LETTER: Sportsmen support resource managementTo the Telegram: In response to the letter published April 26, “Bad ideas win when people don’t vote,” and bashing hunters and trappers and the Wisconsin Conservation Congress:
To the Telegram:
In response to the letter published April 26, “Bad ideas win when people don’t vote,” and bashing hunters and trappers and the Wisconsin Conservation Congress: You lost the vote fairly. Comments about NRA hat-wearing members and bear t-shirt members and a good old boys club are off base.
It is not going to endear you to us for future votes. The whole idea of this conservation congress is to get input from Wisconsin citizens to work with the Department of Natural Resources to make things better for the resources. It has always been made up of hunters and trappers, and sportsmen and women who care about the states resources. To have someone who is against all these outdoor pursuits on the board would be nonproductive and impede the process. Through the Pittman Robinson Act, sportsmen and women through their license purchases and taxes on guns and ammunition have raised well over $5 billion for wildlife management programs since it started in 1937.
Then add all the millions of dollars raised every year by the what I call “critter groups” like Ducks Unlimited, Whitetails Unlimited and the grouse and turkey groups that all raise millions for wildlife habitat and restoration. I suspect the letter writer belongs to an animal rights group.
A computer search revealed that in 2004, PETA’s prodigious revenue of more than $29 million bought 2,700 media interviews and 703 organized demonstrations Nearly 11,000 mentions in print Coverage on at least seven major TV networks 150,000 “vegetarian starter kits” disseminated to the public Enough “educational materials” for 235,000 teachers and 11 million students. But not a single acre of land for wildlife preservation — not even for endangered species.
So for all their complaints, the tree huggers and animal rights groups have against sportsmen and women, it is us working for wildlife management and habitat, not animal rights groups.
What we do for wildlife management through our money helps game animals and all wildlife using the same habitat.
If those who oppose hunting and trapping succeeded in a ban, would they be able to match the revenue we provide for habitat and other wildlife projects?