Editorial: States’ poor aim

Saturday, Oct. 27, 2007 | 7:14 a.m.

Several states are trying to recruit new hunters because a decline in hunting has meant a drop of millions of dollars in conservation funding.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which conducts a national survey of outdoor activities, says in 2006 there were 12.5 million hunters in America. That is down from 14 million in 1996 and 19.1 million in 1975.

Although hikers, bird-watchers and other outdoor enthusiasts pay user fees and other charges that help conservation efforts, hunters have been the traditional source of funding. There certainly is a need for it. Rachel Brittin, of the Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, said states receive $1.5 billion a year for conservation measures but need $1 billion more to reach their goals.

USA Today reported Tuesday that states brought in $724 million from hunting licenses and fees last year and $267 million more in taxes on guns and ammunition. That has led several states that count on that money to find ways to increase the number of hunters.

Decreasing safety training to drive up revenue is a terrible idea. Instead of making a foolish rush to increase the number of hunters, states would be better served by a broader discussion about conservation funding. Having fees tied to the fluctuating number of sportsmen doesn't seem to be sound policy.

If conservation is a priority, as it should be, there should be a steady stream of funding for it. Hunters and hikers are not the only ones who benefit from these projects. Conservation measures help the environment, and that benefits all of us.