OUTDOORS: WHO SHOULD PAY FOR WILDLIFE?

In a society and time in which spare dollars and loose change seem headed for the endangered species list, who is responsible for paying wildlife's way?

Long years ago when mankind was a minor interloper in the total ecological puzzle, wildlife took care of itself. Centuries and hundreds of millions of people later, civilization holds the upper hand.

Because man in quantity occupies the land, wildlife's survival in appreciable populations takes overt management from humans.

Most would agree on that. Where the biting issue arises, however, is something that gets very personal: Who pays for it? Who bankrolls the very existence of the wild?

American sportsmen for long have largely underwritten wildlife through the money paid for licenses and permits and federal excise taxes on equipment used in hunting and fishing. Such spending by these wildlife users has benefited not those species hunted and fished for, but non-game wildlife as well by providing and protecting habitat.

The International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies is seeking to broaden the base of contributions for wildlife by lobbying Congress for an excise tax on such items as camping, backpacking and hiking gear and bird-feeding equipment and feed -- items bought by many who enjoy wildlife in a non-consumptive way -- to fund non-game conservation.

The manufacturers of such products are cool to the idea, concerned that extra taxes would result in fewer sales. Also, the National Bird-Feeding Society protests, saying that those who feed birds already help wildlife voluntarily.

Whether or not this 5 percent tax on covered items flies, it resurrects the prime question: Is this a group that ought to pay for wildlife? If not, who should?

In Missouri, available money for conservation programs more than doubled when the general population stared kicking in contribution through a referendum-passed special sales tax, a levy of 1/8 of 1 percent on purchases -- that's some 12 cents on each $100 -- provides roughly two-thirds of the budget of the state's Department of Conservation. Those who purchase hunting and fishing licenses and permits and contribute through existing hunting- and fishing-specific excise taxes continue to provide the rest.

Relatively speaking, Missouri's conservation programs are rolling in money, especially compared to those of states that survive purely on sportsmen's fees.

"It allowed us to put more people on, to buy more land and to operate more conservation programs," said Ken Drenan, information services supervisor for the Missouri Department of Conservation.

"The bottom line of this kind of conservation support is that the people have to get behind it," Drenan said. "It was put on the ballot and passed by the people. Through it, everyone pays an equal share, which amounts to about $10 per person a year. The hunters and fishermen pay that, plus they pay their license fees, too."

The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission would like to establish that same sort of general revenue support in that state, too. Such a proposal failed to make it on the recent ballot.

Jim Spencer, game and fish commission information specialist said a proposed sales tax for conservation narrowly was rejected by Arkansas voters in 1984. Then, some 45 percent of the voters favored it.

The tax revenue, an estimated $32 million a year, would be shared by the state's conservation agency, parks and tourism department natural heritage and Keep Arkansas Beautiful agencies.

Sportsmen currently bear all the cost for Arkansas conservation programs, but even increased costs for licenses and permits haven't kept pace with rising expenses, putting the programs there in decline, Spencer said.

"I feel like it is appropriate for the hunters and fishermen to bear the majority of the weight of conservation costs, but I don't think they should bear all of it," he said.

In Kentucky, hunters and fishermen essentially pay all the bills for conservation programs, including public lands that support both game and non-game species. The state's Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources receives no general fund appropriations, nor revenue from any general tax.

"Many people, although they don't hunt or fish, are users of wildlife management areas, and they're paying no user fees," said KDFWR Commissioner Tom Bennett.

State programs include special efforts to conserve non-game species such as river otters and peregrine falcons, costs now covered by dollars from the sporting community.

In Illinois, the Department of conservation is broader based and, accordingly, has more expanded functions, including caretaking of state parks.

The DOC programs are funded by a combination of revenue from the sales of licenses and permits, plus a sizable appropriation from the state's general fund.

"About half of our operations budget comes from general tax dollars," said DOC spokeswomen Carol Knowles. "There is a variety of funds, like the sale of boat stickers to all boaters, including non-fishermen."

Knowles said the DOC, meanwhile, is "very supportive" of the proposed federal excise tax to support non-game wildlife.

"The future of conservation in this country affects everyone," she said. "If you take care of the air, land and water that serves wildlife, you will benefit everyone for generations to come."

Steve Vantreese is outdoors editor of the Paducah Sun.