One of the main rationales for outdoor fees charged to hunters and fisherman is that they kill part of the outdoor experience (consuming it), though pruning overage may be a social benefit; while for the passive watcher the only damage may be to the environment walked on or trash left by the walker.
This, and the difficulty of charging fees for a freely accessible land area, makes the idea a bad one, as it is for the Parkway.
The key here is to involve the private sector and philanthropy. Helping people be able to help an area they love through their gifts to a nonprofit organization also responsible for all or partial management of the area, is much more productive and as it is freely given rather than coercively taken, just a better way to go.
Nature's cost
As hunting and fishing licenses decline, wildlife officials are seeking to collect maintenance funds from 'non-consumptive' visitors
By M.S. Enkoji - Bee Staff Writer
Published 12:00 am PDT Monday, August 20, 2007
On any given day, Nancy Siegler will plant herself on a riverbank and cast a line in hopes of snagging a hefty length of trout.
"I fish as often as I can," the 64-year-old Cameron Park angler said.
It's been that way since she was a little girl, standing alongside her father as they cast their hopes together.
It's a fading legacy.
Fewer people in California and across the nation are choosing to spend time hunting or fishing. Instead, they are turning to wildlife viewing as a way to spend time outdoors.
And that rise and fall in different outdoor pursuits is at the heart of a controversy over how to equitably spread the cost of maintaining wildlife.
"It's always the angler and hunter paying for the entire department," said Sep Hendrickson, host of the Sacramento radio show "California Sportsmen," talking about the California Department of Fish and Game.
Not quite the entire department, but enough for concern, said Eric Loft, chief of the department's wildlife branch. Fish and Game has discussed how to levy costs on those who are known in the industry as "non-consumptive" wildlife visitors, he said.
"Is there a way to charge access fees to use our lands? There's certainly a cost to maintaining them," Loft said. "Everyone is driving on and off the roads. It costs us time and money."
Even though hunters and anglers are the minority, they spend almost double what wildlife watchers do on their outdoor pursuits. And they're subjected to more significant license fees.
U.S. hunters paid $152, on average, in fees for licenses and using public land in 2001. Anglers averaged $66, while nature watchers averaged $30, primarily as admission to public land.
In California, license fees bolster the state Department of Fish and Game's conservation fund, which pays for efforts such as planting browse for deer so they'll survive in winter habitat.
Revenue for basic hunting licenses rose from $16 million in 2001 to $18.4 million in 2006, but not because significantly more people bought licenses. The licenses increased in price -- from $28.50 to $33.25.
