There has been a lot of controversy about the effectiveness of hunting as a viable wildlife management tool. Yet, if there were no hunters, who would pay for wildlife management?

Certain animal rights groups oppose hunting, saying that hunters ar barbaric, thoughtless thugs. The American Humane Association considers sport hunting, "...a violation of the inherent integrity of animals and disruptive of the natural balance of the environment through human manipulation...". Ok, what about the human population encroaching on urban areas, where contractors buy hundreds of acres of woodlands, tear down the trees, and build office buildings and shopping malls? What about the landowner who clears his land to build a house? Don't these activities disrupt the natural balance of the environment through human manipulation? What happens to the wildlife that has been put out of a home? Who is thoughtless here?

Controlled, regulated hunting is actually beneficial to the wildlife and the environment, because hunting is selective. Hunting seasons and bag limits are designed to have hunters harvest only excess animals that would otherwise become overpopulated, leaving the remaining animals with more food and shelter available to them.

The American Humane Association and the Humane Society of the United States both recognize that, "...the welfare and responsible management of animals can, on occasion, necessitate the killing of wildlife. When such killing is permitted, it must be done as a last resort, be demonstrably necessary, (and) be conducted by responsible officials..." (emphasis added).

Let's look at this a little closer. If these animal rights groups want the government or other "responsible official" to kill excess animals, who would pay for this? The U.S. Department of Agriculture has a little-known nationwide program called Animal Damage Control (ADC). In 1990, the ADC program spent $29.4 million federal dollars plus roughly $15 million in state funds to destroy huge numbers of animals considered predators or pests. In 1988, they killed over 76,000 coyote, over 1200 bobcat, almost 300 black bear, over 200 mountain lion, and millions of other mammals and birds. In the process, along with the 151 they intended to kill, the ADC inadvertently killed almost 400 domestic dogs. Over 4.5 million animals were killed at the taxpayers' expense.

On the other hand, hunting and fishing licenses pay a significant portion of most state fish and wildlife agencies operating budgets. In 1984, that totaled over $292 million dollars, or 64% of the annual income of the state agencies.

In an effort to provide even more money for wildlife management, organized sportsmen, and firearms & ammunition industries joined with state wildlife agencies in urging Congress to extend an existing tax on ammunition and firearms used for sport hunting. The result was the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, or better known as the Pittman-Robertson Act (named after it's principal sponsors). The 11% excise tax on all sporting arms, ammunition and archery equipment is used almost entirely for wildlife restoration projects. The only part that isn't, which is 30% of the excise tax from handguns and archery equipment, is earmarked for hunter education. In 1990, over $740 million dollars went to wildlife management through the Pittman-Robertson Act . In addition, the Pittman-Robertson Act also provides money used to purchase land managed for both wildlife production, and other non-hunting recreational uses. Recent estimates indicate about 70% of the people using some of these areas are not hunting, they are hiking, fishing, camping and picnicing. Hunter's money is being used to benefit all people, hunters and non-hunters alike. Altogether, since 1923, sportsmen have provided over $12 billion dollars to wildlife programs that benefit not only game species, but non-game species as well.

While animal rights groups complain that our state wildlife agencies cater to the desires of hunters, over 77% of the annual income of most state wildlife agencies comes from hunting and fishing license fees, and the Pittman-Robertson excise tax. On the average, less than 10% of wildlife management money comes from taxpayers' pockets.

If it wasn't for hunters, there would be very little money available to manage wildlife. Since the majority of money to manage wildlife comes from hunters, naturally, state wildlife agencies are going to manage game species. Animal rights groups have no plan that I am aware of to replace the money for wildlife management derived from hunting. Therefore, if animal rights groups want a say-so in how our wildlife is managed, then they should help pay for wildlife management and restoration projects instead of trying to eliminate hunting!


Literature cited:

The Hunter's Pocket Fact Card, National Shooting Sports Foundation.

50 Years Restoring America's Wildlife 1937-1987, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.

What they Say About Hunting, Nation Shooting Sports Foundation.

"Uncle Sam's War On Wildlife" by Michael Satchell with Joannie M. Schrof, Printed in U.S. News & World Report, Feb. 5, 1990.