[mnbird] Re: [mou] paying to use state wildlife land

[Laura Erickson]

"to suggest as some have that funds derived from Duck Stamps or hunting
licenses are for the purpose of habitat acquisition is inaccurate. It is
for the purpose of regulation and the maintenance and support of the
harvested species."

This is absolutely inaccurate.  According to the enabling legislation and
to the way that legislation is enforced, the US Fish and Wildlife Service
website is absolutely correct where it states:

"Federal Duck Stamps are a vital tool for wetland conservation.
Ninety-eight cents out of every dollar generated by the sales of Federal
Duck Stamps goes directly to purchase or lease wetland habitat for
protection in the National Wildlife Refuge System. Understandably, the
Federal Duck Stamp Program has been called one of the most successful
conservation programs ever initiated and is a highly effective way to
conserve America’s natural resources."
Laura Erickson
Duluth, MN

Staff Ornithologist
Binoculars.com
www.birderblog.com

There is symbolic as well as actual beauty in the migration of birds. 
There is something infinitely healing in the repeated refrains of
nature--the assurance that dawn comes after night, and spring after the
winter.

			--Rachel Carson


>   I have no problem with organizations providing  funds for the
> acquisition
> of habitat like Ducks Unlimited, the Nature Conservancy etc.  But to
> suggest
> that the state collect fees from birdwatchers and use the funds to acquire
> habitat I do object to for the reasons set forth in my initial comments.
> Furthermore, to suggest as some have that funds derived from Duck Stamps
> or
> hunting licenses are for the purpose of habitat acquisition is inaccurate.
> It is
> for the purpose of regulation and the maintenance and support of the
> harvested
> species. I also fail to find it  persuasive in any way to suggest that
> birdwatchers pay a fee to the state for birdwatching because a private non
> profit corporation like Ducks Unlimited VOLUNTARILY contributes funds for
> habitat acquisition. That attempted analogy fails for that is comparing
> voluntary contributions from a private organization with an involuntary
> exaction
> from a governmental body. It compares apples and oranges.
>      If birdwatchers want, on a voluntary basis, to do something like
> Ducks
> Unlimited then the appropriate mechanism is through an organization like
> the MOU
> and I would be in favor of that. And frankly if birdwatchers want to
> protect and
> enlarge (and prevent the dimunition of) habitat, and it is clear that we
> have
> the numbers, then forming an organization like DU ,or expanding the
> objectives
> of the MOU ought to be undertaken. To attempt to do it through a fee
> imposed by
> the state is in my view not only a lazy approach, but one which is
> destined to
> be as inefective and unpredictible as the political winds that will manage
> the
> fees.
>      The problem is much larger and more complex than just supporting
> efforts at
> land acquisition as I'm sure you understand. Clean air and water, dams
> logging,
> military bombing ranges to name just a few that come readily to mind also
> have
> an impact on birdwatching as do the environmental organizations that are
> involved in monitoring and protecting those resources and activities.
>       I am familiar with the Ivory Bill and its habitat. Tim Gallagher and
> Bobby
> Harrison who were involved in the recent discovery served on my Board when
> I was
> president a few years ago of the North American Nature Photography
> Association
>      Lastly, and unfortunately, I have to complain about Sharon Stiteler's
> mischaracterization of my earlier comments. There is nothing in  them to
> suggest,  as she says,"that because birder's aren't harvesting ducks they
> shouldn't have to help buy habitat..." nor was there anything in the
> totality of
> my comments from which to infer her mischaracterization.
>
> --
> Bernard P. Friel
> Web Pages: www.wampy.com
>
>  -------------- Original message ----------------------
> From: Sharon Stiteler <sharon@birdchick.com>
>> > Audubon, Nature Conservancy, National resources Defense Council,
>> > Wilderness Society, American Rivers,etc., etc.
>>
>>
>> I appreciate some of those organizations and even belong to at least
>> one, but I wonder if any of those organizations are as efficient with
>> their money as the duck stamp program.  Less than 2% of the money
>> from duck stamps goes to administrative costs, the rest goes to
>> buying up habitat--that's over 98%.
>>
>> I really am surprised at the notion that because birders aren't
>> "harvesting" ducks they shouldn't have to help buy up habitat so they
>> can have the right to watch birds for free.  You can watch birds
>> anywhere, great birds are in backyards, but we need those breeding
>> grounds in place to keep seeing them.  Duck stamps help support other
>> birds like warblers, rails, herons, egrets, raptors, owls, etc.
>> Right now, duck hunters have to buy a stamp, but their numbers are
>> going down.  If those numbers continue to decline, so will money for
>> buying up habitat and all the birders who feel that they can use the
>> resource for free won't have much resource left to look at, let alone
>> the birds that benefit from that habitat.
>>
>> Sharon Stiteler
>> Minneapolis, MN
>> www.birdchick.com
>> Bird/Wildlife Observation Specialist for www.eagleoptics.com
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mnbird mailing list
> mnbird@lists.mnbird.net
> http://www.mnbird.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mnbird
>