The story of nature conservation in the US is good to start with President Theodore Roosevelt, who put it on a peculiar idea: "Nature and its resources are the property of all, present and future generations. That's why we need to protect it. " Besides the establishment of national parks, this extraordinary man has created an original concept of " nature protection through rational use " . It is logical: planting trees, setting up nature reserves, eradicating pests and non-native species, rescue breeding - all this is necessary for the protection of natural wealth. Someone has to take care of it, and someone has to pay for it. Who? Still, those who use natural resources. Hunters with rifles and fishermen.
When the shooter becomes a landlord
America has revolutionized this. From a land where everyone could shoot or catch the iron what he wanted, a highly organized community of hunters created a country that manages and manages it. The system underwent a certain evolution, and the result was the emergence of state administration organizations that provide professional management of nature conservation in the field. Perhaps such a US Fish & Wildlife Service, one of the most successful organizations of its kind. They will do anything from dismantling calamities through planting species, monitoring and research, territorial protection, and ensuring that reservations are made to ensure the availability of workable campsites in the wild. Where does he get the money for his business?
Kill the beaver, save the tree
It's colorful: 1% of revenue is gained by the government for securing coastguards. 3% for sales of souvenirs, and 3% for admission to national parks. 4% of revenue comes from grants for scientific research, and up to 5% is able to compete annually for a variety of grants. Two branches of government support then feed this organization 9% and 15% of the budget. Still, they're all small. The largest package of money annually flows into US nature conservation from the sale of hunting licenses (banned licenses, hunting license approval, fishing cards). Total 35%, or more precisely $ 3.3 billion.
The hunter to look
And this is the most significant cause of the success of American nature conservation, and its current disasters. The hunters are rapidly dwindling around the country, and the flow of money to nature conservation is also strangled. "No one a hundred years ago, when he joined the system, could not guess what the situation in our company would look like right now," says Randy Stark , manager of hunting reservations in Wisconsin. "But what has once put US nature protection on its feet is now its biggest problem." Sales of hunting, ammunition and fishing equipment have fallen by 60% in recent years. And in principle, this corresponds to the trend of hunters' loss.
Research on shooters? We need numbers, we need to mark them
While in 1991 hunted 14.1 million hunters, last year it was only 11 million. That it is not a big step? Fifty years ago there were twice as many. Another problem is hidden in demographic stratification. In 1991, shooters were accompanied by 7.3% of juveniles (older than 16 years), and last year only 4.4%. There is a "successor generation" here. Even if it does not look bad for the past ten years, there will be a radical decline in the number of hunters. This is confirmed by Keith Warnke, who is called the "reversed biologist." He does not examine animals, but their hunters. "I just do not give them ear chips, but I'm drawing from a hunting association database."
When the rifle is silenced
"The break point is twenty-six," says Warnke. "This is the age when half of all active hunters decide for less-specified reasons to hang on the nail and stop buying licenses and charges." When this happens, the number of hunters is even smaller . "There is a strong sentiment against hunters, youngsters are not interested in nature or hunting. And in the 1950s it would not be financially sustainable. " In particular, in Wisconsin, keeping the demographic trends in 2050, he would not be the only hunter. But the reason for joy is not. They are hunters who have the whole system of nature protection in the States to pay from their own pockets.
Catastrophe on the horizon
First signals? In Colorado, US Fish & Wildlife Service had to cut the budget for destroying invasive species by tens of millions. In Wisconsin, the same organization is releasing and transitioning to minimal traffic. And from Vermont (where this organization manages over 25,000 species of animals and plants) there is a warning that, without the necessary funding, it will not be able to provide full protection for domestic species. The number of hitherto protected and endangered animals would be able to jump once in the 1600's. This is a decent natural disaster.
Do you pay as much as a hunter for a forest ride?
As the Pew Research Center confirms, 74% of Americans questioned, regardless of their political affinities, insist that the nature of money should continue to flow. But where? The number of hunters is declining drastically and the only other nature group is a diverse mix of tourists, amateur ornithologists, bayers and cross-country skiers. Will they pay for licenses to run their hobbies and hobbies? Hard to say. An advanced model of nature conservation, which has been borrowed by dozens of other countries around the world, with no chance of survival by the hunters.
Author: Radomír Dohnal
Source: Ekolist.cz