Unlike pro sports franchises, hunters pick up most of their tab.(SPORTS) - Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN)

A few weeks ago, you might recall, I jumped atop my Sunday newspaper soapbox and gnashed and gnawed over the increasing prices of non-resident hunting licenses compared with the fees a resident pays for the same privilege.

In case you forgot, the most outrageous case of fee-gouging is found in Montana, where a resident is guaranteed an elk hunting license for $16 while the same guarantee costs a non-resident a tidy $835.

My only reason for repeating this nauseous example of legalized tourist mugging is that the scenario has overtones to Minnesota's Great Stadium Debate of 1997.

Consider: In Minnesota, the Twins want the Legislature to finance a stadium while in Montana the Legislature wants the non-resident to finance the state's Fish and Wildlife Department.

As we're experiencing, this idea of having other publics pay the tab isn't exactly stable public policy. Minnesota might lose its Twins if the public says no stadium deal; Montana could lose its elk program if non-residents quit buying licenses.

Frankly, and I'll be honest, I'm not as concerned about losing a baseball team as I am about losing elk.

Let's switch a few words. What if it was Minnesota hunters (instead of the Twins) asking the Legislature for $250 million for wildlife habitat (instead of a stadium)?

Imagine the debate: Pay for your own wildlife habitat, we don't hunt! All hunters want are more targets! Rich hunters should buy their own habitat. There's enough wildlife weeds; we need more golf courses!

My only reason for creating this preposterous debate is to remind us that the policy of user-fees isn't so bad. America's wildlife achievements, which are the best in the world, are founded in the user-fee system. Most Americans don't know it but the abundance of wildlife all of us are enjoying these days hasn't cost the taxpayers much more than a dime.

Who picks up the wildlife tab? Hunters, mostly.

In state after state, wildlife programs are funded largely by dollars collected from licenses and taxes for hunters and anglers.

At the same token, most Americans say they want more wildlife but only pennies of general tax revenues are spent on critters.

In other words, it's a good thing hunters pay or there would be fewer critters.

Yet, this successful user-pay system is threatened and endangered today.

There are fewer hunters, which means fewer license sales.

Programs to introduce young people to hunting are inadequate or non-existent.

Wildlife agencies, including Minnesota's DNR, seem to be disinterested in bolstering the ranks of licensees. A case in point, the growing shortage of rifle ranges in the metro area. Every ethical deer hunter knows it's important to pre-check a firearm's accuracy. Are there any DNR shooting ranges to encourage hunter responsibility and attract new hunters? Nope. Just talk, no gunfire.

There's also a growing shortage of firearm safety courses. Why? Volunteer instructors no longer are able to use public school facilities to teach hunter firearm safety because Congress passed a law: No firearms in schools.

Just another gun control law with a lousy aim.

But these are not the greatest of threats to state wildlife budgets. There are others: Loss of private hunting land, animal rights protests, single-parent families and spreading urbanization are slowly changing wildlife economics.

Today it's the Twins asking for tax money. Tomorrow it could be ringneck pheasants and ruffed grouse.