A unit of Lasting Forests Sustained forests; sustained profits evolving since March 30, 1999

The current fiscal situation of the agency cannot be solved with a simple new law, tax, or appeal to private contributions or price increases. General funds have always been needed and appropriate to support the many health, safety, welfare, education, and administrative functions of the wildlife resources of the Commonwealth. It is regrettable that this has never been done and obviously the needs have never been greater. The wildlife database on over 900 Virginia animals (only about 20-30 game mammals and birds) provides millions of dollars worth of services to industrial location selection, urban growth, ecological contracts, military base work, and others - yet it is virtually un-funded by appropriate state resources, only a few of which should come from hunting or fishing resources. There are similar services, consultations, legal opinions, conferences, and educational events that need a general funds base. I despair that this will be done, even in a year when there appears to be a budget surplus. Therefore, I repeat: minimum General Funds support is badly needed. With this, additional funds are needed to be joined with the current (but declining) funding base. These additional funds can only come if a major change is made in the wildlife resource agency.

A major change is needed to face:

1. Declining hunters (reduced entry and increased exit)
2. Declining license sales
3. Declining federal Pittman-Robertson funds (formula-allocated based on hunters, area, and license sales)
4. Increased urbanization
5. Increased animal rights activities (by urban people)
6. Declining open-private lands
7. Higher total agency operating costs, especially a total budget captured by personnel costs and inflation
8. Reduced warden field services as they emphasize police-related work
9. An energy crisis (like that of the '70's) on the horizon
10. New, unmet needs of the people of the urban and residential areas
11. New, unmet needs for crop and livestock protection from animals.
12. Needs to integrate land and water work (since half of Virginia's list of land species have water as a major requirement for feeding, breeding, etc.)

The general political environment is one for reducing agencies and reducing taxes - all while the dozen conditions listed above nearly demand increasing resources just to stay in place. The problems are not likely to be solved, only managed. To do that, to suggest how to manage them, is why I write.

Some emphasis has been given to "non-game" and financial needs for programs for it. I wrote the first non-game plan for Virginia for the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. "Non-game" is a non-word and I prefer to emphasize the total wildlife resource year-around. A deer out of season is non-game, a beautiful esthetic and recreational resource - but also a potential pest and one reshaping forests and destroying endangered plants in some areas. We need total systems work, wildlife work (animals and plants - all life), not narrow compartment-work - for all of our wildlife. Fish may be for angers but they are as important for some species as grain is to quail. We need to "get it together." This will reduce some of the inefficiencies we now experience.

The wildlife law enforcement group presses for police status, thus for police-level wages, and so the traditional role of this group consuming 30-40 percent or more of the agency budget needs attention: (1) clarifying objectives, (2) analyzing performance, (3) increasing behavioral modification, (4) increasing information, (5) using diverse strategies, (6) combining penalty with incentives, (7) developing a hunter resource-user organization, (8) using computers to allocate staff in time and location, and (9) developing a volunteer group among the hundreds that apply each year for the few jobs available. Re-direction and gaining economics in this group with such a large budget can go for achieving the new agency. Perhaps we could see gains or efficiencies equivalent to over $250,000.

The Legislature has already worked actively with wildlife pest problems. The deer is a good example but pests range from bears to beaver to blackbirds. This is a major problem and one where real financial gains or reduced losses can be expressed for the citizens of the state. I do not encourage hiring staff but promoting private vertebrate damage management enterprises. Years ago TVA encouragement private forestry consultants and helped them get started. A licensing and inspection and regulatory role would still be appropriate for the agency, but let the private free-market enterprise system work. The vertebrate damage management personnel could be regulated (as necessary), encouraged, and assisted by a small staff. The inefficient work now done by current statewide staff with limited education and experience in this key area can be relieved of this part of their work. Financial gains and health protection will provide the public relations gains needed and contract work with private groups will result. Licenses and a percent of profit from these groups may yield $200,000 or more.

New licensed enterprises should be encouraged for hunters. There is a need to take a computed desired harvest of game from each area of the state to stop some of the awful pest problems. Hunting groups led by wildlife management experts from the private sector can lease land, issue permits, assure safety, secure maximum use of the resource, assure quality hunts, and manage land so that a stable hunter base is maintained. Sophisticated, modern, state-of-the-art wildlife management cannot be done by one state biologist trying to "cover" 3-6 counties and also do intensive work on state-owned land.

We need a new system of regulated science-based hunting areas on private lands for anyone who wishes to join (all voluntary!). Failures in private forestry as in private wildlife management have been largely due to not having large enough areas. We can't do timber rotation or small ownerships; similarly for outdoor recreation or ecotourism we cannot gain economies of scale. A new private enterprise for wildlife activity can form area composites, increase income, pay taxes, avoid the local boom and bust of logging and also the extreme changes in forest game populations for hunting camps. Out of season, throughout the year, these same lands can be used by people who engage in a variety of wildlife activities -from bird-watching to spring wildflower surveys - all for modest fees. The concept: scale back the agency; promote private entrepreneurial use of the total wildlife resource. Allow, even promote, free-market resource use. The state can achieve a leadership role in such activity. The agency needs to extract a percentage of profits from such enterprises. I estimate over $200,000 in 5 years. This provides incentives to the agency and does not penalize the inefficient or non-competitive enterprise.

Trappers need to be encouraged in their business (not "recreational trapping7") and a percentage of profits as well as license increased. This is a potentially highly profitable, large, unexploited system for which the state (to my knowledge) does not have one full-time staff person fully committed. This system alone could supply over $300,000 to the agency.

Tallying efficiencies of $400,000; private vertebrate damage management licenses and percent-of-profits of $200,000; modest hunting and fishing license increases (always expected) of $500,000; and $300,000 from trappers; these gains are of a magnitude of much over $1.4 million per year. With staff reduction, associated with the change, reductions of $400,000 in wages per year can be anticipated within 5 years. There can be more net gains.

A separate license to enter and use any state-owned wildlife area, year around at $5 would probably yield $2,500,000 within a few years. With work of a Foundation, new areas can be added, thereby increasing fees. Management of each area would be by contract (including gains fro a percentage of profits).

A new nature club, privately operated (for example, somewhat like the Audubon Society), once started, would, under license, provide 10% of membership fees to the agency for regulation, inspections, and administration - a gain of over $150,000 per year.

The Legislature needs to direct that a forest management plan for state wildlife lands be developed, one that is demonstrably good for wildlife (see Jeff Waldon's thesis), and then all funds from the sale of trees (based on the plan) be made available to the Agency. Now such funds, I believe, are returned to the general fund. This could amount to over $500,000 a year in product sales with local employment gains.

A private forest wildlife group (R* Forests) could effectively do profitable forest management and a percentage of their profit could be extracted for the agency (in return for marketing, modest venture capital, and basic support).

Local and international wildlife tours (private contract in an integrated system) could yield a percentage of over $500,000 annually.

As a businessman, you recognize the significance of credit (the State), of capital (the Commission lands and property), an idea to meet demands (outlined above), and venture capital (which the legislature can allocate, merely re-direct, or grant special low-interest development funds.

The package of ideas presented here (with only minor comments about the fishery, also a growth area of similar scope, with agency gains estimated at $3,000,000) suggests, without the need for invention or a research breakthrough, the likely net gains for the Commonwealth Wildlife Resource Agency an amount of $9.3 million within 5 years. This is one-fourth of the current total budget

• Vertebrate Damage Management___200,000
• Hunting Groups_________________200,000
• Trapping Profits_________________300,000
• Law Enforcement Efficiencies______250,000
• License Sale Increase_____________500,000
• Staff Efficiencies________________400,000
• Staff Reduction_________________400,000
• State Land Use License_________2,500,000
• State Land Manager Contracts_____100,000
• Nature Club for Virginians_________150,000
• Local and International Tours______500,000
• Forest Products_________________500,000
• Forest______________________300,000
• Fishery (total)_________________3,000,000
• TOTAL____$9,350,000

Robert H. Giles, Jr., Ph.D.
September 9, 1997

This Web site is maintained by R. H. Giles, Jr.
Last revision January 17, 2000.