|
 Vanishing SpeciesEarth's Worth: Page 6 Consumptive users of wildlife, such as hunters, make up a small minority of the public, approximately 14 million, or 5 percent, and fewer than 1 percent are trappers, yet these interests control state wildlife departments and heavily influence the Fish and Wildlife Service. The fees from hunting licenses fund the majority of state wildlife departments. These departments manage all wildlife within a state, in spite of the fact that only a small number are hunted or trapped, with the result that habitats are manipulated to benefit hunted animals, such as deer, by encouraging shrub and second-growth forest, while species needing old-growth forest, such as woodpeckers, decline as these forests are cut. Endangered species are conserved by state Natural Heritage Programs, but funding is often miniscule in comparison with the fees from hunting. Funding sources include income tax rebates, vanity license plate revenues and grants from general funds, but generally do not begin to fill the need for habitat acquisition, education and conservation programs and research. Greater funding is needed for these programs, perhaps through a small tax, such as the less than 1 percent sales tax in Missouri for wildlife and conservation programs. It generates more than $100 million annually. A tax for non-game and endangered species would provide major funding for these state programs, which fill an important role not played by federal Endangered Species Act programs.
The recent phenomenon of tropical forest ecotourism has produced other comparisons in revenues of exploitative vs. non-consumptive use of wildlife. Dr. Charles Munn, an ornithologist with the Wildlife Conservation Society is studying macaws in Peru's massive Manu National Park, which is the size of Massachusetts. He estimates that a wild macaw is worth $165,000 a year, based on revenues from the growing number of tourists who come to see these colorful, long-tailed parrots in spectacular flights (Munn 1992). A bird trapper receives only a few dollars for a wild macaw which, if sent to a pet store in Europe, might sell for $1,000. Income from the pet trade goes primarily to a small number of exporters, importers and retailers. It does not protect the habitat of the birds, nor does it pay for population surveys to prevent depletions. Moreover, from capture onward, these wild birds are treated very inhumanely, causing high rates of injury and mortality. The capture of wild birds for the pet trade is banned by the majority of the world's nations, but the few that continue it contribute to depletion of wild bird populations, smuggling, and their inhumane treatment (see Trade chapter).
Under Munn's calculations, the value of each macaw in the wild over the period of its life, which averages about 50 years or more, totals some $8,250,000--an enormous sum. This money flows into local economies of villages and towns near the park, local hotels, taxis, restaurants and other businesses. For many poor areas, such income provides much needed services and raises the standard of living. Tourist money is also spent in cities where visitors arrive, and constitutes a major portion of airlines' revenues. Manu National Park has been declared a Biosphere Reserve in recognition of its importance as a center of biodiversity. Its 7,000 square miles protect a large portion of Peru's tropical rainforest. Manu's ecotourism companies are considered models for sharing revenues with local people and protecting indigenous tribes (Munn 1994). These companies have tours geared toward viewing certain spectacular or endangered species, such as Giant Otters (Pteroneura brasiliensis) (Munn 1994).
|
|
