The bulk of spending to support parks, natural areas, forests DOES NOT come from hunters & anglers

[Kolesar]

This is a follow up from the woesome "Separate DU Group" thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=271&topic_id=1397&mesg_id=1414
I did not want to continue with "a sidetrack" of the thread.

...

US National Forests & BLM land are modestly funded by the federal government. The land was already owned by the public after we grabbed it from the indigenous population or Mexico.

US National Parks are funded by taxpayers and admission fees. The land was usually transferred from BLM or Forest Service holdings. Cuyahoga Valley NP was purchased from the occupants with federal money.

Ohio Parks are funded by the taxpayers. Too bad they cut the budget by more than 50%. Most states, probably 90% of states, charge admission fees to parks.

Regional Metroparks are funded by property tax levies.

Refuges' stocking and habitat management are supported by hunting/fishing fees. But that is a small proportion of "government" spending on natural areas.

[Redneck Socialist]

1. Who said it did? n/t

[Kolesar]

2. SteveM

in the post that I linked ^^

[Redneck Socialist]

3. Ahh, I missed that.

You're correct in that the money raised by Pittman-Robinson, Wallop-Breaux, and Dingell-Johnson doesn't get spent on Federal lands. Those acts do provide a ton of money to the states for a variety of wildlife related projects though.

[SteveM]

4. And the states are what I was talking about...

since hunters and fisher pay their license, hunt-lottery and other fees to states. Federal migratory bird stamps, taxes on guns, fishing equipment, motorboat fuels, etc., are collected by the Feds.

In Texas, some $105,000,000 is collected from hunters/fishers; yet only about a third is expended on the Parks and Wildlife Department, here. The rest of the license and other use fees go to the general fund. And this state "formula" does not include, I believe, Pittman-Robinson funds; that is added in later.

Often overlooked are the many wildlife management areas in Texas whose wildlife operations are supported by hunters/fishers. Some, like Granger WMA, can be used by hunters who pay a $48 public hunting permit, yet fishers, bikers, etc. are not charged.

Though I have no links, some years ago there was a campaign among non-hunters/fishers in Texas to pay for hunting/fishing licenses anyway, as this was the only thing "floating" the nearly foundering parks and wildlife department. Things are still bad for funding, but may get better next fiscal year. http://www.ti.org/FWtext.html

[old mark]

5. There was a movement in Pennsylvania about 30 years ago

to get non hunting/fishing public land users to buy hunting/fishing licenses for the financial support. Many hunting/shooting items are taxed for land purchases and upkeep. I'd really like to see this happen again, as the number of hunting licenses in PA is declining yearly with the aging of the boomers.
My solution is to buy more guns.

mark

[SteveM]

6. If hunting & fishing were eliminated in Texas, TPWD would collapse (nt)