Outdoors: Creating a 'Natural Resources License' would help Conversation Fund
If people who hunt, fish and trap are required to purchase licenses to support wildlife, fisheries, law enforcement, and other programs to keep natural resources in good shape, why shouldn't others who also enjoy these resources also contribute?
Indeed the state could use money to support the Conservation Fund, which provides dollars for wildlife management, fisheries management, law enforcement, and some research and administrative support at the Department of Natural Resources.
Other funds, such as the Endangered Resources check-off on the state income tax form and special car license plate fees go into other funds that specifically benefit endangered resources. These are excellent programs, but the funds do not go into the general Conservation Fund, which provides for general resource management and enforcement.
People who do not hunt or fish often feel that without paying for resource management, they don't have the right to voice opinions on natural resources. That is false because natural resources belong to everyone and the state holds them in trust for the public.
People who do not hunt or fish already have the right to attend public hearings and voice opinions on hunting, fishing, trapping and natural resource rules. They also are invited to comment at Natural Resources Board meetings, public hearings of the Natural Resources Committees of the legislature, and to attend and vote at the spring public meetings held by the Conservation Congress, which advises the Natural Resources Board.
Sometimes the fact that a person has paid a fee brings with it the notion that they have "more of a right" than others to have input or access to people who make decisions.
People who attend fish and wildlife meetings often like to say that they pay for licenses, stamps and taxes and thus they have "the right" to comment on natural resources proposals.
Those who do not want to purchase hunting, fishing or trapping licenses should have the same rights and opportunity to pay their share.
The solution is a general "Natural Resources License" that the DNR could sell to anyone who wanted to purchase it. It would not provide any special privileges in the way of hunting, fishing or trapping, but it would allow those who do not participate in those activities to buy a "license" and give them more of a feeling that they have a right to have their say in natural resources programs.
It would tend to put everyone on the same level, and those who now complain that they can't contribute have the perfect opportunity to contribute without having to buy a hunting, fishing or trapping license.
It could be a way to bridge the gap and bring various interests together to battle bigger natural resource problems, rather than each other.
