.
http://allseasonsoutdoors.blogspot.com/2011/07/action-alert.html
Too many variables, in my opinion. And that’s before you get the Feds involved, which isn’t needed anyway.
I’d certainly pay $25 for an upland habitat stamp if it meant a future for upland birds on this continent. Not to mention $25 annually beats $75-$100 a throw every time I go to a preserve. Agreeably, it would have to be a state-to-state or province to province program, or there would be major turf squabbles and more complaints that the Feds are once again shoving things down everyone’s throat. Something’s gotta give soon or bird hunting’s gonna be as easy to come by as passenger pigeon shooting.