License increases will assist opportunities

Spectrum by, EDDIE GRASSER

About 12 years ago, the hunters of Alaska went along with a license increase for the Department of Fish and Game during the Hickel administration. We were promised the increase would be used to promote opportunities for Alaska's hunters. Little did we know then the promise would be wholly ignored by the next administration.

It is true that hunters in Alaska get a real bargain compared to those in most other western states. For instance, if we compare hunting in Wyoming to hunting in Alaska we can see some pretty significant differences in cost.

Wyoming is a good example, as it probably comes closest to Alaska both in terms of the diversity of species and their similarities. Antelope are found throughout most of Wyoming, and could be compared to our caribou. An Alaskan can hunt several caribou for $25; however, a hunter in Wyoming who chooses to hunt more than one antelope in those areas where it is allowed would have to pay for each additional animal. Both states also have deer that may be hunted. Again, you can take several deer in Alaska for just $25. In Wyoming, you have to pay for each additional deer. If you hunt a couple of antelope and a couple of deer in Wyoming, your license costs are well over $100.

At this point you should be getting a clear picture of the differences in cost. The fact is, it costs residents a lot more to hunt in Wyoming and other western states than it does in Alaska. As hunters, if we hope to maintain a world-class management system here, and the associated opportunities derived from such management, then perhaps it is time we considered the merits of a license increase.

If we adjust costs of managing wildlife for inflation, and consider the vast geography our biologists have to contend with, it should be apparent that our costs as hunters are going to have to be adjusted. However, that doesn't mean we should hand the department a blank check this time.

The fact of the matter is hunters, trappers and shooters contribute most of the money to Wildlife Conservation's budget. In fact, those who do not participate in the shooting sports or trapping contribute virtually nothing to the division's management activities. That being the case, any license increase this time around must be structured to insure that the "paying public" gets a fair deal. I believe that is an achievable goal.

There are three major areas of activity in which the department could produce better opportunities, as well as better relationships with those who pay for management programs.

First, hunters must be assured that basic management programs will be continued regardless of who the governor may be. And yes, basic management includes predator/prey management to allow ungulate populations to effectively use available habitat.

Second, programs that provide for hunter education and training must be supported. That means more support for places to learn, like shooting ranges. It also means working with Alaska's hunter/conservation groups to promote programs like "Becoming an Outdoors Woman," which is currently a joint venture between the state and the Hunter Heritage Foundation of Alaska.

Third, the department must recognize the huge investment that has been made, and continues to be made, by hunter/conservationists. It can effectively accomplish this in a number of ways. They could do a better job of informing the public about who contributes the money for wildlife management. A portion of the proposed increase could provide financial support to education programs and projects that support hunting, fishing and trapping. And, last of all, the division could dedicate some of the other federal dollars it receives to support programs that benefit its only paying clientele.

Right now the department receives federal dollars from a congressional appropriation that offers a great opportunity for educational projects. Money is given out through the state wildlife grant program. Dedicating some of those funds to projects supporting consumptive uses of wildlife and the shooting sports really makes good sense from an investment standpoint. Hunters, trappers and shooters have consistently carried the Division of Wildlife Conservation throughout its history. Investing in programs that preserve the future of those heritages will insure critical funding remains in place to manage Alaska's wildlife for generations to come.

Good wildlife management costs money. There is no escaping the fact. In recent years, the Wyoming Department of Game and Fish went through a difficult struggle to raise license fees so it could continue to manage its wildlife for the benefit of current and future generations. Wyoming residents saw the need. Given a well-thought-out proposal, Alaskans should too.

Eddie Grasser is a former member of the Board of Game, a former president of the Alaska Outdoor Council, founding president of the Alaska Fish and Wildlife Conservation Fund and president of the Hunter Heritage Foundation of Alaska. He is a retired professional hunter with more than 30 years in the field, and currently serves as the Alaska field representative for the National Rifle Association.