Re: TEAMING WITH WILDLIFE

Dave Mozurkewich (dm@fornax.usno.navy.mil)
Fri, 20 Feb 1998 10:05:11 -0500 (EST) 

Rick,

I have remained silent since I first heard about the idea of taxing
recreational equipment. I felt that did not know enough about the details
of any proposed bill to add content to the debate.  I have mixed feelings
about this issue and I wanted to hear other opinions before stating my
own.  It now looks like it would be a mistake to wait much longer.

I have to take issue with what you neglected to say.  You respond to the
claim that birders don't pay their fair share with the claim that we
contribute to a lot of good causes.  But we also have to pay for access to
the land.  I suspect we pay more for access than hunters.  Do you know of
any way to estimate how much we are already contributing?  I know that
duck stamp owners are counted as hunters. I have never purchased a duck
stamp for that reason, but it has been over a decade since the last time I
did not have a valid Golden Eagle Pass.  This pass grants me more access
than the duck stamp and I assume the proceeds are counted in a different
category.  Last year, the cost doubled.  It is now $50 per year, but I
think it is still less expensive than paying daily fees at the national
parks and wildlife refuges I visit each year.  But this does not cover all
access fees to government land. 

Back in my younger days, when I lived in the mountains of Wyoming, I had
unlimited free access to all NFS, NWS and BLM land.  There was a nominal
fee for camping in a developed campground, but I do not complain about
that.  There is significant work and cost involved with a campground and
it is the same argument that fishing has to pay for stocking the streams. 
But since then larger and larger portions of the forest are being
designated picnic areas and have accompanying "day use" fees. 

Today, if I want to spend a morning driving the length of Oak Creek Canyon
(Flagstaff to Sedona AZ) and if I want to spend that morning birding the
way many of us do - standing just off the road for 10 to 20 minutes to see
what's there - it can cost me in excess of $20.  And this is all public
land!  There are state parks, NFS campgrounds and picnic areas.  There is
a "day use area" where the only facilities that require maintenance and
could thus justify the fee are the toll booth and two garbage cans. 

And the situation has just become much worse.  Fourteen months ago, in
southern California, at the visitor's center in the Angeles National
Forest, a large sign was erected that claims (I paraphrase) "Birders are
consumptive users of the land". If I go birding in those mountains, I have
to pay a user's fee because someone has to maintain that swath of dirt
where I can nudge my car off the road!  If a non-birder/tourist drives
across the mountains and pulls off the road to admire the view, they too
are suppose to pay the user's fee.  The sign also stated that this was a
trial program involving two national forests.  I hope I have
misinterpreted this sign and am overacting but I fear it is a vision of
the future to come.  My uncertainty is because I was last there the
weekend the fee was being implemented and nobody knew how much the fee was
or where I could pay it.

So what is it I am trying to say?  As non-consumptive users of the land, I
see our fees continually rising whereas consumptive uses - logging,
mining, ranching - continue to have stable, low costs and heavy subsidies.
You may claim that I am mixing two issues, but I think not.  The real
debate about TWW should center on "How should our public lands be managed
and who should pay for it?"  Everything else is a smokescreen. 

Rick, I like to disagree with you, but this time I can not.  There are
already lots of studies that show our impact on the economy.  If someone
claims that birders are not important, this tax will not help.  If we
claim we should vote with our wallets and support this tax, the money
generated will be spent on projects that make it HARDER to pursue our
hobby.  No wildlife will be saved except for deer and those #!@%&#!@$
Trumpeter Swans soon to be overrunning the bay.  Regardless of the actual
situation, THEY will claim the revenue was really generated "on the backs
of school children" so we shouldn't complain about how the money is spent. 
And WE will be no closer to ANY goal we care about.

I will be happy to accept a stiff tax provided it comes with guarantees
that the proceeds are used for the benefit of the wildlife we care about. 
But even then, how can we be assured of the outcome?

Rick, if MOS continues to claim that we support TWW because we are members
of MOS, what should we do? 

Dave

David Mozurkewich
Seabrook MD USA
dm@fornax.usno.navy.mil