conservation

The Sportsmen’s Loss: Planned Budget Cuts Threaten Conservation Programs

Sarah Smith — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:29:00 -0400

by Bob Marshall

Devastating.

That’s the word many conservation leaders use to describe the impact of dramatic budget cuts some in Congress are proposing for programs that benefit fish, wildlife, and sportsmen.

In its rush to reduce the national debt, the same forces in the House that took a sudden ax to these programs last spring are pushing for an additional $4.7 billion in cuts to Agriculture and Interior and Environment appropriations for 2012. Those funds are applied to programs that directly benefit land, water, and wildlife.

“Much of the progress we’ve made over the last decade or so will be in jeopardy,” says Dale Hall, president of Ducks Unlimited. “And the real tragedy is most of these cuts are to programs that actually add revenue to the Treasury—so they actually help reduce the deficit, not add to it.

“Anyone who cares about hunting and fishing had better get involved in this fight.”

Here are six of the most damaging cuts sportsmen are facing.

Land and Water Conservation Fund
2011 cut: $149 million (33 percent)
The LWCF helps fund public lands such as national forests and state wildlife management areas, and acquires land for fishing, hunting, and other recreation. It was chopped to $301 million, a 33 percent reduction. But budget cutters had wanted it down to $55 million.

And this isn’t even from taxpayer dollars. It is composed primarily of a small percentage of lease revenue from offshore mineral leases on public lands. Much of it is granted to states on a 50-50 matching basis.

Federal agencies estimate that there is a $30 billion backlog of vital fish and wildlife lands waiting to be protected for future generations of sportsmen. Without LWCF monies, much of that land will be lost forever.

North American Wetlands Conservation Act
2011 cut: $10.1 million (24 percent)
The NAWCA encourages the creation of public-private partnerships and provides funding to these groups in order to help conserve wetland ecosystems for waterfowl, migratory birds, fish, and other wildlife. Since 1989, NAWCA grants have protected 26.5 million acres of wetlands, making it an essential tool to support duck hunting. The program has been a model of public-private cooperation, with $1.1 billion in federal spending drawing $2.32 billion in matching funds, not only improving the environment for fish, wildlife, and humans but also boosting local treasuries by nurturing the hunting economy.

Yet last year the House leadership wanted to cut the act’s entire $42.6 million budget.

NAWCA grants are essential for wetlands easements and restoration. Waterfowl managers say that duck and goose hunters will immediately feel the results of the cuts.

Wetlands Reserve Program
2011 cut: $119 million (19 percent)
This program, which is run through the Natural Resources Conservation Service, provides grants to farmers to help preserve and enhance wetlands. In 2010 the program benefited 272,000 acres in 46 states.

Because the vast majority of waterfowl in North America are produced on private lands, this is considered a key program in maintaining the wetlands acreage that waterfowl managers say is necessary to ensure ducks and geese in numbers large enough to support hunting as we know it.

State and Tribal Wildlife Grants
2011 cut: $28 million (31 percent)
Little known to most sportsmen, this program funds proactive work by state and tribal agencies to prevent troubled species from requiring protection under the Endangered Species Act.

Leveraging more than $100 million per year in state and private dollars, the projects benefit sportsmen first by improving habitat for all fish and wildlife, and also by helping cash-strapped state agencies that would otherwise have to divert funds from sportsmen-related programs to mandatory ESA work.

House leadership last year originally wanted to cut all funding. Conservation lobbyists say it is a prime target again this year.

Farm Bill Conservation Section
2011 cut: $508 million (23 percent)
Wildlife officials say Department of Agriculture programs that pay farmers to manage their lands in ways beneficial to wildlife—especially the Conservation Reserve Program—are the most effective conservation programs in the nation. They are essential to maintaining populations of upland birds as well as waterfowl.

Yet because they are included under the unpopular heading of “farm subsidies,” they have been ripe for rash budget cuts.

Last spring, the House forced cuts of $356 million to several programs, and even sliced the Natural Resources Conservation Service operating budget by $118 million.

Sportsmen’s groups are concerned that the entire conservation section of the farm bill carries a bull’s-eye for budget hawks who have painted it as “giveaways” that provide no marketable products.

National Wildlife Refuge System
2011 cut: $11 million (2 percent)
Found in every state, the nation’s 553 wildlife refuges encompass 150 million acres of prime fish and wildlife habitat, offering quality hunting and fishing opportunities within an hour’s drive of most metropolitan areas. And studies show the system is a revenue producer, returning $4 to the economy for every $1 of taxpayer money invested.

The budget was cut by $11 million, but when factoring in inflationary costs and annual cost increases in management capability needs, it’s actually a $19 million cut because refuges need at least $8 million annually just to do what they did the previous year.

Already struggling with a $3.3 billion backlog in maintenance and basic operations that cripples functions at many sites, the system now is facing a call by some members of Congress to cut back funding to 2008 levels.

That draconian action could shutter hunting and fishing programs in many states.

For a complete look at the issue, go to fundrefuges.org.

Natural Gas Drilling Threatens Trout in Pennsylvania (and Other Appalachian States)

Online Editors — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 14:55:57 -0400

Western sportsmen have been dealing with the ramifications of natural gas extraction for years, but now Eastern sportsmen need to brace for impact. Widespread gas drilling is hitting Appalachia, and unless environmental regulations and enforcement catch up with the drilling, there could be major damage to world-class trout water, from small mountain streams to the Delaware River.

Gas and Cash The gas lies in what is called the Marcellus Shale Formation, a 600-mile sheet of sedimentary rock (see sidebar). Until recently, extraction wasn’t cost effective, but advances in technology and higher gas prices have made it lucrative. Extremely lucrative. Gas companies have been offering landowners as much as $2,500 an acre just for lease rights; royalties are paid on top of that, and sums can be huge. Suddenly a small farmer or modest hunting club might be looking at a million-dollar windfall. The states are also leasing public hunting land, licking their chops at the prospect of an industry that could fill coffers and balance budgets for decades.

There is no stopping Marcellus shale drilling. There is too much money to be made. But it has exploded so suddenly that state natural resource departments have been caught flat-footed and are struggling to get adequate regulations and compliance staff in place.

Water and Trout In a process called hydro-fracturing, first, a well is drilled thousands of feet down and, by way of directional drilling technology, turned horizontal. The gas is released when the shale is “fracked,” basically broken up by a mixture of water, sand, and chemicals that is forced down the well. As much as 3 million to 9 million gallons of water are used per well. A well may need to be fracked a few times during its life.

Where this fracking water comes from is one of the major threats to fisheries. Trucking water in is expensive; it’s cheaper to run a fire hose to a local source. Because well sites are often in undeveloped highlands, these sources are often small trout streams. Regulations for drawing water vary among the states, and there are questions about how well current regulations protect waterways. There is also a question of enforcement. Four gas companies have already been caught withdrawing water from Pennsylvania trout streams without permission.

After the fracking mixture does its job, it is pumped out and must be disposed of. It contains toxic chemicals such as arsenic and hydrogen sulfide. Before being discharged, it must be trucked away to a plant for treatment.

Roads and Runoff Another concern is the secondary impact, like runoff and habitat fragmentation, caused by this development. Each well pad (think of a cleared gravel parking lot) is usually around 5 acres, and each pad needs an unpaved road and a pipeline. Multiply that by tens of thousands of wells and add the fact that wells can produce for 30 years or more.

“Even if everything is done right,” says Steve Kepler, fisheries biologist with the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, “if all the water withdrawals comply with regulations and all other protections are in place, the impact is still going to be huge. These places just aren’t going to be the same anymore.”

On a recent tour of active drill sites on Pennsylvania state forest land in Lycoming County, I got a glimpse of what the future may look like in the region. I saw flocks of turkeys and ancient hemlock groves and small coldwater streams. But the whole area was laced with pipelines and roads, and it seemed as though we were never far from the hum of a compressor moving gas through the line. This was no longer a working forest that balanced resource management and recreation. It was an industrial forest, a kind of open-air factory, and it’s a sign of things to come. Eastern sportsmen need to speak up now to make sure some of our last remaining wild places stay that way.

Five Crucial Conservation Goals for Sportsmen

Online Editors — Tue, 05 May 2009 12:15:05 -0400

When I was in college years ago, one of my professors used a simple but very effective symbol to illustrate the urgency underlying conservation issues that involve public lands: He lit a candle.

The candle represented public land; the flame represented the forward march of development. The longer the flame burned, the more land was consumed. So the longer we debated the issues, the more we lost.

But the bigger lesson came after the wick was snuffed out. The candle was smaller—and always would be. The point couldn’t be clearer: Our public resources are finite. Once consumed, they are gone forever.

That is the guiding principle sportsmen must keep in mind as they fashion a conservation agenda for the Obama years. The loss of public lands won’t automatically stop because a new guy is in the White House. Sportsmen need to act now. Here’s a game plan for the next four years—the fires we need to stamp out.

1 | Pass the Clean Water Restoration Act. Among the many accomplishments of the 1977 Clean Water Act was the protection given temporary and isolated wetlands, among the most important habitats for waterfowl and a host of other wildlife. But in 2006, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had never intended the law to include those habitats, effectively putting more than 20 million acres of wetlands at the mercy of the dredge, drain, and cement crowd.

Conservationists in Congress reacted immediately by proposing the Clean Water Restoration Act, which specifically included those wetlands. But the Bush administration and its congressional allies blocked that initiative.

This is an easy but very important fix. Pass the Clean Water Restoration Act and provide a new wetlands guidance to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency that will remove any ambiguity about what can and should be protected.

2 | Improve the Conservation Reserve Program. CRP, a section of the Farm Bill that pays landowners to grow wildlife habitat on marginal croplands, is the single most important and effective private-lands wildlife conservation program in history—but it’s in big trouble.

Over the last 18 months the push toward ethanol and other grain-based fuels resulted in exploding prices for corn, prompting many landowners to begin looking for bigger profits by putting CRP land into crop production.

But the problems were just beginning.

The 2008 Farm Bill reduced the CRP authorization from 39 million acres to 32 million starting in 2010, and did not sufficiently increase payment rates to compete with rising commodity prices. And while some 4 million acres of CRP contracts have expired in the last year and another 8.4 million will expire by 2010, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has not held a general sign-up for landowners since 2006. Then it began letting some landowners out of CRP contracts penalty-free.

Sportsmen must insist on a course correction for CRP. That includes more equitable adjustment of rental rates and improved incentive programs to encourage landowners to enroll, and urging the USDA to hold a general sign-up this year.

3 | Reform energy and mining programs on federal lands. Nowhere was the Bush administration’s business-first ideology more ruinous to sportsmen’s interests than in the areas of energy and mining development on federal lands. From Utah to Montana, West Virginia to Alaska, changed regulations stripped protections from prized fish and wildlife habitat that had been the law of the land for decades.

It was enough to send sportsmen’s groups—traditionally supportive of “wise use” of public land—into courtrooms, especially in the West. There was nothing wise about giving mining and drilling operations exemptions to environmental regulations. The nadir of this downward spiral came when the Bureau of Land Management was instructed to make sure fish and wildlife programs would not negatively impact energy development, reversing a standard and giving sportsmen’s interests the lowest possible priority.

New Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar quickly moved to cancel or postpone energy leases in critical areas of Utah and Wyoming. But as long as the bureaucratic machinery erected by the previous administration remains in place, fish and wildlife habitat will be endangered.

Sportsmen should push for a thorough overhaul of energy and mineral leasing procedures, reestablishing the priority of fish and wildlife programs in impact assessments and removing waivers on environmental impacts. Leasing in crucial wildlife habitats, such as winter ranges, migration corridors, and wetlands should be banned.

And the General Mining Act of 1872 should, at long last, be replaced by a new law that protects public property—such as land, water, air, and wildlife. For more than 135 years, this law has given away perpetual mining rights for as little as $2.50 an acre. It remains one of the most severe threats to millions of acres of prime hunting and fishing lands in the West.

4 | Address climate change. Many sportsmen accepted the reality of climate change long before the general public because we were among the first to experience the impacts. You don’t have to ask a moose hunter in Minnesota or a duck hunter in Louisiana if global warming is real.

The latest studies have only strengthened forecasts of the perils fish and wildlife will face as temperatures and sea levels rise. But there is good news here: Most programs being discussed to address global warming also provide tremendous opportunities for fish, wildlife, and sportsmen.

Wildlife habitat programs that increase plant and tree production not only offer sequestration for carbon dioxide but also can provide feedstock for alternative energy sources, such as cellulosic fuels. And any move away from fossil fuel extraction means less disruption of the natural ecosystem. For example, if the market for coal—a major polluter—begins to dry up, fewer mountaintops in the Appalachians will be dumped into surrounding streams.

And the fees charged for pollution credits under widely discussed cap-and-trade systems to reduce air pollution could provide desperately needed funding for state fish and wildlife agencies.

5 | Maintain the new alliances. The Bush administration did have one positive impact on the environment: It helped forge new, more powerful alliances in the green community. The wall that has long separated sportsmen’s groups from mainstream environmental organizations wasn’t knocked down, but it was lowered enough for handshakes to be exchanged. The result was more access to decision makers all around, and a more effective lobby for fish and wildlife.

Keeping those coalitions together should be part of the new agenda, because they will be key to extinguishing those fires.

Darting Rocky Mountain Bighorns In Arizona

fieldandstream-editor — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 04:00:00 -0500

Bears, Moose, Caribou, and More: Selected trophies from the Boone and Crockett books

fieldandstream-editor — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 06:15:00 -0400

Exclusive Interview: H. Dale Hall, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

fieldandstream-editor — Wed, 22 Feb 2006 04:05:00 -0500

F&S:Should hunters be expecting more or less access to public land?
Hall: One of my concerns is the future of hunting and the ability to recruit young hunters. With the cost of leases going up, public lands become extremely important, and we need to do everything possible to open up all opportunities for hunting so that we can make sure that it's not an elite sport 50 years from now.

F&S: On that topic of hunter recruitment, what can be done at the federal level?
Hall: Our role is to work with the major hunting and fishing organizations, and arms, ammunition, and fishing tackle manufacturers, and also with the state game and fish agencies. It's critical to reach the next generation and have them understand the aspects of hunting that go beyond shooting a gun. To a lot of people, the outdoors is a cathedral; it's their place to commune. Hunting is just one avenue for that to happen, but it's one that we can't afford to lose. If we get young people interested in hunting, then we can preserve more natural habitat in the United States.

F&S: As you assumed the directorship, what was No. 1 on your agenda?
Hall: I have priority issues in each of our programs. For example, in fisheries, the National Fisheries Habitat Initiative is super important to us. In endangered species, finding some clarity and consistency in how we approach the law and getting some better definitions. In refuges, getting some better guidance out on our policies to make sure that we give every opportunity to hunters and fishermen.

But the most important thing that I'll want to do is to strengthen our roots in conservation. The Fish and Wildlife Service for over 130 years has been a conservation organization. And I really appreciate the hunters and fishermen of the United States as being staunch conservationists. We are where we are today because of them. They're the only group I've known to ask to be taxed so that they can contribute to natural resources. They started off asking for the duck stamp, then they asked for sport fish and wildlife restoration programs that now generate up to $700 million a year.

F&S: What's a typical hunting season like for you?
Hall: Well, it fluctuates, but let's go through the fall of '04. I started off dove season in Arizona having those little birds embarrass me. Then I had a wonderful duck hunting trip in Oklahoma. My favorite way to hunt ducks is to wade out about waist-deep and behind a tree, put the decoys out there. After that I went quail hunting in New Mexico. Actually right before that I killed a 274-pound wild boar. The last thing was an elk hunt. Now, I scheduled three turkey hunts in there that got cancelled because of business. But this past September, I killed an oryx down on the White Sands Missile Range. Then in October I went pheasant hunting in South Dakota.

F&S: Not a bad year. What do you enjoy the most?
Hall: I just love duck hunting in bottomland hardwoods.

F&S: Anyone you'd like to hunt or fish with?
Hall: Chuck Yeager. He epitomizes for me the roll-up-your-sleeves-and-earn-your-way-through attitude.

The Interview Outtakes
When we spoke with Dale Hall a few months after he'd been named head of the USFWS, we couldn't fit all of his comments into our March 2006 issue. Here's the balance of that interview.

F&S: What do you think the Federal Government's role should be in the containment of CWD?
Hall: Well, we've been fairly involved with the International Associaation of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, which is the representative group of all the state game and fish agencies. Since the deer, elk, and other animals that tend to be impacted by CWD are really state species, our role is to support each state in any way that we can. How they'd like us to work with them varies from state to state, but we're there to assist them in managing issues within the states that are under their jurisdiction.

F&S: How high is the issue of exploding wolf populations on the USFWS' priority list?
Hall: It's very high on our list. We were extremely disappointed with the Oregon decision where we were moving to down-list and de-list certain populations of the gray wolf, and turn it over to the management of the state where it should be when populations are healthy. That court case stopped all of that, which means that we have to continue to work even harder with the states in the interim to reach a solution.

Finding the proper balance between predator-prey relationships is really important. When you've had a species in the environment that for a long time didn't have one of its predators, then we reintroduce that predator, there has to be a new equilibrium that is reached between predator and prey. If we can't manage and control the predator populations, the prey populations are the first to suffer. So we're very concerned about that, and we're working in every way that we can with the states to get that under control.

F&S:On a related issue, do you see wolves and grizzly bears coming off the endangered species list?
Hall: Well, for the grizzly bear we have proposed a re-classification to make Yellowstone a distinct population segment and to propose its de-listing. And to me, that sends a very positive message that by working in cooperation with all of the groups that were involved in the Yellowstone experience, we can reach a point in the future where we can take the bear completely off the list. I'm optimistic that we can do that. And I'm optimistic about the wolf for the same reasons.

F&S: Growing up hunting and fishing in Kentucky, did you always set out to make a career out of your love of the outdoors?
Hall: You know, no I didn't. After I got out of the air force and went back to college, I was actually pre-dental-I was going to be a dentist. And along the way I took a fisheries course, and realized that that's what I really wanted to do, and I shifted. And I think that it was my background and foundation in the rural environment I grew up in that subliminally told me that that's what I would be happy doing, and it wasn't wrong. I've absolutely enjoyed my entire career.

F&S: Are your kids growing up into outdoorsmen?
Hall: Oh yes, they're pretty outdoorsy. I have 2 daughters and a son. My son probably is-it's kind of hard for me to accept-but he might be more fanatical about hunting and fishing than I am. My daughters enjoy going outdoors, they enjoy fishing, they haven't grasped hunting so much, but they appreciate hunting. And they sure like to eat the game.

Conservation Tip: Yule Catch More Fish

fieldandstream-editor — Thu, 29 Dec 2005 04:10:00 -0500

Don't throw away your Christmas tree at the end of the holidays. Drag it onto the ice along with some hardwood limbs broken off during winter storms.

This brushpile will sink in the spring, providing gamefish with cover and forage, and you with a secret honey hole.

TIPS:

Never drop hardwood limbs that still have their leaves, which collect silt the way a Hoover collects dust.
Cut branches from your Christmas tree to supply gamefish with holes to hide in.
Use large limbs, and make sure branches stick up at angles so that cover will extend upward from the bottom for several feet.
Bundle trees and limbs together with rope and attach it to a cinder block or two to keep them from drifting out of position.

Note: This practice isn't legal in every state.

Conservation Tip: Yule Catch More Fish

fieldandstream-editor — Thu, 29 Dec 2005 04:10:00 -0500

Don't throw away your Christmas tree at the end of the holidays. Drag it onto the ice along with some hardwood limbs broken off during winter storms.
This brushpile will sink in the spring, providing gamefish with cover and forage, and you with a secret honey hole.
TIPS:

Never drop hardwood limbs that still have their leaves, which collect silt the way a Hoover collects dust.
Cut branches from your Christmas tree to supply gamefish with holes to hide in.
Use large limbs, and make sure branches stick up at angles so that cover will extend upward from the bottom for several feet.
Bundle trees and limbs together with rope and attach it to a cinder block or two to keep them from drifting out of position.

Note: This practice isn't legal in every state.

The Charity Chart

fieldandstream-editor — Wed, 23 Nov 2005 06:10:00 -0500

Half of all private donations are made at this time of year, and there are plenty of sportsmen's conservation groups that know how to make good use of the help. Charity Navigator, which evaluates and maintains ratings on more than 5,000 charities, notes that "conservation groups promoting the protection of wildlife and game lands for hunters and fishermen operate more efficiently than the average charitable group." Of the 14 hunting and fishing groups that the watchdog organization reviews, these 11 received the highest ratings.

United Anglers of Southern California
Charity Navigator Rating: 4 Stars
Percent of budget spent on conservation: 88
Total Budget: $912,219
Who They Are: Works to restore California's fisheries and marine resources. Founded 1996; 40,000 members.
U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance Foundation
Charity Navigator Rating: 4 Stars
Percent of budget spent on conservation: 86
Total Budget: $1,528,504
Who They Are: Protects conservation programs and the pursuits of hunting, fishing, and trapping. Founded 1978; 35,000 contributors.
Pheasants Forever
Charity Navigator Rating: 4 Stars
Percent of budget spent on conservation: 91
Total Budget: $26,012,363
Who They Are: Enhances and protects pheasant and other wildlife populations in North America. Founded 1982; 100,000 members.
Quail Unlimited
Charity Navigator Rating: 4 Stars
Percent of budget spent on conservation: 91
Total Budget: $9,086,372
Who They Are: Helps support the wise management of America's wild quail populations. Founded 1981; 50,000 members.
Ruffed Grouse Society
Charity Navigator Rating: 3 Stars
Percent of budget spent on conservation: 90
Total Budget: $3,160,177
Who They Are: Improves habitat for ruffed grouse, American woodcock, and other forest wildlife. Founded 1961; 23,000 members.
Ducks Unlimited
Charity Navigator Rating: 3 Stars
Percent of budget spent on conservation: 86
Total Budget: $182,989,127
Who They Are: Manages and restores wetlands and other habitats for North America's waterfowl. Founded 1937; 600,000 members.
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
Charity Navigator Rating: 3 Stars
Percent of budget spent on conservation: 89
Total Budget: $35,963,202
Who They Are: Ensures the future of wild, free-ranging elk, other wildlife, and their habitat. Founded 1984; 130,000 members.
Trout Unlimited
Charity Navigator Rating: 3 Stars
Percent of budget spent on conservation: 74
Total Budget: $13,924,667
Who They Are: Conserves North America's trout and salmon fisheries and their watersheds. Founded 1959; 125,000 members.
California Waterfowl Association
Charity Navigator Rating: 3 Stars
Percent of budget spent on conservation: 84
Total Budget: $7,463,205
Who They Are: Supports California's waterfowl, wetlands, and waterfowling heritage. Founded 1945; 150,000 members.
Delta Waterfowl Foundation
Charity Navigator Rating: 3 Stars
Percent of budget spent on conservation: 76
Total Budget: $3,551,281
Who They Are: Works for a sustainable waterfowl population by supporting education in ecological sciences. Founded 1938; 40,000 members.
National Wild Turkey Federation
Charity Navigator Rating: 3 Stars
Percent of budget spent on conservation: 91
Total Budget: $28,429,126
Who They Are: Dedicated to the conservation of wild turkeys and the preservation of the hunting tradition. Founded 1973; 500,000 members.

Hurricane Aid It's been only three months since Hurricane Katrina made landfall, but it will be a long time before the Gulf Coast fully recovers from the impact. These two area sportsmen's organizations are still accepting donations to relief funds they've set up for those affected in the hunting or fishing industry.
The Houston Big Game Fishing Club
Hurricane Katrina Relief Fund
281-326-0209, info@hbgfc.com
To help individuals and groups in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama directly involved in the big-game fishing industry who have suffered the impact of Hurricane Katrina on their lives and livelihoods.
Louisiana Wildlife Agents Association
LWAA Disaster Relief Fund
337-577-2171 dmoore@wlf.louisiana.gov
To help wildlife agents who have been affected by the hurricane, including 13 who lost their homes. Most were rescuing victims while their own properties were being destroyed.