All Outdoors - 12/22/95

1. Permit Lives Extended, Structure Changed
2. Missourians Help Thwart European Fur Ban
3. Several National Groups Boost Missouri Wetlands

"Where the forest murmurs there is music: ancient, everlasting. Go to the winter woods: listen there, look, watch, and the "dead months" will give you a subtler secret than any you have yet found in the forest."-- Fiona MacLeod (pen name for William Sharp)

1. Permit Expiration Date Extended, Structure Changed

JEFFERSON CITY -- Sometimes it's hard to tell what's on the minds of Missourians who hunt and fish. That's why the Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) conducts periodic surveys and polls to keep in touch with its constituents. Other times, there's no mistaking what is foremost on the minds of Show-me outdoors lovers. That was the case following the announcement of changes in hunting and fishing permits in the December issue of Missouri Conservationist Magazine.

Within days of the magazine's monthly mailing, the switchboard at MDC's central office lit up like a Christmas tree. Many callers grew impatient as they were forced to wait for service from the agency's beleaguered operator.

"It's very unusual for us to run that far behind answering people's calls," said MDC Communications Assistant Sharon Fockler. "We get a lot of calls before deer season, and our line was especially busy this fall because of changes in deer hunting regulations. But the volume of calls about next year's permits was impossible. It made deer season look like a picnic."

Fockler said the leading reason for the calls was the misconception that Missouri's $14 resident hunting and fishingpermit was being replaced with a $70 permit. They thought they might be forced to pay for all hunting and fishing privileges even if they wanted only a few. Fockler said callers also were concerned about the fact that 1995 hunting and fishing permits were due to expire Dec. 31, but 1996 permits wouldn't be issued until February 1996.

MDC is implementing a new permit system next year. Starting in 1996, permits will be valid from March 1 the year they are issued through the end of February the following year. Since 1995 permits were issued for a calendar year, the Missouri Conservation Commission voted to extend their life through Feb. 29, 1996.

"Word just hadn't gotten around, and people were understandably confused," said Fockler. "A lot of people told me they were afraid they would have to buy permits for January and February and then would have to buy new ones again on March first. That isn't true. If you've got a 1995 permit for fishing, hunting, trapping or whatever, it's good until the new permits go into effect March 1."

Another difference that Missourians will notice when they buy new hunting and fishing permits in 1996 is the prices of those permits. Some will be higher, some lower, some will be eliminated, and some will be brand new -- both the price and the permit. The way they buy permits will be different, too.

The new permit issuing system is known as "point-of-sale," because permits are printed at the time and place they are sold, instead of being printed beforehand and filled out when sold. Besides making record-keeping and cash transfers more efficient for MDC, the point-of-sale system will allow permit buyers to purchase any type of permit -- including deer and turkey tags -- any time during the year. It will speed up the permit-issuing process, and hunters and anglers won't have to carry separate slips of paper for various privileges. All the permits issued will be listed on one slip of paper.

While it was changing the method of issuing permits, the Commission also made some changes in the type of permits available. One example is the replacement of the current Three-Day Non-Resident Trip Fishing Permit ($8) and the 14- Day Non-Resident Trip Fishing Permit ($15) with a Daily Fishing Permit ($3/day). By making this permit available to residents and non-residents alike, the Commission provided greater flexibility in planning fishing trips. Similarly, the Commission replaced the Non-Resident Five-Day Hunting Permit ($25) with a Daily Small-Game Hunting Permit ($5/day) for residents and non-residents.

The new permit system also creates a class of permits unlike any previously available. Starting next year, Missourians will be able to buy a Lifetime Small-Game Hunting Permit ($400) that allows them to pursue small game and migratory birds for life.

The Lifetime Fishing Permit ($400) will give anglers lifetime fishing privileges on all Missouri waters, includingtrout streams. They still will need to buy daily tags to fish at trout parks. The Conservation Partner permit ($800) will include both fishing and small-game hunting privileges. None of the permits covers deer or turkey hunting.

The new permit structure includes modest price increases for some resident permits. For instance, a resident fishing, spring or fall turkey, firearms or muzzleloader deer, small-game hunting or combination hunting and fishing permit will cost $1 more in 1996. Increases in most non-resident permits will be proportional, as with the non-resident firearms and muzzleloader deer permits, which will increase from $100 to $110.

The cost of some other permits will decrease, as with the new Migratory Bird Hunting Permit, which combines the privileges of the present state duck stamp ($5) and the Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program Card ($2) for just $4.

Al Brand, assistant chief of MDC's Fiscal Services Division, says it is difficult to tell exactly how the changes will affect the agency's revenues. People may buy more permits at one time to take advantage of discounts on combination permits like the Resident Annual Conservation Permit (all hunting and fishing privileges for $70) or the Resident Annual All-Hunting Permit ($57). Others may opt for one or two daily hunting or fishing permits instead of the more expensive annual permits.

Overall, Brand says he expects MDC to realize about a 6- percent increase in permit revenues as a result of the price changes. MDC gets about one-fifth of its revenues from permit sales. The last time the Commission increased permit costs was 1990, and Brand says inflation has decreased the portion of MDC revenues coming from permit sales.

2. Missourians Help Thwart European Fur Ban

JEFFERSON CITY -- A trip abroad can be an eye-opener for anyone, but for the Missouri Department of Conservation's (MDC) furbearer biologist, a tour of several European cities meant more than great art and fine wines. He got a sobering view of the politics and policy-making in the European Union (EU). He also found out how much difference 10,000 miles can make in the meaning of a word like "environmentalism."

Research Biologist Dave Hamilton's visit to Europe was for business, not recreation. He was part of a delegation sent to lobby the EU Commission. The issue: a proposed EU ban on furs imported from countries that permit the use of foot-hold traps. Since 80 percent of furs trapped in the United States eventually are sold in Europe, the loss of this market would effectively kill the wild fur industry here.

"This issue is getting a lot of press in Europe," says Hamilton. "One of our contacts told us this is the biggest media event since the Berlin Wall, incredible as that may seem. Animal welfare issues make up 90 percent of the phone calls and letters sent to the European Union Parliament. It overshadows everything else -- even Bosnia and other world issues."

Hamilton said the proposed EU fur ban involves two issues. One is the conviction of most Europeans that the use of foot-hold traps is cruel and their determination to end the practice in other countries in spite of the fact that foot-hold and body-gripping traps still are used in Europe.

North American fur trappers and wildlife managers maintain that foot-hold traps -- properly designed and carefully used -- are not cruel. They point to the use of such traps to capture certain animals unharmed so they can be released in other areas. An example is Missouri's successful river otter restoration program, which used otters taken with foot-hold traps in Louisiana.

Furthermore, say North American experts, foot-hold traps are the only practical method of trapping some animals that are a renewable economic resource. Foot-hold traps also are a valuable tool for controlling animals that cause economic damage -- as with coyotes that kill livestock and beavers, whose dams back up water onto roads and farmland. American officials also maintain that Europeans' refusal to discuss humane trap standards that include some foot-hold traps actually hamper efforts to develop standards for the most humane traps possible.

The other issue is whether the United States and other nations should be able to manage their own wildlife resources without interference from other nations. Wildlife management agencies here say that the proposed fur ban would amount to the EU imposing an economic penalty in an effort to control the United States' internal policies. This, they say, is a clear violation of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which both the EU and the United States signed.

American wildlife managers had no success convincing Europeans of the humaneness or necessity of foot-hold trapping. However, they were able to enlist the aid of the U.S. Trade Office in the question of a GATT violation. Faced with the prospect of defending their actions against formal charges in the World Court, the EU Commission voted in November to delay implementation of the ban until Jan. 1, 1997, instead of 1996.

"This is the second time the EU Commission has voted to delay implementation of the ban," says Hamilton. "It's not a final victory, but I understand that the EU Commission plans to rewrite the 1991 fur ban legislation in a way that avoids GATT violations. That could be a significant victory for us, because it means not interfering with free trade in furs. I don't know how they will do it, but it's promising."

Why are Europeans so intent on dictating wildlife management policy to the United States? "It's the green mentality," says Hamilton. "In this country, we view animal welfare and animal rights as separate issues from environmental protection and preservation. But in Europe, they are far removed from real environmental issues. In fact, they don't have a concept of what real environmental issues are because they don't have much of a natural environment. The environment that they see day in and day out doesn't have the wildlife and habitat that Americans take for granted. So over there, animal rights is viewed as an environmentalism."

"For example, I was talking with a veterinarian who works for Germany's Department of Animal Welfare. I sat next to him at a luncheon and, speaking from his heart, he explained that they don't allow the use of live bait for fishing because of the psychological stress to the bait fish. It's not because of the hook going through its lip. It's because when it gets chased by a predator it can't escape. I think it applies to worms, too; the regulation just says live bait. This is not something that's being considered. It's on the books."

Hamilton had a difficult time grasping the logic of the German regulation, and he said the veterinarian had an equally difficult time grasping Hamilton's attitudes toward trapping.

"He had no concept of how we could use foot-hold traps to capture animals and move them from one state to another to restore a species like the river otter to Missouri. He couldn't acknowledge that there is a possibility that a foot-hold trap could be humane. So, I pulled out one of my traps, set it and stuck my hand in it. He couldn't believe it. All these ideas were completely foreign to him. It gave me a better idea of the obstacles we have to overcome before we can even have an intelligent debate about the issue, let alone come to an agreement."

Hamilton said it will be impossible to convince EU parliament members to drop the idea of a fur ban as long as animal rights activists have a strong voice in European politics. He says EU policy makers readily admit the logic of the United States' position on trapping. But for them to abandon the fur ban would be political suicide.

"Public support for this ban in Europe is phenomenal," says Hamilton. "Without a dramatic change in public attitudes it will be very difficult to convince European politicians to kill the ban outright. The animal rights people aren't going away even if they lose this thing completely. They will just look for other ways to kill the trade. That's ultimately what they are all about."

Hamilton said defeating the fur ban is a necessary short-term goal, but the long-term challenge is changing how Europeans view resources and their management.

"In obtaining another delay on the fur ban, we've won a small reprieve. But it's going to take determination on the part of our own federal government to win the battle of public opinion in Europe. Still, I think it's doable."

Nationwide, the fur industry generates $1.2 billion in sales, an estimated 40,000 jobs, $300 million in wages and $100 million in federal tax revenue. At its high point in 1979-80, Missouri's yearly fur production totalled $9 million. Potential economic losses if the fur trade ends include increased losses by livestock producers and other property owners as numbers of coyotes, beavers, raccoons, skunks, opossums and other furbearers increase.

Hamilton said that factoring in lost income, increased wildlife damage and costs associated with damage control efforts to replace trapping, the total annual impact of this regulation on the U.S. economy could exceed $6.1 billion a year.

Hamilton notes that wildlife disease problems are likely to increase if trappers no longer remove surplus animals each year.

As an example, he points to a rise in incidence of equine protozoal myeloencephalitis, a disabling disease of horses, in recent years. Veterinary experts attribute the increase to growing numbers of opossums, which carry the disease.

3. Several National Groups Boost Missouri Wetlands

CONCORDIA, Mo. -- Like oases in the desert, Missouri wetlands give respite to birds on their migrations across the continent. Over the years those marshes and swamps have become almost as rare as desert oases. Today, only 10 percent of the state's historic wetlands remain. Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) restoration programs aim to change that.

The Ralph and Martha Perry Memorial Conservation Area (CA) Wetlands Restoration program will create 737 acres of wetlands in Johnson, Pettis and Saline counties. The land is located along the Blackwater River. Dave Erickson, wildlife division assistant chief, says the project will provide badly needed habitat for a variety of species, especially waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds and others that depend on floodplain forests.

"If you look at the waterfowl migration surveys each fall you'll find most of the birds seen are on state or federal wildlife management areas, " says Erickson. "If these areas didn't exist there would be no place for the birds to go."

Currently the Perry Memorial CA is suitable for wetland birds only during periods of flooding. Although waters rise frequently, flood-control measures in the watershed ensure that flooding is brief. The restoration project will enable MDC to better manage the habitat by controlling the flow of water to and from the land in ways that simulate natural processes.

The plan will establish six wetland pools equipped to retain the region's frequent flood waters. MDC will be able to hold or release water according to habitat needs. Water-control structures will enable MDC to maintain wetlands year-round. Plans also call for enhancement of 400 acres of existing forest and restoration of forest on another 120 acres adjacent to the project.

More than 300 species of wildlife, including a number of species that are on the federal or state endangered or rare species lists, will benefit from the project. The Perry Memorial CA Wetlands Restoration is one of only 24 projects nationwide to receive funding this year from the North American Wetlands Conservation Council (NAWCC).

NAWCC spokesman Steve Buie says a $90,000 grant was awarded because the project promotes two key objects of NAWCC. He says it will provide benefits that help maintain the biodiversity of the region and significantly aid national effort to create long-term solutions to the problem of wetlands habitat loss.

Several private groups also are working in partnership with MDC at Perry Memorial CA. "We approached several groups whose missions are similar to ours," Erickson says. "When we asked them to work with us they gladly signed onto the project. A cooperative effort really is what's making this possible."

Groups helping to fund the project are Ducks Unlimited ($50,000), George Clark Missouri State Chapter of the National Wild Turkey Federation ($16,000), Wildlife Forever ($7,500) and The McDonnell Douglas Foundation ($5,000).

The cost of the project is $312,000. MDC will contribute $148,500 and do all project planning, construction and administration. When it is finished the wetlands will provide public benefits from restoring native habitat and wildlife to providing a place to hunt, fish and view nature. Those are things that MDC considers very important, according to Erickson.

"We are responsible for a wide range of plants, animals and fish," says Erickson. "Many are of interest to hunters and many are valuable from an aesthetic sense. All forms of life are important if they represent native fauna of state. It's a critically important part of our mission to care for game and non-game animals and plants."

Land purchases, research and management of Missouri's fish and wildlife resources are supported by excise tax revenues collected under the federal Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson acts.

RETURN to the MDC News Page
RETURN to MDC Home Page