The National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) is the world’s most effective network of public lands and waters created to manage and conserve fish and wildlife.
The National Rifle Association believes that the NWRS must expand upon its longstanding partnership with hunters for the System to gain ground in the next generation.
Hunters continue to be some of the strongest supporters of conservation and the NWRS (image: FWS).
The hunter’s role in the NWRS has been ingrained since 1903, when President Theodore Roosevelt, a hunter and visionary conservationist, established the first wildlife refuge at Pelican Island, Florida.
Since then, hunters have played a key role in funding the system and in ensuring that refuges maintain healthy, sustainable wildlife populations.
Refuges safeguard wildlife populations through habitat management. There must exist a balance between a refuge’s wildlife population and the habitat needed to support it.
That’s where hunters come in. Hunters are often called the first conservationists. And hunting is the most important, most effective tool for striking that imperative balance between the wildlife on a refuge and its carrying capacity.
In terms of funding—Sales of the Federal Duck Stamp have raised more than $750 million since 1934, enabling the purchase of more than five million acres of wildlife habitat for the NWRS. The typical buyer of a Duck Stamp is a hunter—indeed, every waterfowl hunter in the country is required to have one.
This citizen-based revenue for land acquisition is unparalleled in Federal and state land systems and exemplifies the unique role that the hunting community plays in wildlife conservation throughout the country.
It is no exaggeration to say that America’s 12.5 million hunters are among the best friends the NWRS has. Hunters must continue to be a vital part of its vision, and more efforts made to increase hunting opportunities. Loss of accessible hunting land due to development and fragmentation is the main cause of declining hunter numbers, and refuges need to help reverse that decline by providing prime areas for Americans to hunt.
While NRA’s mission is to defend the Second Amendment, 80 percent of our members hunt. We are committed to protecting hunters’ rights, promoting hunter safety, and defending hunting as a key to the wise use of our renewable wildlife resources.
Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President, National Rifle Association
17 Comments in this post »
RSS feed for comments on this post. | TrackBack URL
Mr. LaPierre,
Thank you for your contributing NRA’s voice to this important discussion of the future of America’s national wildlife refuge system. As a member of CARE, the NRA has been integral to protecting NWRS budgets and for that I say “thank you.” I am a hunter and gun owner and largely agree with what you’ve said here. I was hoping you could share the source for your claim that the main cause of declining hunter numbers is access to hunting lands.
Many thanks,
Jimmy Fox
Fairbanks, Alaska
Excellent points.
JR Robbins, Managing Editor of NRAhuntersrights.org, responding on behalf of Mr. LaPierre.
Much of our information came from “The Future of Hunting and the Shooting Sports,” prepared by Responsive Management and the National Shooting Sports Foundation .plus interviews with the lead author Mark Duda.
While “access” is the key issue, the term should be assumed to include actual loss of hunting lands, especially due to urbanization. With more space available on the blog, we might have expanded upon this complicated issue.
We have all seen woodlots where we hunted 20 years ago that are now subdivisions where no hunting is allowed, therefore they are inaccessible. In eastern states alone, between 1973 and 2000, more than 1.9 million acres of forest land was lost to development, fragmentation and parcelization. In the same time period, 1.2 million acres of farm land was lost to development.
Road and trail closures on public lands, due to mandated Travel Management Plans BLM and the Forest Service must initiate, affect access, too. And it doesn’t stop there. Along with urbanization come cultural changes…the hunting heritage is strong in rural America, but far less so in a typical subdivision. Young people do not grow up with as many hunting opportunities and the hunting ethic is not evident in the family.
There are other factors driving people out of hunting, too. Hunting competes for a youngster’s time—with school, jobs, sports, computers, etc. Indeed, there is substantial concern among game and fish agencies that in general, kids are just not getting outside enough. Anti-hunting groups and their sympathetic media are a problem, too. But the bottom line is that it has just become too difficult for the average American to find a place to hunt.
Mr. Robbins,
Thank you for your response on behalf of Mr. LaPierre. This issue of declining hunter numbers is important and complex. Your response reveals other contributing factors. I believe all factors need to be considered as stewards of the national wildlife refuge system weigh the ecological and financial costs and benefits to NRA’s request “to reverse that decline by providing prime areas for Americans to hunt.”
Best regards,
Jimmy Fox
I raised two boys (now men in their 30′s) while working as a refuge manager in South Dakota, Nebraska and Utah. They are both avid hunters and fishermen, but it took some effort on my part to engage them in the natural world. Don’t get me wrong, it was fun, but it did take time and effort to make it happen. I do agree for sure that there are less places to hunt and it is more difficult to get young people into good hunting areas. That is half of the equation. The other half is that we have less two parent homes. It is near impossible for a single parent to find enough time to go afield with their children very often. That leaves us with a generation who have been taught to entertain themselves with electronics or perhaps join organized activities at school. So, the fabric of our society has changed into something that makes it way more difficult to connect nature with our children. Going into the schools and incorporating some type of meaningful experience on refuges as a part of their curriculum may be our best shot at diverting them into nature. It is just going to take a planned “intervention” to pull our children out of the “electronic rut”. One other observation, when we get kids out to a refuge of wild area, they need to have an activity that emerses them into nature. Hunting is a perfect example. It is sort of a full contact activity with nature. Just taking a busload of kids out for a lecture won’t cut it.
Are you NUTS?? You put up a reserve so you can hunt on it? That’s insane!!! Let nature do its thing and watch it bloom. Stop getting in the way of it. It seemed to do just fine when hunters weren’t around…but, nooo! You folks think it mandatory to stick your noses where they don’t belong…in nature? Nature can weed out the weak without YOUR ridiculous help. You aren’t helping animals, you’re setting them up to be KILLED! That’s hardly a wildlife REFUGE. Look up the name, and stop calling yourselves what you aren’t…a refuge for animals — HA! You’re not a refuge and stop telling folks that you have to kill to allow the numbers not to get out of hand.
Sanctuaries don’t kill animals and the animals don’t seem to get out of hand…go figure! Lots of areas don’t allow hunting and the animals don’t get out of hand. You just want money, just like all the other funded things like this. You’re not interested in preserving and protecting the animals. You’re just another money hungry fool that will DESTROY this EARTH…the place YOU live, sadly; the place we all live. It’s folks like you that make me sick to call myself, HUMAN, because you are anything but that!
WOW. Not sure when nature existed without hunters, maybe you could enlighten us. You are obviously not aware of the goal or the mission of the National Wildlfe Refuge System, hunting is just a small portion of what we do as an agency. Hunters have been the driving force behind millions of acres protected for the future generations, yours and mine, acres that will never be developed, or detroyed for your mini malls and your box stores. We are PROTECTING this EARTH that you also live in, more than 150 million acres. All wildlife are protected on Refuges from the small Grasshopper Sparrow to the Grizzley Bear, from the grasslands to the forests, a very small portion of GAME species are actually hunted, and not all refuges allow hunting. Our hunts are strictly managed and closely monitored and they have to adhere to our overall mission goals for the Refuge. Our public uses are designed to get people outside and hunting is one of our Big Six activites approved by your elected members of Congress. Refuges are not places to go and kill animals, believe me more animals are shot with cameras than with weapons. I challenge you to leave positive comments on your thoughts to help us improve the Refuge system and not to bash our practices because they don’t fit within your beliefs.
A hunter and conservationist.
WOW is right! I’m a photographer, educator, naturalist, biologist, and hunter. I just do not see the conflict that you see regarding hunting. If anything, refuges should operate as living laboratories where wildlife is managed for its own sake, as well as for human benefits. Refuge hunting programs are carefully managed to achieve both of these objectives. By law, before hunting is allowed on a refuge, refuge staff must determine that it is compatible with the purposes that that particular refuge was established. Refuge staff must carefully weigh the potential impacts that hunting may have before it is even considered, much less allowed. These assessments are taken very seriously and hunting is simply not allowed if it has a detrimental impact.
As a hunter, I work hard to make sure that wild places and wild things are abundant so that I have places and wildlife to hunt (as well as photograph, observe, study and educate others about the importance of natural systems). As a biologist, I am keenly aware of my role in the food chain and work hard to make sure that food chains are fully functional. This includes being an active participant in them.
Sadly, people who attack hunters and hunting seriously hinder the creation of broader coalitions that can work together to maintain the wild places and wild things that we all care about. Setting aside our differences and working together on the really important issues is the only way we will have a chance to pass on a better world to our grand children! I hope you can tone down the rhetoric and help us work toward a better refuge system and a better tomorrow.
My impression is that the refuge system has a problem of “White Sign Disease.” That is a number of refuge managers behind the white refuge sign see the refuge as their kingdom and feel that they can make policies about the refuge independently. This leads to some very hunter “unfriendly” behaviors. For example, Bowdoing refuge in MT is in the dry eastern part of the state. This refuge has excellent rapirian habitat and a good population of white-tailed deer. The refuge policy is that no deer hunting is allowed! Not only that but the refuge will not allow unarmed retrieval of a deer shot on adjoining private lands the escapes onto the refuge. Certainly this is not the policy on all refuges but it shows the extremes some managers resourt to.
A second example and I’ll quit. That is Quivera refuge in KS. This refuge has a history of what I deem hunter unfriendly behavior. When I inquired about unarmed retrieval of deer from this refuge I was told that if I shot a deer and it went onto the refuge no trespassing for unarmed retrieval would be permited. Also, I was told it would be considered that I had filled my tag and could not hunt anymore even thought I had not reduced the animal to possession. This from a law enforcement officer at the refuge. This refuge is in centeral KS and offers some of the best white tail deer populations in the nation but does not allow any deer hunting.
I am not sure if the refuge managers just do not want to go to the trouble of managing hunters or are anti-hunting or what. They are certainly not hunter friendly. The idea of not allowing unarmed retrieval of wounded animals is ludicrous. States have laws preventing wasting of game meat. This policy on some refuges mandates waste of game meat from animals that could be retrieved. They may hide behind the “concern” that poaching is the reason that no one is allowed on the refuge – how is someone without a weapon (bow or gun) looking for a wounded deer going to affect poaching? I think this is a weak argument at best for a very hunter unfriendly approach by some of the refuges.
The root problem is that there is no overall governing policy regarding hunting on refuges that is followed by the managers. In addition, there is no policy of how retrieval of animals shot on adjoining property is to be handles if those animals come onto the refuge. The Refuge system must address this with policies that refuge managers will not be allowed to ignore or contradict.
When I read this on your site, “While NRA’s mission is to defend the Second Amendment, 80 percent of our members hunt. We are committed to protecting hunters’ rights, promoting hunter safety, and defending hunting as a key to the wise use of our renewable wildlife resources.”
I was appalled! You call yourself a refuge, but in reality, you are nothing more than a hunting facility.
Leave nature alone and let it do what it was meant to do…exist without human destruction. Either that, or expect God to jump in and show you the error of your ways. He’s certainly been making his rounds, as of late.
To those of you who oppose hunting on national wildlife refuges, I suggest you read some of the other bloggers invited to be here who represent major hunting/conservation groups. Ducks Unlimited is just one example. In fact hunting is so important in the Refuge System, the US Fish and Wildife Service has posted an online Guide to Hunting on National Wildlife Refuges: http://www.fws.gov/refuges/hunting/
What this article doesn’t state is, 1) Many acres of these public refuges are closed to all but hunters during the prime migratory seasons; 2) Waterfowl hunting on refuges results in considerable suffering, as crippling rates are high in duck and goose hunting; 3) Duck hunters fund refuges in part, but not in whole. There is tax money also subsidizing public lands. But, because duck hunters are mandated by law to purchase duck stamps, they lay claim to the funds acquired this way. I realize that 98 percent of those funds go toward habitat acquisition and restoration. But there is no commensurate system in place for us non-consumptive wildlife viewers, birders, photographers. We outnumber hunters by far, and yet our contribution isn’t even recorded. Try to buy a duck stamp from the national site and you will find there is no place to state whether you are a hunter or a non-hunter. This is significant because when decisions are made about the allocation of recreational land and about protective measures for our wild animals, hunters interests take the lead. If we non-consumptive users had the same system in place that hunters did, wildlife refuges would never lack for funding. Levy fees on camera and birding equipment. Produce a non-hunting duck stamp that we can feel good about purchasing. Many of us don’t want to be lumped into the hunter funding bracket because we give our money but then have no say about how those lands are used. It’s a disgrace to walk the wetlands of refuges in the winter and hear the constant crackle of gunshots, watch birds fall and lie crippled in what amounts to a huge killing field when it comes to waterfowl hunting. I am a licensed wildlife rehabilitator and have seen firsthand how horrific the aftermath of hunting crippling truly is. From lame animals to septic infection, it’s the big dirty secret of hunting that hunting PR machine does not want the non-hunting public to know about. If people really understood the true costs of hunting like duck hunting — and how many ducks and geese languish from poor shots, or sport pellets in their breast, even if the do survive, there would be far less acceptance of this barbarism on our wildlife refuges.
Some very good points, Al. I agree that better approaches to exposing and encouraging young people to wildlife are required. The ‘group bus tour/lecture’ description is prevalent, and inadequate. It tends to cultivate eco-touristism, which is so prevalent today: look, admire, don’t touch. This approach introduces young (and older) people to nature and wildlife as a museum exhibition to occasionally visit and superficially learn. And validates a separation between human and ‘others’. Think of the millions of park/refuge visitors that drive through and stop for a few seconds to take a photo, maybe read an exhibition display and get back into their vehicle to continue on. There is no immersion, no phenomenological ‘communication’, no interaction to teach, establish, and imprint the small but significantly important and far-reaching details of the lives and worlds of the wildlife. There’s no real interaction, which is what truly informs and imprints, influencing thinking, behavior and decision making.
However, it is a start. So many urban children that have had no exposure to wildlife beyond what they read or are taught in school or through media. The ratio of dedicated and knowledgeable mentors to facilitate greater in-depth exposure and instruction is low and limited, and requires much manpower and time. I see this gap as a possible role of park and refuge staff, affiliate ‘friends’ organization, and volunteers, even 4-H and Scout clubs. And I have seen some excellent programs offering such opportunities for hands-on immersion and interaction, at both the child and adult levels.
As for hunting, I straddle the fence. Growing up learning to stalk, observe, learn, even to ‘know’ an animal, and then make appropriate choices when and if to shoot in the woods and pastures, to prepare my own kill, preserve and eat has instilled both respect for hunting and revulsion for current hunting trends. Much of the so-called ‘hunting’ in Texas today is little more than going to the ‘wild supermarket’; install your automatic timed corn disperser, sit for an hour by a rock and shoot at absolutely unaware animals or birds. Throw it in the truck and deliver it somewhere to be skinned, dressed and packed into what they pick out of the market freezers. It’s not even a true sport.
My visits to the parks, grasslands and refuges over the last several years have been a mixed bag of wildlife warfare, and traditional respectful hunting. But what many hunters and non-hunters fail to understand is that refuges have (or should have) priorities: to manage an area and ecosystem for sustainable wild and natural life (vegetative and animals), and to ensure the safety and health of all life there, including visitors. They key word is ‘sustainable’. And I think here lies the gap between those on the opposing fences. I think this is where public lands management fails in education to the public, hunters and non-hunters.
As a biologist and naturalist, I learned at an early age that population dynamics is a key concept in any biome, or ecosystem, sustainability. Because all refuges/park management policies are typically constrained within their official boundaries, they must operate with a very complex system of controlling populations to favor diversity and sustainability within their site boundaries, and the unavoidable and largely uncontrollable interactions with the systems beyond their boundaries, including changing climate. Sometimes that may require years or seasons of species harvest limitations, even closures. Other times an increase in a species harvest may be necessary to restore or retain a predator/prey balance. This is the public education that is lacking. And contributes to misunderstandings and misinformed value judgements.
What strikes fear into me is that current and future budget cuts for park/refuge management and upkeep, as well as increasing pressure for natural resource extraction, will put pressure on all publicly managed lands to become lax or yield sound conservation policies to special interest parties. Including political.
That is my only contribution to this topic, one of which I have heard for decades.
First, you don’t make mention of how the legislation was introduced that made hunting a priority issue. You do realize that the NRA helped draft the most recent legislation to, in their own words, ensure that non-hunters would, once and for all, lose their voice in how refuge lands are managed. People who don’t hunt also buy duck stamps, volunteer, and pay refuge fees, but when it comes time for land-use decisions, their viewpoints are not counted toward land-use or wildlife management decisions. All funds are grouped in as hunter contributions, and hunters clearly have priority and they have a bully pulpit with the NRA fighting to extreme measures to makes sure hunting increases, even on refuges formerly closed to hunting. Try to approach USFWS as a non-hunter and see how readily your concerns are addressed. The fact that species, other than game, exist on refuges doesn’t mean that these species are allocated funds necessary for the types of projects that non-hunters would support on refuges. Just take a look at Ohio’s Wildlife Legacy project (one that gets financial support from non-hunters) to see what non-game fund allocation looks like. Beyond the hunting pressure that is put on waterfowl for nearly four months, during the height of waterfowl migration, some refuges are closed almost entirely to non-hunters during this period, non-extractive users who leave far less of a footprint on the lands and on the wildlife. The funding system and resulting structure is so imbalanced, and in my experience, most hunters would like to keep it that way. On the one hand, we non-hunters are told that we don’t fund refuges thus have no voice in how they are managed. On the other hand, some hunting groups have FOUGHT funding alternatives and non-hunting revenue streams that would keep the refuges in the black, but simultaneously give non-hunters more say in refuge decisions.
In increments I am learning about the Hunters role in our America, from a hunters point of view.) The questions come when you see outside of the city on a daily basis. I consider this a privilege. Having spent most of my life in the inner city I was not curious about the wild life and the need for the now existing systems that would not be in place without the organized actions of hunters. I have always been drawn to the country but not having lived there I realize how unread I am on the America that has surrounded and supported our cities for centuries . The actions of hunters have a stake and commitment in America. Hunters have been working with a part of America most people know nothing about. Americas Wild life refuges and conserving it as any great gift should be . Thank you
Regard Gary Brumley Photos by Gary Brumley
In increments I am learning about the Hunters role in our America, from a hunters point of view.) The questions come when you see outside of the city on a daily basis. I consider this a privilege. Having spent most of my life in the inner city I was not curious about the wild life and the need for the now existing systems that would not be in place without the organized actions of hunters. I have always been drawn to the country but not having lived there I realize how unread I am on the America that has surrounded and supported our cities for centuries . The actions of hunters have a stake and commitment in America. Hunters have been working with a part of America most people know nothing about. Americas Wild life refuges and conserving it as any great gift should be . Thank you
Regard Gary Brumley
Photos by Gary Brumley http://www.flickr.com/photos/43856132@N05/show/
This is a topic which is near to my heart… Take care!
Where are your contact details though?