ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Sunday, January 21, 1996 TAG: 9601230046
SECTION: SPORTS PAGE: C10 EDITION: METRO
COLUMN: OUTDOORS
SOURCE: BILL COCHRAN
Those of us who enjoy fishing, hunting and boating have considered the 80-year-old Department of Game and Inland Fisheries as our agency. We send our money to it in the form of hunting and fishing license fees, boat registration payments and taxes on our equipment, and the agency serves our needs.
That's why efforts to broaden the department's interests and responsibilities beyond traditional game-oriented programs often have been viewed with suspicion. And for good reason, because for years outdoor sportsmen have been carrying much of the financial baggage for all people who enjoy wildlife, including those who pay little into habitat purchase and management. Sometimes our money has been swiped to pay for things well beyond our intent.
This helps explain why a number of outdoor organizations, from bass fishermen to deer hunters, are gathering this weekend to wrestle with one of the hardest decisions they've had to make in a long time. Should the game department make a bold move to embrace buzz words like ``nongame'', ``nonconsumptive use,'' ``watchable wildlife'' and ``biodiversity,'' or should it be more of a single-species or single-issue organization.
More specifically, the question is this: Should the Division of Natural Heritage be moved from the Department of Conservation and Recreation to the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries?
``Yes'', says the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries.
``It is the right thing to do, because you can not have two different agencies trying to manage the same habitat for two different purposes,'' said David Whitehurst, the department's assistant director for field operations. ``We clearly should be the wildlife agency for all wildlife.''
``No,'' says Vic Thomas, D-Roanoke, whose name is synonymous with ``friend of the sportsman.''
``The current proposal would require the state's sportsmen and boaters to pay the cost of protecting and managing biologically diverse communities containing rare plants, rare animals, geological landmarks and natural communities,'' he said. ``The game department cannot fund the Natural Heritage program without reducing some other program in the department.''
The idea of merging the two agencies comes in Gov. George Allen's budget. It would have to be approved by the General Assembly, and that likely would require backing by Thomas, chairman of the House Conservation and Natural Resources Committee.
``Natural Heritage is a wonderful program, but I don't want to use hunting and fishing money to pay for it,'' Thomas said. Hunters and fishermen have more than enough financial burdens, including every thing from putting more game wardens into the field to rebuilding crumbling fish hatcheries, he said.
The Natural Heritage program has 19 full-time staff members and an annual budget of $1.2 million, about half of that coming from the general fund, the rest from grant. It was organized in 1986 and given the role of tending to the needs of rare, threatened or endanger plants, animals and natural areas.
The game and fish department also is involved in the management and protection of nongame species. The result, at times, has been an overlapping of efforts and even confusion between the two agencies and those they serve.
``Citizens will be better served by a single, unified wildlife agency providing one-stop shopping for all wildlife-related matters,'' Whitehurst said.
The game and fish department has enough funds to absorb the budget of the Natural Heritage program for the next two years, without diverting money that would be used on hunting, fishing and boating programs, he said.
``But what happens after that?'' Thomas said. If the agency's funding gets tight, it would be tempting to pull hunting, fishing and boating fees into nongame expenditures, he said.
``I don't think we are creating any type of problems for ourselves,'' Whitehurst said. In fact, failure to broaden the department's responsibilities at this point will lead to major conflicts in the future between historical and new constituencies of wildlife resources, he said.
The big losers will be hunters and fishermen.
LENGTH: Medium: 75 linesby CNB