JANUARY 13, 2009
Testimony of the New York State Conservation Council, Inc.
Presented by President Harold Palmer
Before the Environmental Conservation Committee Hearing
On the Implementation of the 2009 Environmental Conservation Budget
Good morning, Chairman, Members of the Environmental Conservation Committee, and Staff. I am pleased to present testimony relating to Governor Paterson’s proposed 2009-2010 State Budget and the closing of the Reynolds Game Farm (the Pheasant Farm) and pheasant stocking program of the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), and its impact upon significant operational and capital programs that relate to fish and wildlife management.
The funds for the Pheasant Farm and raising of the pheasants come from the Conservation Fund. The Conservation Fund receives the majority of its money from the license fees that sportsmen pay to hunt, fish and trap in New York State. The Governor's office never consulted with sportsmen or the members of the Conservation Fund Advisory Board (CFAB) before making his decision to close the Pheasant Farm. By law, the CFAB oversees the use and spending of the Conservation Fund monies; this did not happen. DEC has offered the 9,000-plus pheasants to game bird breeders free of charge, and plans to send the remainder to be slaughtered and given to food banks. Giving them to food banks is not a bad idea, but who is paying for the processing? I have not received a reply to this question from the Governor's office. Also, since sportsmen paid for these birds, the pheasants should not be disposed of until an agreement can be worked out between the State, CFAB, and sportsmen.
The spending of sportsmen's dollars in the Conservation Fund has not been accounted for. I asked Judith Enck for a breakdown of where our money was spent. She did not have one; DEC Commissioner Grannis does not receive one, and the CFAB does not receive one. The only report available is a pie chart, which can be found in the CFAB report. If no one knows what the money is spent on, how can anyone say the Conservation Fund is in the red?
The closing of the Pheasant Farm and the pheasant program in New York State will ultimately cost millions of dollars in lost revenue for the Conservation Fund, as well as the local economies all over the state and the General Fund.
I would like to share with you a couple of economic facts about the pheasant program. According to NYS DEC’s 2006 small game hunter survey, pheasant hunting was one of the most popular small game hunting activities in the New York. The survey indicates that 60,000 hunters harvested 130,000 pheasants. Figuring dollars that the Conservation Fund takes in from 60,000 resident and non-resident pheasant hunters, who spend $16 and $55 for hunting licenses, respectively, adds up to approximately $1 million. Counting all hunters who buy a hunting license that would allow them the opportunity to hunt pheasants totals over $22 million that goes into the Conservation Fund each year. These figures include everyone who buys a Small Game, Sportsman and Super Sportsman License, and come from the 2007/08 Conservation Fund Advisory Board (CFAB) report.
According to a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&W) report from 2006, small game hunters spend over $600 each, per year, related to hunting small game. Most pheasant hunters spend more than that because of additional costs involved in raising dogs to hunt with. Figuring just the $600 per hunter, for 60,000 pheasant hunters, pheasant hunting adds $36 million to the local economies across New York State. That’s $36 million that will be lost. This lost revenue would have contributed almost $3 million to the General Fund and county governments from sales taxes on these expenses.
I understand that the State will be selling the Reynolds Game Farm, possibly to Cornell, and the money will be put into the General Fund, not the Conservation Fund. If the farm was purchased with money from the Conservation Fund, any money realized from its sale should be returned to the Conservation Fund.
Pheasants are the only visual return hunters see for their license fee money. Now, with the State closing the Pheasant Farm, they will see nothing in return. There are approximately 100,000 acres open across the state for pheasant stocking and hunting; these lands could now be closed to hunting and other activities.
Proposals:
1 - Keep the pheasant program running as is and institute a pheasant stamp, with the money going into a dedicated account to raise or purchase pheasants and stock them on lands open to hunting; and continue the day-old pheasant program for 4-H youth and others. For example, 60,000 stamps @ $10 would equal $600,000.
2 - Spend Conservation Fund dollars only on game, game birds and fish that one can take when in possession of a hunting, fishing or trapping license. While we believe that it is important to improve and protect wetlands, and non-game and non-game bird species, our license fee money should not be spent on them if it means we are having our programs abolished or cut. All Conservation Fund expenses should go through CFAB (as was intended by legislation) for approval before our dollars are spent.
3 - The proposed $10 Trout and Salmon Stamp: We oppose this unless the money goes into a dedicated account for raising and stocking trout and salmon. After the Pheasant Farm closing, we no longer trust the Governor’s office and Budget to keep the fish hatcheries open. The wording for the proposed stamp needs to be changed so that anglers who fish for bass, panfish or any other fish that are not trout or salmon are not required to have the stamp. The stamp should only be required by someone fishing for and in possession of trout or salmon. We would prefer that a license fee increase be implemented this year instead of a trout stamp.
4 - Instead of a trout/salmon stamp, institute a license fee increase of $10 for each of these resident licenses: fishing, small and big game, trapping, sportsman, super sportsman, and hunting. Increase non-resident fishing, hunting, trapping and super sportsman licenses by $20. This will bring in over $10 million.
5 - $19 Marine recreational fishing license: We are opposed to the way this is written. In the Governor’s proposed budget, this money would all go into the Conservation Fund. We believe this is wrong, as the majority of those buying this license live in the marine district, and as such they should have some benefit from the money generated from the license. We feel that $6 from each license should go into the Conservation Fund, and the remainder should go into the marine account. There should also be a combo license for fresh and salt water at $10 more than the regular fishing license, which is $19. Create a Marine Super Sportsmen’s License at $10 dollars more than the current Super Sportsmen’s License. Count all who buy a combo license as saltwater anglers for the federal registry. The way this is currently proposed, an angler who fishes fresh water and the Hudson River from the Troy Dam downstream, including all waters of Long Island, would pay a total of $38 per year for two separate licenses to fish.
6 - Increase the minimum fines for fishing and hunting without a license to three times the cost of the license, and make it so they can pay the minimum to the officer by credit card at the time of citation, or by sending the money to DEC; if they want to go to court, add surcharges that would go to both the court and the Conservation Fund.
7 - The Bottle Bill: we have supported this in the past with the inclusion of non-carbonated beverage bottles. We are prepared to take a stronger stand in support of the bottle bill, if the non-refunded deposit money goes into the EPF and 2% of this money each year goes to capital improvements on the fish hatcheries and boat launches.
8 - For this budget year, keep enough money in capital spending to cover any repairs needed on the fish hatcheries to keep them operational until bottle bill money comes in, or until the economy recovers.
We strongly believe that the Conservation Fund can be made solvent with proper management of where our money is spent and a reasonable increase in all license fees. We do not see a need for the Trout and Salmon Stamp.
I would like you to note that I am available, along with the other officers of the New York State Conservation Council, to assist with issues regarding the Conservation Fund and the sportsmen/women of New York State.
Thank you for your time and consideration of these comments.
Contact:
Harold L. Palmer, President
New York State Conservation Council, Inc.
Email: NYSCCpresident@yahoo.com
|
FEBRUARY 12, 2008
Testimony Presented by President Harold L. Palmer
for the Senate and Assembly Environmental Conservation Committee Hearing
on the Implementation of the Environmental Conservation Budget
Members of the New York State Conservation Council have concerns about funding for some items that should be covered in the DEC budget.
The NYSCC is grateful that Governor Spitzer has not cut staffing in the Department of Environmental Conservation. We are also pleased that he allocated $1 million for fish hatchery improvements; however, in future years it will take much more to bring all of the hatcheries to a condition where we will not have to worry about losing fish or losing the use of a hatchery due to disrepair.
Another concern is the lack of management on some lands that the State has acquired over the years. Many parcels have no signage indicating state land; surveys have not been done and boundaries are not marked. This causes access issues and offers opportunity for possible theft of resources such as trees and plants. In addition, very few habitat improvements have been made. Habitat improvements are needed to produce wildlife on lands open to hunters.
If the budget lacks sufficient funding for proper management of these lands, monies from the sale of timber should be used to cover the costs. Sale of timber harvested from State lands generates enough money to hire staff to ensure that all state lands are managed properly for fish and wildlife, timber, and recreation. This would assure the highest return on the State’s investments. A major portion of the money allocated for the Environmental Protection Fund should be dedicated to stewardship of state lands. In this budget no funds are provided for stewardship.
Members of the New York State Conservation Council are also concerned about boat launch sites. New York State needs to upgrade boat launch sites to make them accessible to the elderly and those with disabilities. This includes cartop boat launch sites. The motor fuel tax on fuel that boaters use should be placed in a dedicated account for boat launches and parking areas for boaters.
The budget does not address making the financially strapped Conservation Fund solvent. According to the annual report of the Conservation Fund Advisory Board (CFAB), the Conservation Fund was $10,980,000 in the red as of March 31, 2007, and is projected to be $24,130,000 in the red by March 31, 2008. This shortfall is about equal to the cost of fringe benefits for those who are paid out of the Conservation Fund. Pay raises, health insurance, and fringe benefits per union contracts are a large portion of the overall problem.
The Conservation Fund is primarily funded by the sale of resident and non-resident hunting, fishing and trapping licenses, along with a partial reimbursement from the Pittman-Robinson tax that sportsmen pay on purchases of guns, bows, ammo and other items. The sales tax money that sportsmen spend in New York State should be placed in the Conservation Fund. Every other program in this State is paid for with tax dollars; why not keep the Conservation Fund solvent with sportsmen’s tax dollars?
It has been said in the past that fewer people are buying hunting and fishing licenses; however, the CFAB report shows that license sales remained close to the same for the 2005/2006 and 2006/2007 fiscal years. Yes, the numbers are down in 2006/2007 for those buying the regular licenses. For instance, the sales of individual resident fishing licenses dropped by 996; sales of the big game, small game hunting license dropped by 3,890; sales of archery tags dropped by 2,162; sales of turkey tags dropped 748; and sales of the sportsmen license dropped 4,068, when compared to sales for 2005/2006.
However, there was an increase in the number of sportsmen who bought resident senior or disabled fishing licenses (+272), sportsmen (+3,226), senior archery (+885), senior muzzleloader (+ 2,214), the super sportsmen (+6,152), and muzzleloader (+3,566) tags. This more than makes up the difference in numbers between the two fiscal years, and shows the ageing population of the state’s sportsmen. Senior licenses are sold to those hunters over 65 years of age, at $5 each. Archery, muzzleloader and trapping tags are free to seniors 70 and older, and the disabled. As the average age of sportsmen continues to rise, the monies going into the Conservation Fund will drop, if nothing is done to improve revenue sources. If this trend continues the Conservation Fund will have at least $7.5 million less revenue annually in five years.
Without some form of additional revenue coming in for future years, the Fund will continue to be in trouble. Even a modest increase in license fees will not make the Fund solvent. When a license fee increase is implemented, fewer sportsmen will buy a license.
Youth hunting is key to helping the Conservation Fund remain solvent in future years. Youth who are allowed to hunt, fish, and trap will replace the seniors as they become unable to participate due to age, poor health, or other reasons. Young people need to be introduced to hunting before they become involved with the teenage interests of cars, girlfriends or boyfriends, high school sports, etc. Without youth being allowed to hunt, there will be fewer and fewer sportspeople buying licenses each year.
New York State is the only state that does not allow junior hunters under 16 years of age to have a junior big game license. Junior hunters 12 to 16 years of age are allowed to hunt small game and use the same hunting implement for woodchuck and coyote that they would use to hunt big game. There are 26 states that have no minimum age for big game hunting. The northeast states adjacent to New York have lower minimum ages, including Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Maine. Vermont has no minimum age.
Many states also have a mentor program, with no minimum age, that allows a youth to accompany an adult (usually a parent) and use the mentor’s hunting implement to harvest wild game. We are losing big game hunters due to old age and other reasons faster than we are recruiting new ones. Some parents start their sons and daughters’ big game hunting by taking them to other states so they can hunt at an earlier age. As a result, some of these parents are now hunting in those other states, instead of hunting big game in New York State, resulting in loss of sportsmen’s revenue to our communities as well as to the State.
New York State needs to recruit new hunters, trappers, and anglers to control fish and wildlife, before we do not have enough sportsmen left who could carry the burden of managing the state’s wildlife. When you have no hunters, trappers and anglers, it will only take a couple years for wildlife populations (especially deer) to increase to the point that farmers would have their crops totally destroyed; woodland owners would have no regeneration of trees; landscape shrubbery would be destroyed; the roads would be too dangerous to drive. Some of these problems already exist in areas where hunting is restricted. Animal over-populations would be controlled by starvation, sharpshooters hired at taxpayers’ expense, vehicle versus animal collisions, or diseases which could spread to farm animals, pets and humans.
To give you an idea of the economic boost from hunting and fishing in New York State, I offer these facts from The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF). The NSSF’s economic survey of hunting and fishing for 2006 for the United States shows that New York sportsmen (hunters and anglers) spent $1.8 billion, or $5 million a day, pursuing their sports, more than the NASDAQ stock market, which was $1.66 billion. It also equals the cash receipts for dairy products and apples combined. New York State took in $250 million in taxes from sportsmen, and the federal government took in $254 million for sportsmen’s taxes. All together the ripple effect sportsmen have on the state’s economy is $3.1 billion. How about some of sportsmen’s tax dollars going to the Conservation Fund?
While it is DEC that decides what the populations of fish and wildlife should be to balance the carrying capacity throughout the state, it is sportsmen who work to accomplish those goals. Sportsmen actually pay to control the state’s wildlife. Sportsmen have been the eyes for DEC biologists for many years, finding over- and under- populations, die offs, invasive species, and chemical spills, to name a few. Because sportsmen consume fish and wildlife, DEC biologists test to see how much pollutants the state’s fish and wildlife have in their bodies. They look for ways to reduce these harmful chemicals, so the food can be safely consumed. We don’t think the State would spend money and do these tests if no one ate fish or wildlife. Who would care if a new fish or other invasive species showed up in our Great Lakes, or that some disease was killing our deer, turkeys, or other game?
I would like you to note that we are available to assist with issues regarding the DEC budget, the Conservation Fund, and the sportsmen/women/youth of New York State.
|
JANUARY 10, 2007
Testimony at the NYS Assembly’s EnCon Budget Hearings
By Harold L. Palmer, President
On January 10, 2007 I testified at the NYS Assembly’s Environmental Conservation Budget Hearings. My testimony centered around the Budget for the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and its impact upon significant operational and capital programs that relate to fish and wildlife management. Here are some of topics I discussed. The Conservation Fund is primarily funded by the sale of resident and non-resident hunting, fishing, and trapping licenses, along with a partial reimbursement from a tax paid on items like guns, bows and ammo as a result of the Pittman-Robinson act. A large portion of these funds are used to pay for the cost of personnel in the Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources. The Conservation Fund will have a $7 million to $10 million shortfall of funds by March 31, 2007 . This shortfall cannot be made up by increasing fees on the backs of our aging sportsmen.
We need to recruit more young sportsmen and women, and one way to do this is to allow our junior hunters the opportunity to hunt big game. Sportsmen and women spend billions of dollars in New York on items related to hunting, fishing and trapping. Each year New York State receives hundreds of millions of tax dollars that go into the General Fund from the sales of items used by hunters, anglers, and trappers. During 2006, New York took in $10,633,673,013 from all sales taxes. It is time that some of our sportsmen’s tax dollars be returned to the sportsmen, by way of the Conservation Fund. We recommend that New York State put one quarter of the taxes it collects from the sales of sportsmen’s items into the Conservation Fund. These funds should come from every item used for hunting, fishing, and trapping. We believe that if more money is not returned to the sportsmen and women by existing sales tax monies being put into the Conservation Fund, then funding should be taken from the General Fund to cover items such as the fringe benefits for personnel who are paid through the Conservation Fund. These benefits totaled $17,205,384 in the 2004-2005 fiscal year.
Over the past decade, money from the General Fund that paid the salaries and benefits of hundreds of staff in the Department of Environmental Conservation was cut. Early retirements were offered, and those jobs were not filled. The duties of those retired employees were then assigned to staff who are paid out of the Conservation Fund, in effect cutting programs in the Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources for sportsmen. More staff should be added to the Department of Environmental Conservation so as to allow the Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources staff to properly manage our resources.
Additionally, the numbers of Environmental Conservation Officers have remained the same for several years, even though their duties continue to expand. We need their numbers doubled to have better protection of all of our resources. Maintenance and repairs to our fish hatcheries need to be improved before we lose some of them due to neglect. The fish stocked from these hatcheries contribute to a large part of the rural upstate economy. We also recommend that a mandatory surcharge be implemented, to be paid by all who are convicted of fish and wildlife law violations, whereby half of the surcharge would go to the local court and the other half would be placed in the Conservation Fund. Penalties should also have a set minimum dollar amount and a minimum sentence time.
We recommend that the Motor Fuel Tax paid by boaters on fuel they use be placed into the Conservation Fund. The $5,000,000 appropriated for the fish hatcheries has been used for engineering and design of the necessary repairs at the 12 State fish hatcheries, and some actual repair work. It is our understanding that most of the designs and plans will be completed on or about the end of this fiscal year. Some projects have been designed and constructed, or equipment purchased, using re-appropriation from several prior year budgets. Similar programs have begun with regards to fishing access sites. Previously the estimate was for $25 million in repairs and equipment needed to maintain our fish hatcheries. However, we assume that the 1999 estimates may be seriously understated due to inflation in material and labor costs. By the end of this project, the total may exceed $100 million.
Fishing access sites and boat launches also are key capital projects. Each major new boat launch site can exceed $1 million. So, the fiscal year (FY) 2003 and FY 2004 re-appropriations of $500,000 are barely enough to finish the projects that have already begun. We are severely disappointed that not enough new money was appropriated for fishing access sites and boat launches in FY 2006-2007, given that a requested project list exceeds 20 projects in different communities around the State.
The Committee also should be concerned that extensive re-appropriation exists for marine district projects, including large federal funds in excess of $15 million for property acquisition and construction projects. State funds of about $124,000 are still unspent for boat launches and fishing piers on Long Island . We strongly believe that the Conservation Fund can be made solvent with re-allocation of existing revenue. We do not see a need for new taxes or increases in license fees.
|
|