What would happen if …?:  A case for the privatization of wildlife management  
by John C. Street
 
President Gerald Ford is reputed to have said, “The federal government couldn’t produce a six-pack of beer for less than fifty dollars.”  And the point he was making is clear.  Aside from emergency medical personnel, police officers, fire fighters and the military, there are precious few things run by any level of government that are effective and efficient.
 
In light of current reports in the outdoor press, this quote may be worth remembering.    
 
Blood sports – here to mean hunting, fishing and trapping – have been carrying the financial freight for wildlife management for over one hundred years.  And that, it’s important to note, includes the management of critters that don’t show up in the “seasons and bag limits” section of the little booklet that comes with our licenses.
 
Now, however, according to declarations from both the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission and the Pennsylvania Game Commission, the income derived from participants in the blood sports just isn’t enough to properly manage the Commonwealth’s wildlife.  Both Commissions have proposed increases in the price of licenses to fill the financial void but, to date, legislators have been loath to accept these proposals. 
 
Due to the public outcry whenever license fee increases are brought up, other thoughtful people have proposed that money be taken out of the state’s general tax fund to cover the shortfall.  Wildlife, according to those who promote this idea, belongs to everyone so – as the logic goes – everyone should pay to preserve and protect it.  Not surprisingly, this idea also has its detractors.
 
If the Commissions are financed, even partially, with general tax dollars, then other – quite likely non hunting and non fishing - “stakeholders” will demand a seat at the fish and wildlife management table.  And the presence of “outsiders” at the management table would eventually lead – or, again, so the logic goes – to a loss of “independent” status for the Commissions. 
 
While this may be a legitimate concern, it is a classic case of closing the barn door after the horses have run away.
 
Few people are aware how many seats non-participating “stakeholders” (DCNR for instance or the Audubon Society) already have at that table.  And describing the Commissions as “independent” is more than a little misleading when legislators can put the kibosh to license fee increase.
 
Even from an optimistic perspective, however, neither of these solutions – increasing license fees or using general tax dollars - would overcome the inescapable problem summed up by President Ford.  As government agencies (albeit supposedly “independent” government agencies), neither the Fish and Boat Commission nor the Game Commission can operate as effectively or efficiently as a private entity. 
 
And therein, in large part, is the nub of the Commission’s fiscal problems … and perhaps the best reason of all to begin looking behind door number three; the privatization of wildlife management. 
 
As a recent national report revealed, the blood sports are big business.  Here in Pennsylvania alone, hunting and fishing are a $3.5 billion industry that provides employment for 51,000 people and contributes $371 million in state and local taxes. 
 
But, while this economic impact is a logical starting point for a discussion regarding the privatization of wildlife management, there is one small ideological bugaboo that would need to be addressed; the age-old animistic relationship our species maintains with the wildlife we prey upon.  Still, if the blood sports are to survive at all, this animistic relationship must – out of necessity – be subordinate to reality. 
 
And the reality is, wildlife management, done properly, is expensive.
 
And the bigger reality is, hunters and anglers are the only people willing to pay the price for this management.
 
Given the hue and cry that goes up every time a license fee increase is mentioned, it may be argued that that hunters and anglers are opposed to “paying any more for their play.”  Arguably, however, that is not the case at all. 
 
The hue and cry is over the fact that wildlife management decision are, more and more, being made by the non-contributing “stakeholders” while the interests of hunters and anglers – the only paying constituents at the table – are being brushed aside.
 
At some point in the not too distant future, then, a tipping point will be reached.  Between unavoidable inflation and the inescapable inefficiency of government, hunters and anglers will no longer be able to afford managing Pennsylvania’s wildlife. 
 
Then they will be irrelevant.
 
And wildlife will become the wards of government … the very folks who “couldn’t produce a six-pack of beer for less than fifty dollars.”
 
Privatization anyone?