|
"Kids in the Woods" is a phrase upon the tongue of every huckster intent upon boosting the sagging profitability of that segment of the tourism / recreation industry dependent upon people traveling to, and consuming recreation within, "The Great Outdoors"™. It's an important concept, hijacked by those pushing a particular agenda and now gone bad as a consequence of how it is being abused.
Kids, I might add, are not the only demographic no longer visiting and enjoying their public lands.
Much has recently been made of the large decrease in the number of hunters and, as a result, a great deal of energy and resources is being used to lure hunters back to the forest (and to the sporting goods shops, motels, and gas stations they are no longer patronizing).
Pasted below is an article from the Detroit press titled "Hunting fees in the crosshairs. " Here is a quote I thought most revealing:
"If you discourage people of my age and we don't go out, who's going to introduce it to the younger generation?" said Seefelt, who will be hunting in the Lewiston area this week. "And if no one introduces it to them, who's going to introduce it to their children?"
Unlike those who are using "Kids in the Woods" to promote the "Corporate Takeover of Nature and the Disneyfication of the Wild", Mr. Seefelt is stating a simple fact.
Land managers and those in the commercial sector who have long promoted "pay-to-play" paradigm create fictions to explain declining participation in public lands recreation. Those fictions are designed to a paradigm shift in how, and at what cost, outdoor recreation will be provided in the future.
"Kids in the Woods" is one such fiction. The article which follows offers a more simple, and straight forward, truth.
Scott
--- begin quoted ---
November 14, 2007
Hunting fees in the crosshairs
As deer season opens, hunters grouse about proposed hike
Jim Lynch / The Detroit News
EVART -- Casey Keysor already works multiple jobs to make ends meet. So
the last thing the avid deer hunter wants to do is shell out more cash
every fall to bag his buck.
As they head out for Thursday's firearm deer season opener, Michigan
hunters like Keysor enjoy some of the lowest hunting license fees in
the Midwest. But that could change if the state Department of Natural
Resources wins approval to double or even triple some fees over the
next three years to help ease a financial crunch.
For Keysor, 28, who farms and works as a real-estate agent northwest of
Mount Pleasant in Evart -- in addition to taking accounting and
woodworking jobs on the side -- that's not good news.
Keysor, who normally buys a $30 firearm/archery deer license, could pay
as much as $75 for the same license within the next two years.
"I don't like it at all," he said. "I'd like to know exactly what it is
they're going to do with the money. From what I've heard, (the benefits
are) not going to impact me at all."
Officials with the DNR say they are in a financial crisis, one that
requires either an increase in fees such as hunting licenses, or cuts
in programs and services.
If approved by the Legislature in January, the fee package would double
and triple some hunting, fishing and trapping fees by 2010. As many
Michigan deer hunters prepare for opening day, the proposal has become
a hot-button issue. Many sportsmen decrying an unfair penalty on one
segment of the population; others say they are willing to pony up to
support vital programs.
For the moment, Michigan and Illinois sit at the bottom of the fee
ladder among the Great Lakes states with a residential deer permit
costing $15. Ohio charges $19, while Wisconsin and Indiana charge $24.
If the fee package proposed by the DNR passes, the state would leapfrog
the rest of the region to a $30 permit.
Sterling Heights resident Bob Seefelt has been hunting for more than 50
of his 67 years and he fears what the fee increases could mean to the
sport, particularly if seniors are driven away.
"If you discourage people of my age and we don't go out, who's going to
introduce it to the younger generation?" said Seefelt, who will be
hunting in the Lewiston area this week. "And if no one introduces it to
them, who's going to introduce it to their children?" The DNR's dilemma
Since Michigan's sport hunting fees were last updated in 1996, the
revenues they generate have become increasingly important to the DNR's
operations.
For next year, the department has a budget of $288 million, with $22.7
million coming from the state's general fund -- meaning state tax
dollars. In 2001, the DNR's budget was $260 million with $53.7 million
coming via the general fund.
So in seven years, the percentage of the DNR budget coming from general
fund tax dollars has dropped from 20.6 percent to 7.9 percent. About 75
percent of its remaining budget comes from user fees. Another 15
percent comes from federal funding.
"That makes us more reliant on restricted funds (revenues generated
from licensing)," said Ann Wilson, a communications representative for
DNR. "Snowmobile fees have already been increased, as have some fees
for camping and motor vehicle permits for state parks."
In addition, state officials have already begun cutting programs and
trimming jobs -- to the tune of $8 million -- to make shrinking general
fund dollars go further. Among the adjustments made in the last three
years are:
• Reduced survey work on lakes and streams, as well as reduced research on ecosystems.
• Field conservation officer positions are not being refilled.
• A 60 percent reduction in the hatchery production of Coho salmon.
• Reduced maintenance on state equipment and buildings.
Without additional revenues, DNR officials have said they could have to
lay off 79 conservation officers, foresters and wildlife and fishery
technicians. In addition, two state's fish hatcheries could close.
Some members of Michigan's hunting community recognize the need to fund
DNR programs and would normally have no problem paying an extra $15
each year. Yet Michigan's stagnant economy and the recent budget
squabbles that resulted in proposed tax hikes have many people feeling
less than generous these days.
Clement Parke, a 65-year-old hunter from Alanson, near Petoskey, is one of those.
"I would be OK (with an increase) if they were sure to use the money
for something that would help hunting," said Parke, who hunts on a
family member's property. "But I don't think they will."
Officials with Michigan United Conservation Clubs are willing to meet
the state halfway -- by supporting a fee increase, but not the doubling
of some licenses that has been proposed. Relying on license fees,
according to members of the nonprofit conservation group, is not a
long-term solution.
"We ask that you implement a small license fee increase, sufficient to
cover the projected two-year deficit, in order to keep critical DNR
services up and running," MUCC officials stated in an Oct. 29 letter to
Sen. Majority Leader Michael Bishop, R-Rochester.
"With that increase, we ask that you implement a two-year sunset.
During those two years, the conservation community commits to working
with state agencies, the legislature and other key interest groups to
find an equitable funding source for natural resource management."
To top it off, each year, license fees are generating less revenue due
to the declining number of participants in outdoor activities.
"Participation in both hunting and fishing is declining," said Wilson
of the DNR. "Fortunately, we're not declining as quickly here in
Michigan as in some other states. But if we do nothing, our revenues
will continue to decrease while our costs keep rising." Tight finances
a problem
Since taking up hunting three years ago, Jenni Blodgette's annual trips
to Ionia with her father for the start of deer season have become
bonding experiences. The idea of paying double for the experience,
however, gives her a reason to worry.
The 37-year-old Warren resident is on a student's budget as she studies
construction management at Lawrence Technological University.
Increased fees, she said, might cause her to purchase fewer licenses in the future -- and she's sure she's not alone.
"We're at a point right now where a lot of people don't have a lot of
money," she said. "If people buy fewer tags, you're going to have less
and less deer being taken and the herd will increase beyond where it
should be."
Others envision some hunters not bothering with licenses at all or not purchasing them until after the fact.
"I know of people who already will only go and purchase a license only after they get a deer," Keysor said.
|
- Land management 
