(no title)
tyjen | 1 year ago
Bycatching is a problem, because you have large trawler fleets drag netting for a specific species, like pollock; but, since nets do not discriminate, they also catch other fish and animals, including thousands of chinook. Those same fleets fishing for other species are involved in community development quota programs that share a portion of their profits with tribal Bering Sea coastal communities.
The Bering Sea communities are extremely dependent on such subsidies and a restriction on the trawlers to the benefit of Yukon and Kushkokwim tribes, comes at the detriment of Bering Sea tribes.
It's a weird situation.
ricc|1 year ago
levi-turner|1 year ago
But to your point, they are referencing two main funding streams for state fish and game / wildlife / natural resources departments:
1. Pittman-Robertson funds ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman%E2%80%93Robertson_Fede... ). The gist is that there's an excise tax on firearms and ammunition. One fun consequence of this is that hunters aren't making up the bulk of funds here, it's recreational shooters. A hunter may shoot 10 shots on a hunting trip. It's gun nuts at firing ranges who disproportionately pay this tax.
2. Sale of hunting and fishing licenses. This varies by state since states' wildlife vary in quantity and quality. Western states with prized large game animals (elk, mountain goats, etc) earn more from this funding stream than Eastern states.
To take an example of Vermont ( https://anr.vermont.gov/sites/anr/files/FY%202023%20ANR%20Bu... ), 36% of funding comes from hunting and fishing licenses and 33% from matching Federal funds. $7.1M of the $9.67M in Federal funding is from Pittman-Robertson ( https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/WR%20Final... ).