In the USA, most of the funding for state wildlife conservation programs comes from a tax on firearms, ammunition and archery equipment; true conservation hunting.
Photo by
Rostislav Stach
COMMENT
Hold tight - we’re checking permissions before loading more content
In the United States of America, the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937 was signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt; since then, it has become known as the Pittman-Roberston Act after its sponsors, Nevada Senator Kay Pittman and Virginia Congressman Absalom Willis Robertson. It introduced an 11% tax on firearms, ammunition and archery equipment, with the funds raised to be distributed to state governments for wildlife projects. As a result, most of the funding for state wildlife conservation programs comes from this tax and is a leading example of the ‘user-play, user-pay’ approach.
The Act's genesis was the confronting reality that many wildlife species were being driven towards extinction by habitat degradation and commercial or market hunting.
Since 1937, initiatives funded through the Pittman-Robertson Act have greatly improved the populations of white-tailed deer, wild turkeys, and even wood ducks, while funding habitat acquisitions to expand the ranges of black bears, elk and cougars. Hunters, outdoorsmen and women now find themselves in a position whereby, pursuing their lifestyle, they are financially contributing to its future.
This has helped coin or define the phrase ‘Hunter Conservation,’ as hunters in the USA directly contribute to conservation projects. However, it should be noted that 74% of gun and ammunition sales in the USA are not for hunting.
Sometimes, this phrase creeps into the conversation in Australia regarding hunting and its role within the environment. In Australia, we don’t have anything like the Pittman-Roberston Act; our hunting regulatory bodies are primarily funded out of consolidated government revenue, not a tax on goods used by outdoorsmen and women. The regulatory bodies are often hamstrung in what they can do beyond education and regulatory compliance of hunting activities.
In this context, it is essential to understand that harvesting an animal doesn’t result in conservation; it results from the purchasing power of outdoorsmen and women, some of whom hold no interest whatsoever in the outdoors but fund conservation projects.
To further complicate the matter, we are also dealing with the challenge of hunting being built upon introduced species, whereas in the USA, they are mostly all native. This is where the use of hunter conservation, when used in an Australian context, changes its definition and reinforces stereotypes peddled by antis who would seek to see an end to recreational hunting and further demonisation of wild deer in particular.
Undoubtedly, the recreational hunting of sambar deer in Victoria plays a governing role in managing their population on the public land estate. However, that is not the driving factor behind why we hunt deer. Deer, although introduced, are a valued resource that enables people to connect with nature, spend time outdoors, and disconnect from their work and life stresses whilst being able to provide exercise and nutritious free-range red meat and, more generally, live better lives.
The Australian Deer Association works hard to mature the conversation beyond the primitive introduced vs. native debate to one that focuses on an animal's ecological role within the environment. A plant doesn’t care if it's eaten by an introduced herbivore or a native one; the impact or outcome is the same. In years gone by, the same plant and many more would have been eaten by megafauna.
So, the next time someone calls themselves a hunter-conservationist, they might be off target.
“A plant doesn’t care if it's eaten by an introduced herbivore or a native one.”
Elk have been restored to their historic West Virginia Range due to funding from the Pittman-Robertson Act and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation; we don’t have anything like that in Australia.
Photo by
Aline Bedard
34°C