Time to Refashion Birding and Bird Conservation Efforts

Ted Lee Eubanks

November 3, 2003

The issue of Birding v. Hunting has plagued our recreation for as long as I can remember. No substantial action has ever resulted from the debate. Hunters go back to hunting, birders return to birding, and we await the next irruption.

Hunting, when viewed nationally and over the long-term, has been declining relative to population. From 1955 to 2000 hunting grew 31% in absolute numbers, while the U.S. population expanded by 71%. In more recent years that decline has been absolute as well. In 1991 there where 14,063 million hunters age 16 and older (the age class that the USFWS measures), while in 2001 that number had declined to 13,034 million.

I suspect, no, I predict, that hunting will continue to decline. The reason is straightforward. Hunting remains a white, male, rural activity when compared to the general population. Of the 13 million American hunters, 12.6 million are white, 11.8 million are male, and 41% live in areas outside of MSAs (compared to 19% of the general population). America is an increasingly diverse urban nation, and unless hunting is able to adapt itself to these socio-demographic shifts it will become less and less relevant as an outdoor recreation.

Funding for game conservation efforts by the game and wildlife resource agencies is derived from two primary sources related to hunting - the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (Pittman-Robertson or PR) and license sales. PR funds are:

Of course there are other hunter-funded mechanisms such as the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act (the Federal Duck Stamp), the turkey stamp, etc. However, as has been noted by Paul Baicich recently (in his attempt to see the duck stamp expanded to appeal to non-hunters), the duck stamp sales have been declining as well.

If the number of hunters continues to decline, then we can assume that the money made available for conservation though excise taxes and license/stamp sales will decline as well. The issue then becomes important for bird conservation and birding, since birders depend on these dollars to maintain (or at least contribute to) many of the programs that, at least indirectly, benefit birders. This is precisely why the agencies proposed Teaming With Wildlife nearly a decade ago, an expanded excise tax that would include equipment and supplies used by non-hunters as well. That measure failed, and we remain wedded to a conservation funding mechanism, largely unchanged since 1937, that is dependent on a declining revenue source.

Bird conservation is chained to a shopworn funding mechanism born in the 1930s. Admittedly the CARA effort led to the State Wildlife Grant program, which in FY 2004 will invest $70 million in state conservation projects (such as wildlife diversity planning). Yes, a portion of that will come to Texas. But $70 million is a pittance compared to the $100s of millions generated annually by PR and its fishing component (the Sport Fish Restoration Act or Dingell-Johnson). More importantly, the CARA-Lite funds are not directly contributed by birders and other non-consumptive users, so the potential political clout of such funding is diluted. There remains, in the wildlife agencies throughout this nation, the palpable impression that birders do not pay their fair share of the conservation costs.

To be accurate, birders and wildlife viewers (the appreciative sector) do pay a share (if not always fair). Birders (by my definition, those who find their way to nature through birds) do contribute to conservation organizations such as The Nature Conservancy and National Audubon. Birders are park users, and pay entrance fees. A portion of state sales taxes wend their way to parks, and birders do contribute their proportionate share to sales tax revenues. In my home state, bird organizations such as the Texas Ornithological Society and regional Audubon chapters (such as Houston Audubon) have been aggressive in conserving Texas bird habitats in the past couple of decades.

But birding contributions do not help fund the TPW staff and programs in any significant fashion. In the 1990s, when state agencies were flush and were able to invest in the future, birding and other nontraditional outdoor recreations (those reflecting socio-demographic trends) gained a voice. TPW developed programs such as the Texas Wildlife Trails, the Great Texas Birding Classic, and the World Birding Center in order to meet the expected needs and demands of this growing constituency. More importantly (for the agency) these efforts were directed at replacing the dollars anticipated to be lost through declining hunting revenues.

But the tide has changed. The economic downturn has forced states to search for short-term economic solutions ("sweating payrolls") and therefore many of the wildlife agencies have returned to their core constituencies at the expense of birding and wildlife viewing. [Please note the 3-6 December 2003 7th Governor’s Symposium on North America’s Hunting Heritage conference in Houston. When do you suppose that we will see the first Governor's conference on the future of birding?] The shift in budget priorities after 9/11 only accelerated this process. Birding and these nontraditional recreations were always investments that the wildlife agencies believed would payoff at some indeterminate time in the future, and they now believe that can no longer afford to wait for these to mature. At this moment, at this point in time, birders and birding do not contribute significantly to their shrinking budgets. Birding is a cost center, not a profit center. Birders have little political clout at the legislature (even less in the most recent session). Therefore, birders are expendable.

Please understand that I do not blame TPW for this turn of events. Birders have shown little willingness to pay in a traditional fashion that the agencies recognize (license fees, excise taxes). In fact, at every turn there have been birders opposing any such measures by the agencies. Since the agencies have not yet developed an approach that would tap the revenues generated by birding, and see little prospect of doing so in the near future, they understandably have turned their attention to the recreations that do contribute - hunting and fishing.

No, I do not believe that birding and wildlife viewing will completely disappear from the TPW agenda (although any reflection of these activities has certainly been expunged from the TPW building lobby here in Austin). There are incredibly committed and dedicated public servants such as John Herron, Cliff Shackelford, Linda Campbell, Brent Ortego, and Mark Lockwood (among others not named) who will continue to keep birding and wildlife viewing on the TPW radar screen. But I expect our recreation to enter an era of benign neglect, a period of exile. The wildlife trails will exist but not expand, and the World Birding Center will come into being as more pedestrian state park than world-class recreational center. In truth, birding never had a seat at the table, but for a few years we at least were allowed to enter the dining room.

We have no one to blame but ourselves. Birders are self-titled, self determined, and self motivated (yes, and at times self centered). Birding has always been about the individual more than any collective group, never more than now. With technological advances such as the Internet groups such as Audubon and ABA have lost their proprietary rights to birding information. Texbirds, in truth, is a far more effective disseminator of birding information (particularly real time) than any single organization. More importantly, the growth in birding has taken place in nontraditional segments. Feeder watchers, for example, may have a relationship with their local Wild Birds Unlimited franchise rather than any bird club in town. At an institutional level the growth in birding has little impact. Birding does not directly contribute to the wildlife agency budgets, and birders have never been able to organize into a collective voice. No money, no voice, no power.

Exile offers an opportunity to find oneself, to refashion and refresh. The traditional approach to birding and bird conservation has had its run. But anyone who believes that the "tried and true" approaches of the past will have credence in the future is in for a rude awakening.

In the mean time, I am off to Trinidad for a week of birding. I hope to return from my "exile" refashioned and refreshed, and prepared to help assist these new bird and birding efforts of the future.

Ted Eubanks
Fermata Inc.
Austin, Texas
November 23, 2003

 back to top