Conserving Wildlife

So how would I duplicate the system that hunters have created — to protect game species — for the sake of non-hunted migratory birds?   Make birders pay a fee for use of any federal or state wildlife areas.  A birder will have to buy a migratory bird stamp and display it on their binoculars or their car to prove they have paid.  The money for the stamp will be directed at two main goals:  create more opportunities to view bird and other wildlife and increase the opportunities for migrant birds to successfully breed, stopover and winter.  The stamp money would go directly to national wildlife refuge system and to each states land management system.   Birders will form new alliances to oversee the program and, because they will pay for the work of what often appears to be largely-unresponsive wildlife agencies, birders will have greater control.  Birders will have the same power as sportsmen, more perhaps because the number of sportsmen are declining while birders still increase in number.

What would it cost?  Ding Darling set the price of the waterfowl stamp at $1 in 1934.  Today that would equal less than $16.00, so a $15.00 stamp is just right.  Fifteen dollars to a birder is not quite pocket change, but let’s be frank, birders earn more than the average American, they are more educated, they spend a good deal of money on optics, field guides, field clothing, ecotourist vacations, and yet they do almost nothing wildlife management  agencies except pay taxes — just like everybody else.

It’s time to take charge, and a well funded program is the only way for a user group to take charge.   Birders need to step forward and save the birds they care for so much.

Over the last 30 years we have allowed our US coast to become unfriendly to migratory shorebirds.  In fact human use have burgeoned along all migration flyways causing extensive disturbance, habitat loss and fragmentation impacting all migrant birds.  The change is so pervasive that one has to worry, can we do any more than dress it up with flashy conservation actions and hope it will sort itself out on it own? Does it have to be this way?

Waterfowl faced a similar fate 76 years ago, although for other reasons, and sport hunters united with state and federal agencies to create a new conservation effort that saved waterfowl populations.  Jay “Ding” Darling, a political cartoonist of the 1930’s convinced President Roosevelt to pass the Duck Stamp Act, which created the first Duck Stamp in 1934.  Ever since waterfowl hunters have had to buy a stamp to hunt ducks and the money created much of what we know today as the National Wildlife Refuge system.   They went on to create a consortium of state and federal agencies called Flyway Management Councils in the Atlantic, Mississippi, Central and Pacific migratory flyways which also persist to this day.

I can’t help wondering why the comparable users – bird watchers for example — don’t help the birds they “use”?  Why do they mostly stand aside and take advantage of the wildlife protection system that someone else built?  How is it lost to the estimated 70 million birders (nearly 20% of people in the US identify themselves as birders) that it is not the responsibility of sportsmen to protect shorebirds and other non-hunted species.  The truth is they are responsible, and even though they spend an enormous about of money, estimated at 36 billion dollars annully,  they have failed to protect the species they so desire.

Birders at Ding Darling Refuge in Florida

So what can be done?  Ultimately, it comes down to money.  Birders and other recreational users that enjoy wildlife need to financially support a new flyway-wide effort to protect migratory birds that builds on the existing agency framework.  The money could fund an expansion and refocus of national wildlife refuges and state wildlife management areas to  create more protection (e.g., disturbance from vehicles, people, dogs).   This would be good, but 70 million people also creates a potent political force that could demand expanded protection for wildlife areas that are not currently under agency management.  They could insist that current flyway management system be meaningfully expanded to include the interest of all migratory birds.  Currently, flyway councils only consider regulatory actions and avoid any serious action concerning threats and management solutions for shoreibrds and other nongame migratory birds.   A dedicated source of funding, overseen by the people who paid, would transform conservation of migratory birds in the US.

This is how sportsmen influence the system – they pay for it – they buy licenses, duck stamps, they have self-imposed taxes on their equipment, guns, and ammunition, and they are vigilant about the use of that money for the benefit of hunted species and recreational hunting.  You cannot expect government agencies to focus on the interests of birders when birders have no interest in funding the system that meets their needs.

Ding Darling political cartoon on waterfowl conservation

After moving to Greenwich, New Jersey, I quickly began to see my own career-long effort to conserve land and wildlife in a new way.   In my nearly 25 years as a conservation biologist in New Jersey, I’ve always held a firm view that we must do all we can to conserve our valuable natural resources by opposing the inexorable march to develop the land into homes.  While we waste our cities, and all of the existing infrastructure on which people depend, sewer, water, schools, we also destroy the countryside with fields of houses. The loss ticks off like a doomsday clock — day-by-day, 1000’s of acres per year. 

I know people care.  I have watched five New Jersey governors tackle the problem, all hoping to stem the hemorrhage of land.  Democratic governors tended to increase land regulation, Republicans tended to buy land.  I met all of these governors and worked with their appointees in my time in the State Division of Fish and Wildlife, and I am convinced they all were sincerely committed to stopping the destruction of our states natural resources. . . . . . . .unfortunately with only mixed success. We call ourselves the “Garden State” but it’s an affectation.  Many of the large expanses of forest and farmland are riddled with housing developments.   This is no more evident than here in the South Jersey.

Now we have a new administration, they too will tackle this persistent problem, and no doubt follow a right-of-center approach hoping to counter what they see as the previous administration’s left-of-center approach.  After seeing the failure of both I find it hard to take either partisan position to heart.  In fact, looking at it from Greenwich, I wonder if we will ever come to grips with the destruction if only because it always starts with either a left or right perspective.   Some problems are too complicated, and the left-right dialogue may only doom us to continuing failure.  

What does this mean in real life.  For years the state government — democrat or republican administration — have purchased land.   What’s not to like?  Public ownership permanently protects, creates opportunity for recreation, and compensates landowners for the loss of value that often comes when regulations protect environmental sensitivity.   Everyone feels good about it.  Well, everyone except the community in which the land was purchased.  

Creating public land is a plus for our state, but unfortunately it can be a minus for rural communities.  The land comes off the local tax roles raising local property taxes, it is no longer productive which ultimately cost jobs, and the most the galling of all, the state refuses to pay the bill to take care of it. 

So what are the costs of this kind of land conservation.  Well, when you add this to the collapsed fisheries, the tangle of regulations that stop forest management, intensified agriculture that needs fewer and fewer people, the rural  economy crumbles.  Guess which activity makes the most sense?  Development — exactly the opposite effect of  conservation in the first place.

Jonathan Raban recently wrote in the NY Times about communities caught in the battle over the spotted owl in the Pacific Northwest.  This issue has dropped out of public attention but, sad to say, the owl still declines — now because of the expanding population of barred owl – and local communities still suffer from the economic losses caused by this conservation conflict.  In the controversy’s aftermath the communities must now hope for the continued growth of tourism.  And now, no one is paying attention anymore.  When I read the story I couldn’t help thinking of the land surrounding Greenwich.

I’m not saying we should stop buying land, we need to protect our dwindling natural resources if only because we need to pass it on to our children.  I am saying we (conservationists) should pursue land preservation along with plans to reinvigorate the economy of our rural communities and improve the income of  residents whose lives depend on the land.  In this way statewide and nationwide conservation becomes one with local efforts to conserve.



The difficulty facing most community planners, developers, landowners and ultimately government regulators is how to value quality wildlife habitat.  We know very well the value of damaged habitat, because it can be priced on the value of replacement or recovery.  BP’s oil spill will damage habitat and they will bear this cost to restore it to original condition.  But how can you value undamaged quality habitat?  Why is it important?

The latter question is easier than the first.  One of the few issues in conservation politics that concerns the greater public is the issue of property rights and land use regulation to protect endangered species.  It’s even created a well known backlash, the wise use movement, which rebelled against the taking of land for the protection of endangered species without compensation.  Although generally dismissed by liberal groups as a front for the resource industry, the issue of taking away property rights without compensation strikes to the heart of American politics.  The right to be fairly compensated for public use of our property is covered in the fifth amendment to our constitution.  Unfortunately there is no “ blue book “ of wildlife habitat value so how can one value it?

You can answer this question with a broader question, how do you value anything?  For most things worth is determined by how much someone is willing to pay.   To do this one must create a metric.  For example if I want to buy lunchmeat I trade my dollars based on its weight, about $5.50 a pound in my food store.   Once you have a good metric the market can determine the value.  For example we will likely reduce carbon emissions by creating a market in carbon credits, or a credit for companies that stay below the threshold for safe carbon emissions.  They will trade their credit with a company that exceeds the threshold and the market in these credits will determine the price.

In wildlife habitat there is no market for quality habitat credits because there is no metric on which value can be based.  Without a metric there can be no market-determined price for quality habitat credits.  I am coleading a project to do just that.  More in another post.