AT THE JUGULAR VEIN OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
By Anne Muller
For sure, the economic basis of wildlife management must change. But
something else must change, and that’s the tenet that hunting is a
legitimate recreational activity. Our current system actually violates
the law in that managers must manage for all species. “Harvest”
management does not take “non-game” species into consideration. [See the
Gray article in the spring issue of the C.A.S.H. magazine.] We agree
wholeheartedly that excise taxes on such items as cameras, film,
birdseed, etc. would be an ideal way to support our wildlife management
projects. The question is, who will manage the money? How do we ensure
that every penny is spent on “diversity management”? How do we ensure
that “diversity management” will not work hand in glove with “game
management”? Are the same “game” managers going to do “diversity”
management? Will game management be implemented within diversity
management? How will that work? Can game management co-exist with
diversity programs? Should it? C.A.S.H. wanted to raise those questions
at the National Watchable Wildlife Conference where we were told ‘many
environmental groups would be participating to discuss “Watchable
Wildlife Programs.” Non-consumptive users will be a much-needed source
of income for Wildlife Diversity Funding. Our cooperation is imperative.
Will we be tricked, cajoled or forced into a new program that is not
substantively different? Or will we be creating a wildlife management
system that leaves the current nightmare in the dust? Watchable Wildlife
will be to wildlife diversity what hunting is to Pittman-Robertson. It
will be the channel through which the “observers” will pump money
directly into the coffers of wildlife management. Excited about this
Initiative, I immediately applied for a table and submitted the ad
below. (I confess I was expecting a request to modify it to some degree
considering who the “partners” are: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, U.S. Air Force, the Bureau of Land Management,
the U.S. Park Service, USDA Forest Service, the International
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (comprised in part of the
upper echelons of state “game” departments), the Audubon Society,
National Wildlife Federation and Defenders of Wildlife.)
You can imagine my surprise when I received the following letter with
our checks returned:
September 26, 1994
Dear Ms. Muller,
I recently reviewed the conference program advertisement and
exhibit registration form that Committee to Abolish Sport Hunting
submitted for the National Watchable Wildlife Conference in
Burlington, Vermont.
We believe the advertisement and/or an exhibit by C.A.S.H. would be
inappropriate given the purpose of the conference. As noted in the
registration brochure, the purpose of the conference is to:
· Unite tourism and conservation professionals. It is the gathering
place to build working relationships, see successful projects in
action and share information that can help you improve your watchable
wildlife efforts.
· Help you gain the hands on skills and knowledge needed to build
or expand your watchable wildlife program.
· Provide concrete examples of how to use watchable wildlife to
achieve your habitat conservation, biodiversity protection, or
ecosystem management goals.
· Showcase opportunities for integrating watchable wildlife into
your programs such as backyard and urban wildlife, nature centers,
conservation camps, and environmental education curricula.
· Emphasize ways in which tourism can link with watchable wildlife
to benefit both conservation and local economies.
The conference offers an opportunity to discuss watchable wildlife.
However, as you stated on both the exhibit registration form and your
proposed advertisement, your purpose is to abolish sport hunting.
Sport hunting is an important part of many of the agencies and
organizations involved in wildlife conservation, including watchable
wildlife; this conference has nothing to do with hunting – pro or con.
I have enclosed a copy of our policy regarding exhibitors and
advertising for the National Watchable Wildlife Conference. Also
enclosed are your exhibitor and ad space requests and checks. Of
course, you and your colleague are welcome to attend the conference,
and we have received your registration forms. I am returning those to
you as well, requesting that you send new checks with the proper
amount of $175 for your registration fees.
All persons who attend do so in a spirit of contributing ideas and
expertise with wildlife professionals to improve watchable wildlife
programs.
Sincerely,
R. Max Peterson
Executive Vice President
Asking for clarification, I received a call from a George Lapointe on
behalf of R. Max Peterson to explain their position further. He asked
how I would like it if the NRA came to our meeting [that appears to be a
confession right there that they see this as their meeting and not a
meeting of the general public.] He said we were irrelevant to the
purpose of the conference and reiterated, “the purpose of the conference
was not to discuss the pros and cons of hunting.” Although that was hard
to believe, I knew that I could only prove that after the fact. Then, lo
and behold, just as I was finalizing the C.A.S.H. Courier, a draft of an
article by Mr. Lapointe descended upon my desk. A finalized copy is
destined for the Nov.-Dec. issue of North American Hunter Magazine. Here
are some pertinent and revealing aspects of the draft.
