Whooping cranes mean more than people.

[Smalls]

So let me get this straight, a government program that is doing what it was created for has "run amok"? How has this program, which is based on restoring Wildlife, "running amok" by restoring the whooping crane?

So I guess we should just go ahead and doom anything that is not hunted. How many species do we hunt or fish for in Louisiana? I'm going to take a wild guess that its not even 25% of the wildlife species that occur in the state at any given period. Just in terms of birds I know we don't hunt but 30-40 of the over 400 species of birds in the state. That's about 10%.

So you would have only 5-10% of the funds dedicated to 75% of the species that you percieve have no economic value? That doesn't seem reasonable.

In fact, it seems down right ridiculous. Just go ahead and doom the other 90% of species in the state by only appropriating 10% to their management.

The single most ridiculous thing I've ever heard is the statement that WLF should only manage game species or species that can be harvested. I guess all oak trees should be allowed to be cut down and not replaced either, since the economic value of such trees is no where near the economic value of pines.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Smalls

So let me get this straight, a government program that is doing what it was created for has "run amok"? How has this program, which is based on restoring Wildlife, "running amok" by restoring the whooping crane?

So I guess we should just go ahead and doom anything that is not hunted. How many species do we hunt or fish for in Louisiana? I'm going to take a wild guess that its not even 25% of the wildlife species that occur in the state at any given period. Just in terms of birds I know we don't hunt but 30-40 of the over 400 species of birds in the state. That's about 10%.

So you would have only 5-10% of the funds dedicated to 75% of the species that you percieve have no economic value? That doesn't seem reasonable.

In fact, it seems down right ridiculous. Just go ahead and doom the other 90% of species in the state by only appropriating 10% to their management.

The single most ridiculous thing I've ever heard is the statement that WLF should only manage game species or species that can be harvested. I guess all oak trees should be allowed to be cut down and not replaced either, since the economic value of such trees is no where near the economic value of pines.

You missed my point. My point was that license fees and taxes paid on sporting equipment should be focused on benefits for the taxpayers who paid those taxes. You are more than welcome to go to the LA Legislature and request funds for WC and the other 75% of species from the general fund.

But consider your own reasoning too. Why are 90% of species "doomed" unless megabucks are spent on their management? Why do 90% of species in Louisiana need expensive government programs?

When I was trained as a hunter's ed instructor, they emphasized how license fees and P-R funds go into supporting wildlife management and how much hunters and anglers benefit from these funds being invested in good management. This pitch seems dishonest if most P-R funds and license revenues are diverted toward programs which do not directly benefit those paying the taxes and fees. Benefiting other wildlife is a fine and noble goal, which I support. But why should this burden fall disproportionately on hunters and anglers?

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

You missed my point. My point was that license fees and taxes paid on sporting equipment should be focused on benefits for the taxpayers who paid those taxes. You are more than welcome to go to the LA Legislature and request funds for WC and the other 75% of species from the general fund.

But consider your own reasoning too. Why are 90% of species "doomed" unless megabucks are spent on their management? Why do 90% of species in Louisiana need expensive government programs?

When I was trained as a hunter's ed instructor, they emphasized how license fees and P-R funds go into supporting wildlife management and how much hunters and anglers benefit from these funds being invested in good management. This pitch seems dishonest if most P-R funds and license revenues are diverted toward programs which do not directly benefit those paying the taxes and fees. Benefiting other wildlife is a fine and noble goal, which I support. But why should this burden fall disproportionately on hunters and anglers?

Its much bigger than just a whooping crane, its the habitat that supports the whooping crane. All of it is disappearing (most of it is gone). Whooping crane habitat is great habitat for a variety of wetland species - many which you can go out and shoot. It sometimes takes a 'warm and fuzzy' charismatic species to get folks onboard (thats why you see panda bears on some of the conservation organizations logo and not a snail darter)


Other non-consumptive users such as birdwatchers pay into the system as well (they also buy sporting goods equipment, and they spend billions with a 'B') for their hobbies which go into the same system (Pittman-Robertson Act). They also have to purchase a wild La stamp if they want to go onto public WMAs If they make up 5% of the sales tax on sporting goods, then it seems fair that 5% of the fund should be dedicated to their needs/wants. I believe the LDWF budget is public info as well.


Sorry bout jabbin you on the gov't employee post up above too, low blow on my part

[capt coonassty]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

You missed my point. My point was that license fees and taxes paid on sporting equipment should be focused on benefits for the taxpayers who paid those taxes. You are more than welcome to go to the LA Legislature and request funds for WC and the other 75% of species from the general fund.

But consider your own reasoning too. Why are 90% of species "doomed" unless megabucks are spent on their management? Why do 90% of species in Louisiana need expensive government programs?

When I was trained as a hunter's ed instructor, they emphasized how license fees and P-R funds go into supporting wildlife management and how much hunters and anglers benefit from these funds being invested in good management. This pitch seems dishonest if most P-R funds and license revenues are diverted toward programs which do not directly benefit those paying the taxes and fees. Benefiting other wildlife is a fine and noble goal, which I support. But why should this burden fall disproportionately on hunters and anglers?

So why should my tax dollars go to schools if I don't have kids? Me paying for education doesn't benefit me directly. (I know it does, just don't have a better example to make my point)

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by capt coonassty

So why should my tax dollars go to schools if I don't have kids? Me paying for education doesn't benefit me directly. (I know it does, just don't have a better example to make my point)

Public education has gotten so poor and the return for tax dollars is so low, that a case can be made for elimination of public education.

Capitalism did a much better job with health care, why not give the free enterprise system a chance to fix education?