How easy it is to forget that conservation and the great outdoors contributes 1 trillion dollars annually to the economy.

See for yourself, google: The Economic Value of Outdoor Recreation

Here's a little sample from page 3 of the report, "Natural Resources Conservation."

The total value of ecosystem services provided by the acreage of natural habitats in National Wildlife Refuges in the United States totaled $32.3 billion/year, or $2,900 thousand/acre/year.

• The value of ecosystem services provided by natural habitat in the 48 contiguous United States amount to about $1.6 trillion annually, which is equivalent to more than 10% of the U.S. GDP.

• The loss of about 9.9 million acres of wetlands in the U.S. since the 1950s has resulted in an economic loss of more than $81 billion in all wetlands-related
ecosystem services.

• Visitors to Army Corp of Engineers land generated $34.0 billion in sales, contributing $17.1 billion in direct income, and supported 420,000 jobs at the
national level in 1996.

• Home owners near parks and protected areas are repeatedly seen to have property values more than 20% higher than similar properties elsewhere.

if we could find a way to prevent wall street bankers from appropriating(stealing?) federal money, we'd have enough cash to fund conservation and prevent the selloff of public lands. when all the public lands are gone, only the mega-rich landowners will be able to hunt and fish.

wischneider: I suspect you haven't looked into Ryan's budget in any detail, so how do you make comments about this being "liberal propaganda" when you sound like a GOP parrot yourself?

I also suspect that you don't realize that being such a hardline GOP supporter, your votes for them often actually go against what many outdoorsman would truly want.

I'm sorry you don't "hear" what you think you want to "hear" from F&S. The world is not black & white.

The sale of America's public lands might as well send us on the road to being European. Less public land for hunting and fishing means less people getting involved in those sports. Less people involved in these sports means politicians in the future will really not give a crap what any of us think. Republicans or Democrats only differ in who they think should control this massive government so if you think voting party lines makes a difference you are also deluded. The only way to protect your interests in having places to hunt and fish is to keep an eye on things like this budget item and yell as loud as you can to any politician relying on your vote to stay in office and make sure like minded people do the same.

My opinion on selling public land to fix budget issues is that it would be like me selling my house to get out of debt. Yeah I would have a fat pocket of change today but tonight I would still need to find and pay for a place to sleep. In the end it doesn't fix a dang thing.

Yes, I love how my tax dollars were spent by the Federal GSA on that conference in Las Vegas. $800k+ for 300 bureaucrats to party while we have an enormous budget deficit. And the DOJ's Fast & Furious gun running caper really inspires my confidence in the current administration's control over the activities of our justice system. Let's smuggle 2,000 firearms to Mexico and then claim it was crooked private US citizens. Our Federal Government needs to be held in check not expanded.

Marshall - You seem to have compelling arguments from the left to go to the polls on your side under the auspice of preserving public lands. Ironically, the ideologies that are 'on the side of sportsmen' are the same ones that can be given credit for having a stranglehold on my 2nd Amendment rights.
Additionally, you fail to include any evidence to quantify your claim outside of the 'under 1%' figure. Assuming a budget of just shy of 1% of total hemorrhaged money by the feds; fish, wildlife, and public lands have funding in the $30,000,000,000 range which allocates roughly $600,000,000 for each of the 50 states. This estimate excludes local, state, and charitable programs. Uncle Sam is already dishing out dollars like an 18 yr. old at a cheap strip club. Salmon runs, elk migrations, and Rocky Mountain sunsets are not going to cease to exist without an IV of taxpayer money. The wilds of America don't look to Washington and say thank you. Do your part, commit to conserve, and let DC keep the 'change'.

Timber companies, that's a good one Poet. I would say those lands are not secure, as companies like Plum Creek turn into developers and away from timber.
You still didn't address my question about the $4.6 billion in new tax cuts. How is that fiscally responsible?

Fiddling while Rome Burns.

You won't solve the debt problem by cutting back on conservation programs. Nor will you solve it by selling federal lands, or allowing any polluter to take an unregulated dump wherever they please.

Solving the debt crisis is easily done in concept. Hard to do politically, because both conservatives and liberals milk the cash cow.

1. Cut the defense budget to 200Bn per year. Most of the money we spend on defense is to stabilize foreign nations and secure access to Middle East oil -- of which we use only 20%. Our DoD policy of global stabilization is just a tax on working people to subsidize the movement of American jobs overseas. Were we to remission the US armed forces solely to the direct defense of US lands and waters, we'd save half a trillion per year and jobs would pour into the United States like water busting out of containment.

2. Eliminate, not cut, Social Security Disability.

3. Eliminate all Medicare support for heroic medical treatments (ICUs, surgery, chemo, etc) with a terminal illness whose likely prognosis is death within one year. Almost half of the Medicare money we spend goes to keep the living dead on life support to buy them a few extra weeks of time. That's stupid and wasteful of money.

There, I just saved you $1.4 Trillion per year, balanced the budget, saved highways, roads, conservation spending, schools, increased US employment, reduced the US trade deficit, and eliminated the national debt (if we stik to the plan for 10 years) without raising taxes.

It appears that the people in charge of making these decisions have no idea what they are doing. What an incredibly, incredibly, short-sighted world view.

We live in a civilized country with a responsibility to take care of the land and our people. That costs money.

Taxes. Death. For Certain. The goal for our legacy should be to leave the place better than we found it.

Northern Maine timber company land has been accessible to the average citizen at zero cost for decades. I think your understanding of taxation and rich peoples obligations are rather prejudicial. This nation's debts far exceed the value of wealth in the hands of the 1%. I guess you have never heard of private donations to wildlife. In fact, I know of numerous lands given by individuals to state governments for outdoor use. The Nature Conservancy is one of those facilitating non-profits I speak of. I don't care of your umbrage regarding my perspective of Federal spending. The government is seriously in the red and costs need containment. All priorities need to be considered.

$4.6 trillion, that should be.

My answer on the $4.6 Trillion is that you are not portraying the the entire budget scenario as proposed. It is not about tax breaks for any one group of taxpayers but all taxpayers and the total cost of all government programs. Roughly 50% of all taxpayers actually pay the federal income tax and far and away, the 1% pay the largest share proportionally year after year. I'm for a flatter tax that applies to a wider base coupled with sharing the burden to a greater percentage of all Americans. Slowing the growth of all expenditures is part of that scenario. I don't agree with your version of tax equity nor the original comments of this blogger that portrayed all this as partisan motivated evil. It's not your answer but it is how I see it. Everything in terms of expense should be on the table for reduction and any tax burden needs to be shared as widely as possible. This characterization that Ryan's proposal is for the benefit of the wealthy is absurd. It is a nationwide crisis which involves sacrifice by all. Putting more hard income in the hands of private citizens will lead to more market driven activity and ultimately economic growth. I pay a total tax bill for an array of services, many which I do not consume. I'm willing to give up some of those program expenditures in order to get cost control and greater tax fairness. I don't think we need massive tax increases at this point in a weak economy. I'm not just looking at natural resources and outdoor recreation nor just what one class of individuals pay in taxes. It's the entire matter of the Federal budget and shared sacrifice.

sayfu: i've read you say on here numerous times that you love to get back in the woods of idaho away from people to fish. guess what? we start selling public land and there will be less to go around. the lands we have will be more pressured. public lands is huge for the economy of western states like idaho. here in wisconsin it is a huge boost to have public land and access to our lakes. places like hayward and boulder junction would be nothing without this.

the current group of republicans are not really "anti-hunting" if you like to hunt on game farms with fine dining after the hunt, city resoivoirs, or own/want to pay to hunt private land then they are fine.

but if you like to hunt,fish,camp in public lands and wilderness areas you had better think about who is on your side. and its not tea party republicans

GregMC..Just watch from here going forward even in the short term. What is an outright crime, is the proposed budget the President proposed..totally irresponsible. NO ONE gave it a yes vote in House...141 to 0 I think the vote was, and if the Senate would vote on it, and may not because Harry Reid doesn't want the embarrassment of total rejection it well could be that NO ONE in congress will OK his budget!! The Senate may be forced to vote on it. Ryan's budget doesn't make draconian cuts..it merely slows the rate of spending! If it were accepted, that may not even be enough to save the USA from bankruptcy! And given todays series of stock market losses it does not spell good news for the USA. Instead of a positive economic speech by the President, and how to create REAL jobs, he uses the speech to rally his far left base!!!..that just wants more spending. In these economic times little will be spared, and rightly so.

GregMC, you apparently have done your homework, but you are fundamentally wrong. My main point was that the author of this propaganda piece was jumping to conclusions and claiming that Paul Ryan's budget and the GOP in general would harm us sportsmen. That is simply ludicrous. The language used in this article is obviously partisan, clearly fear-mongering, and IMO that has no place here at Field and Stream.

I would make the argument that the majority of sportsmen (and women) are conservatives themselves, and over the last hundred years, conservative politicians and organizations such as the NRA have been our strongest supporters in the political arena. Liberal [like you] politicians and organizations (like PETA) have constantly struggled to add more restrictions and INCREASED TAXES AND FEES on our hunting and fishing privileges, and constantly wage a war on our 2nd Amendment rights. The NRA is one of the major conservative lobbying groups, and they work almost exclusively on our (sportsmen's) behalf.

Paul Ryan is an avid sportsman himself, I know for a fact that he hunts deer and turkey (we're friends on facebook and he posts pictures), and I have every confidence that the Republicans will be mindful of sportsmen's wishes when they make the changes that fix our country. After all, they rely on our votes and funding through the NRA and other sportsman's organizations to stay in office...

All you staunch republicans out there, you know- you're allowed to disagree with your own party once in a while and express some dissatisfaction. You don't always have to come to the defense of your party and blindly justify every move they make. I promise, it won't turn you into a liberal.

God forbid one of you agrees with Bob Marshall for once. I go onto the recently-posted BP thread and you have individuals defending BP and dismissing the idea that maybe, just maybe, the Gulf is still showing signs of the Deepwater Horizon disaster. Sadly, these individuals are naturally inclined to politicize every issue and current event.

My voter registration card reads "Independent- no party affiliation." I'll vote for Republicans. I'll vote for Democrats. It doesn't matter. As long as they represent my views and properly address my concerns- they'll get my vote.

If you're a partisan hack, an apologist- you're what's wrong with this country and it's damn pathetic.

Another thing, if you take some DC-based beltway organization's word as gospel day in and day out- you're a pinhead. "Well, the NRA says"- let me stop you there, shut up. No, I don't believe you when you say that Nancy Pelosi is going to storm into my house with a gang of hippies, take away my guns and force me to follow a strict, meat-free vegan diet. I don't buy into that.

The NRA and the loonies at PETA have a lot more in common than their supporters would like to think. They both skew the truth, manipulate their members and inflict fear onto their supporters to get them to empty their wallets at a drop of a dime.

also, GregMC, when you talk about all the funding and money that goes "into" wildlife conservation and what not... do you think that money actually goes into the land and makes it better? Most definitely not... I would assume that most of it goes to pay the bloated salaries of Unionized park ranger/DNR officials and other bureaucrats, and their ridiculous benefit packages... as well as all of those worthless studies we hear of every so often such as spending 10 million dollars to "study the mating habits of song birds" or some other similar BS

Rep Ryan is a bow hunter and fitness buff. I'd like to see the budget cut more than Ryan cuts it. A government big enough to give you everything that you want is a government big enough to take everything that you have.

GregMC..A publicity stunt? They voted on the Presidents proposed budget!..And no one voted for it..not one democrat. I've made the point before on conservation policy, and policies that would benefit hunters, and fishers. We will lose bigtime. Recreation NEVER gets top priority in times of economic crisis, and we are in one, and it will get worse given the direction the Administration is taking on economic policy. The first to get the axe are recreational activities. That is simply a fact. Govt spending has to get cut, and we sportsman will feel the cuts.

thanks Bernie, I think that we got off track here debating the budget itself as a whole. We could do that all day and get a million different opinions.

Main point is, this article is clearly biased and should be taken off of Field and Stream. I'm sure many Field and Stream subscribers (myself included) take offense to this type of article being published.

Bob Marshall, if I want to go somewhere and read liberal propaganda, I'll log on to Huffington Post. Your analysis of Paul Ryan's budget is skewed, just because some study says it would reduce funding for some programs DOES NOT mean that Sportsmen (and Women) will be disadvantaged. You are jumping to conclusions, I think. Shame on you, journocrat.

Are you the writer who also posts articles on artistic paintings and other non-field and stream related material?

The pro-entitlement writers on this site have found a way to adopt socialist principles to wildlife management and conservation. I favor individual responsibility and private non-profit initiative to defend our natural heritage. Government needs its role carefully limited in these matters since it has proven expensive and ineffective. We have a fundamental fiscal crisis that will take years to resolve and all public expenditures need to be controlled. I agree with Sayfu and wischneider. Can the eco-marxism.