The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s (DEC) statement that the Conservation Fund that supports the vast majority of fish, wildlife, marine resources and habitat programs in the state is millions of dollars in deficit is true. The DEC also says that an across-the-board license increase must be implemented to keep programs from being drastically cut or eliminated. Admittedly, the last sporting license fee increase in New York was in 2002. In the intervening years since that increase, the number of licenses sold annually has dropped and administrative costs have risen. So it wouldn’t take a rocket scientist to understand why such a deficit exists, at least on paper.
Faced with the threat of either paying up or seeing programs slashed, the NYS Conservation Council (NYSCC) has basically agreed that fee increases were needed. However, the NYS Conservation Fund Advisory Board (CFAB) has recently taken a stand against any fee increases until other stakeholders that use and benefit from our natural resources pay an excise tax on their outdoor equipment and services, just as sportsmen have been doing for years. This along with a new saltwater fishing license that is going to be made mandatory by the feds and may result in the state creating its own could certainly add millions to the Fund and keep programs afloat. On the surface, this may seem to be the remedy, but is it really?
Fishing in Lake Ontario and its main tributaries generates nearly $200M in annual revenues. Statewide, a Cornell study found that statewide freshwater fishing generated an economic impact of $3.6B annually. Hunting and trapping generates another $1.1B. And the Department of the Interior has said that $740.9M in excise taxes will be distributed this year to the fish and wildlife agencies of the 50 states to fund fish and wildlife conservation.
Now let’s start considering the other natural resource users in the state. When we consider all the various stakeholders – snowmobilers, ATVers, hikers, campers, birders, horseback riders, canoeists and kayakers, etc., etc.—even a modest user fee or excise tax on their gear would bring in a windfall to the Conservation Fund. But, and this is a big but, who would decide where and how these extra funds would be spent Some, such as snowmobilers and ATVers are already contributing, but primarily to the General Fund. However, with the state currently trying to repair a huge budget deficit, it’s rather doubtful it would like to see additional money switched from the General Fund to the Conservation Fund, regardless of its source.
Remember that New York’s natural resources parent agency is primarily an environmental one rather than a conservation one, so the initial responsibility would likely be of that priority. There’s already friction among the various stakeholders over who wants what, when and how much. Now imagine what would occur if they all were lobbying Albany over those issues. You think things are bad now?
Fishing, hunting and trapping are primarily consumptive activities, hence the need for licensing, seasons and limits. Conversely, the other stakeholder activities are primarily non-consumptive. Despite the fact all stakeholders basically use and enjoy many of the same natural resources, historically it’s been the sportsmen’s license money and excise taxes that pay for the resources management. Is this fair? I’m sure some stakeholders would say so since sportsmen may enjoy the consumptive benefits such as keeping fish and game to eat. But on the other hand, what would happen to natural resources if suddenly there were no sportsmen buying licenses and paying special excise taxes to support the ongoing management and conservation of these resources? Many of the other stakeholders’ interests and opportunities would suffer.
So what are the answers to solving this funding mess? Sharper minds than mine have labored long and hard to find solutions. Unfortunately, each time what appeared to be an answer was presented, one or more of the stakeholders involved wasn’t pleased with it, or the DEC claimed it was unworkable to everyone’s satisfaction or there weren’t enough funds to support it. Now that the proverbial scat has hit the fan, the state’s answer is repetitive of its approach back in 2001 – make sportsmen/women pay more. So no one should be particularly surprised that some sportsmen react with a “let other stakeholders pitch in” response.
But as previously mentioned, this would probably create even more problems and diminishing results to all the stakeholders involved. So what’s left? By the simple process of elimination, there’s just one left – separation of the various interests into stand-alone programs, based on their economic benefits to the state and resources involved.
I don’t know how you run your household, but ours operates on the “you can’t spend more than you can afford” concept. It’s about time the Albany leaders admitted their “keep everyone happy by throwing borrowed money at them” is what got us into this huge deficit problem. In the end, we wind up paying dearly for it, with soaring taxes, businesses leaving or folding, and more people unemployed or on welfare.
It’s that same mindset in DEC that has seen our conservation programs declining while license sales have continued to drop. Trying to use the Conservation Fund to pay for a majority of the various stakeholders’ interests and activities, while the ones who pour their money into the Fund see their interests and activities whither away could only conclude one way – with those footing the bill crying “Enough!”
Some people probably thought I was nuts, proposing that the fish and wildlife division be separated from the DEC, but if things were to continue, and the Conservation Fund had to keep shouldering so much of the financial load for so many other stakeholder programs and opportunities, all the stakeholders would suffer. With the current Fund in a deficit state, that will no doubt happen, even if sportsmen have to pay more. The time has come for conservation income to go for conservation only, and let environment income go for environment only.