Whooping cranes mean more than people.

[Duck Butter]

In Louisiana MILLIONS of dollars have also been spent to reintroduce white-tailed deer, wild turkeys, alligators, bring back populations of wood ducks to huntable numbers, the list goes on...thats just for huntable game. These are just a few success stories, there are many many more.

Hard to believe with all the alligators we see now, that they were almost hunted to extinction. Hard to believe that not that long ago the brown pelican was thought to be extirpated from Louisiana (not a single one in Louisiana) yet look at what happened after reintroduction efforts

You can't hunt a pelican, but they are part of our natural heritage (as are whooping cranes), hell the pelican is on our state flag, would be kinda ironic if we didn't have them (and we didn't for a period of time)

I have a book and can link some info if someone is really interested and (not trolling like Spunt Drag)

BUT, Louisiana had both a resident population and a wintering population of whoopers. Per the book "It has been surmised that the tallgrass prairie of of Louisiana supported more Whooping Cranes than any other region of the country (Allen 1952). Allen (1952) roughly estimated that as many as 2,500 Whiiping Cranes could have wintered in this region"

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by kenner18v

So how much do we spend to bring a bird back that you can't hunt? And they hurt the waterfowl population that is a multi million dollar business to Louisiana. I'm all for bringing back the big bird with private money!!

The majority IS private dollars, google brah google


How in the world does a whooping crane hurt the waterfowl population? They inhabit the same habitat

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by kenner18v

Exactly, I hunt close to white lake preserve and they drained most of the water in the marsh for these birds and has killed a lot of mallard habitation, all for a few nasty birds!!

Naw brah, now I know you lying aint no mallards comin down to Louisiana no mo, they getting shortstopped in Arkansas, Missouri (insert state here)

But seriously, here are some pics I took of the 'drained marsh' you speak of Check out that one crane, these things are very tall birds but it is practically swimming in the 'drained marsh'
This is the place where they are released at White Lake, its fenced in to keep out predators but the cranes can fly off and come back to feed until they are eventually ready to feed on their own. The food supply is then shut off and they are own their own from there. This day was the last feeding for this particular cohort of cranes.

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by fisheye

I personally think it would be so cool to see a five foot bird in the field and would like to see people support this effort with their own private contributions to see if it is viable(recognizing that almost all large animals are dependent on conservation efforts for existence) and if not, then oh well....the species has obviously been supplanted by one more suited to its own preservation - unless there is a no limit sandhill crane season or someone figures out how to put it on the menu of course...

Check this guy out, he can throw out some fancy words. Doesn't change the fact that his facts aren't all there. Whooping Cranes and Sandhill Cranes cohabitated in Louisiana before whooping cranes were extirpated. Based on the current distribution of the two species from my own observations, they very rarely, if ever, utilize the same habitat. Whoopers are more commonly found in marshes and rice fields, whereas Sandhills are more commonly found in wet pasture or prairie (of which little remains).

if you're going to try and make an argument as to why a species shouldn't be saved, make sure it's a logical one.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

The majority IS private dollars,

If the majority of support for restoring the WC is private dollars, then stopping the flow of tax dollars shouldn't hurt too much...

This does not need to be an expensive government program.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

If the majority of support for restoring the WC is private dollars, then stopping the flow of tax dollars shouldn't hurt too much...

This does not need to be an expensive government program.

LDWF budget is derived from the Pittman-Roberston Act, not general sales tax, and the pot of money is a designated pot of money. I also think some people read the previous comment about $1-2 million per bird and believed it

"The LA Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) is working cooperatively with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the US Geological Survey, the International Crane Foundation and the LA Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit to restore the whooping crane within Louisiana. Project funding is derived from LDWF species restoration dedicated funds, federal grants and private/corporate donations. LDWF’s budget for the initial year of the project is $400,000. The project costs escalate in year two and beyond as the project expands. LDWF estimates that it will be necessary to raise $3 to 4 million private dollars to help fund a portion of this 15-year project."

Not everything LDWF does involves things you can shoot or catch on a rod and reel. There is a whole division (Natural Heritage Program) that deals with the non-game critters. They have a herpetologist, a zoologist, a botanist, etc.

[Spunt Drag]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

Naw brah, now I know you lying aint no mallards comin down to Louisiana no mo, they getting shortstopped in Arkansas, Missouri (insert state here)

But seriously, here are some pics I took of the 'drained marsh' you speak of Check out that one crane, these things are very tall birds but it is practically swimming in the 'drained marsh'
This is the place where they are released at White Lake, its fenced in to keep out predators but the cranes can fly off and come back to feed until they are eventually ready to feed on their own. The food supply is then shut off and they are own their own from there. This day was the last feeding for this particular cohort of cranes.

Be careful DB, your people gonna get mad at you

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

If the majority of support for restoring the WC is private dollars, then stopping the flow of tax dollars shouldn't hurt too much...

This does not need to be an expensive government program.

Neither does welfare, but it is.

There are already way too many cuts to conservation programs as it is. Are we only supposed to save species that are economically valuable? No. I'm not saying it should be the other way, either. Just because it doesn't have an obvious value, doesn't mean it isn't worth saving.

The whooping crane could do wonders for our ecotourism. It's just another piece to the puzzle. It's a species that can't be seen everywhere, just like many of our species down here.

DB already pointed out the finances of the program. If people don't like where money from taxes that are for the PURPOSE OF WILDLIFE RESTORATION are going, then don't buy a hunting license. This is wildlife restoration.

WHOA!!! Is that chick in the cage.....NAKED!?!?!?!

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by Spunt Drag

Be careful DB, your people gonna get mad at you

yo drag is spunt, let out some more line

[MathGeek]

Many of the points made above could be used to support ANY restoration program for ANY species at ANY cost.

Questioning how much a given restoration program costs is not the same as wholesale opposition to conservation and restoration programs.

Another way to frame the question might be to ask, "What fraction of LDWF expenditures should go to programs for species that do not generate any revenue and that no other species (including humans) depends on?"

I don't think many sportsman would have a problem with 5-10% of the total LDWF budget going toward programs for these species. However, most sportsmen would agree that most of the proceeds from license sales and taxes on sporting equipment should go to programs that have more tangible benefits for the species that are more commercially and recreationally important, including habitat protection and restoration efforts from which commercially and recreationally important species benefit.

Figuring out to protect all marine species (incl. red snapper) from explosive well removals seems like a higher priority than spending $15,000 for a reward for a dead Whooping Crane.

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Many of the points made above could be used to support ANY restoration program for ANY species at ANY cost.

Questioning how much a given restoration program costs is not the same as wholesale opposition to conservation and restoration programs.

Another way to frame the question might be to ask, "What fraction of LDWF expenditures should go to programs for species that do not generate any revenue and that no other species (including humans) depends on?"

I don't think many sportsman would have a problem with 5-10% of the total LDWF budget going toward programs for these species. However, most sportsmen would agree that most of the proceeds from license sales and taxes on sporting equipment should go to programs that have more tangible benefits for the species that are more commercially and recreationally important, including habitat protection and restoration efforts from which commercially and recreationally important species benefit.

Figuring out to protect all marine species (incl. red snapper) from explosive well removals seems like a higher priority than spending $15,000 for a reward for a dead Whooping Crane.

I guess its too bad that the Louisiand Department of WILDLIFE and FISHERIES doesn't just cater to hunters and fishermen.

These numbers are old, but wildlife-watching related expenditures were $517 million in 2006. I'm sure those numbers have gone up since we have seen an uptick in the number of OOS people wanting to go on Alligator tours and ecotours in general in the last 5 years. Hunting expenditures were around $975 million, and recreational fishing around $1.7 billion. Like I said, these are old numbers. I can't find anything more recent.

But that doesn't change the fact that they are not just a game agency, but Wildlife and Fisheries as a whole. $517 million is not chump change.

Also, I believe license sales go into the general fund (pretty sure I heard that once), which is not where these funds came from.

Again, the taxes on fishing and hunting gear from pittman-robertson are for Wildlife Restoration. The Act is called the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act.

What the heck do you want them to use P-R Funds on? This is what they are meant for! And from the sounds of things, its not even a large portion of, since some of the funding has come from Private Interests as well.

By the way, who actually depends on ducks or deer? And don't tell me guides do, because they are a very small segment of the working population and could probably easily find work somewhere else. I know a few guides that don't even do it full time.

Here's a great question for all you nay sayers: Did anyone read where that $15,000 came from?

"Organizations and individuals contributing to the reward fund include the Humane Society of the U.S., the Louisiana Operation Game Thief Program, Dr. Ben Burton, the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Foundation, the Animal Welfare Institute, Operation Migration, the International Crane Foundation, Jacksonville Zoo and Gardens, Audubon Nature Institute, Lowry Park Zoo, Zoo New England, King White and anonymous donors."

"LDWF’s Operation Game Thief program is offering up to a $1,000 reward for any information about this illegal shooting that leads to an arrest."

Only $1000 of that is being offered by LDWF. A little fact checking goes a long way!

[MathGeek]

Arguments about "dedicated" funds are a common feature of those favoring bloated government programs run amok.

In the same way that dedicated social security and medicare funds should be used in approximate proportion to benefit those who actually paid the taxes supporting them, dedicated wildlife funds should be used in approximate proportion to benefit those who actually paid the taxes and fees. That would be those who buy the sporting equipment whose taxes are levied by P-R and those who buy licenses and pay other government levied hunting and fishing related fees.

Mental gymnastics used to justify spending disproportionately large sums on WCs and other wildlife with only aesthetic benefits is no different from mental gymnastics used to justify social security or medicare benefits for individuals all out of proportion to their contributions.

[Duck Butter]

Now we are getting somewhere

MathGeek is up in here and gone on his usual government rant (who has worked for the gov't #irony)

Hats off to SpuntDrag, you did it bro

[noodle creek]

No one was arguing that it is only a waste of money because we can't hunt whooping cranes. Smalls an DB started that argument on their own. I think what most people are saying is that in the grand scheme of things, whether it be a mallard or a whooping crane, it just isn't the best thing to be spending money on.

Of course they are already spending money and will continue to do so, but that wasn't what the point of this thread was. Welfare is an expensive government program, but does that make it right?

[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.

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by noodle creek

No one was arguing that it is only a waste of money because we can't hunt whooping cranes. Smalls an DB started that argument on their own. I think what most people are saying is that in the grand scheme of things, whether it be a mallard or a whooping crane, it just isn't the best thing to be spending money on.

Of course they are already spending money and will continue to do so, but that wasn't what the point of this thread was. Welfare is an expensive government program, but does that make it right?

It went that way because it seems you have to justify any money spent on any wildlife that is not a game species. The point of this whole thing was that $15k was being spent on a reward for information on the killing of bird, and that the government was wasting money, when in fact $14k of that reward is from nongovernment sources.

[MathGeek]

Are current or former government employees somehow only allowed to support the expansion of government programs and never point out that the government might be wasting money?

Yes, I've worked for the government both as a scientist and as an educator. I won awards for both my teaching and my research, and my record of productivity and publication demonstrates that the government got more than their money's worth. Are you trying to say that it is somehow hyprocritical for someone who has cashed a few government paychecks to suggest that not every expenditure is wise?

All citizens should have a voice in how taxpayer resources are allocated. Suggesting that having been a government employee or shared past opinions in favor of downsizing invalidates points in a current discussion is a fallacious and dishonest view.

[yigodiver]

These very good eatin, 'Rib eye of the Sky'

Originally Posted by "W"

We have 100xs more of these than WC and we cant even hunt these

[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 noodle creek

No one was arguing that it is only a waste of money because we can't hunt whooping cranes. Smalls an DB started that argument on their own. I think what most people are saying is that in the grand scheme of things, whether it be a mallard or a whooping crane, it just isn't the best thing to be spending money on.

Of course they are already spending money and will continue to do so, but that wasn't what the point of this thread was. Welfare is an expensive government program, but does that make it right?

My bad, I was holding off because I know SpuntDrag was trolling but had to bite when someone said the cost of them was between $1-2 mil Someone will inevitably remember that number and post it somewhere else and dats how stuff gets stirred and repeated. Just tryin to somewhat keep the argument factual, dats why I posted pics of da truth on those 'drained wetlands'