National Wetlands Newsletter, Vol. 34, No. 6, Copyright© 2012 Environmental Law Institute® Washington, DC, USA.
conservation
What If . . . Visiting Wetlands Was a Sport?
As I write this, the football season is upon us.
Recently, I attended the first football game of
the season at Penn State, with a full tailgating
experience. The atmosphere of passion and
spirit were contagious, but I kept thinking
about the amount of money spent on tickets,
parking, food, and drinks. The top Division I
college football teams can generate $100 mil-
lion per year, while the most valuable National
Football League (NFL) team—the Dallas
Cowboys—is worth just over $2 billion. This
enormous amalgam of passion, loyalty, and
profit comprising this fall ritual got me think-
ing: can we learn something from football’s
popularity and marketing savvy that can pro-
duce more funding for wetland conservation?
We know there is value in consumptive
and nonconsumptive recreation associated
with wildlife and fish based on the periodic
survey conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wild-
life Service. The 2011 survey reported that
over 91 million U.S. residents spent $145
million on wildlife-associated recreation. Of
course, not all of this is wetland-related, but
certainly a considerable portion is, e.g., water-
fowl hunting, fishing, and birding in wetlands.
This is a good time to remind ourselves that
some innovative outdoor enthusiasts con-
vinced the U.S. Congress to pass the Pittman-
Robertson (PR) Act in 1937 and the Dingell-
Johnson (DJ) Act in 1950. Millions of dollars
of PR funds are generated annually from excise
taxes on the sale of firearms and ammunition.
DJ funds do the same from the sale of fishing
gear, boat fuel, and boats. A parallel program
for nonconsumptive wildlife-related recreation
under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act
of 1980 has been much less effective. What
would moving beyond a publicly financed
model and going private look like?
One proven approach is Ducks Unlimited
(DU). Hunting, along with other participa-
tory “sports,” such as angling or birding, gen-
erates both passion and conservation dollars.
Think about what the duck hunter purchases:
cap, insulated undies (it’s chilly now), warm
camo jacket, and premium camo chest-wad-
ers. You cannot leave home without your shot-
gun, ammunition, a highly trained retriever,
and possibly a duck boat. And, you will need a
hunting license, federal duck stamp, and may-
be a refuge entry ticket. The total cost is eas-
ily thousands of dollars. Have you ever paged
through DU’s magazine? As a member, I read
it every month. They know gear: shotguns,
boats, four-wheelers, decoys, foul-weather out-
erwear, and beyond! Seriously, DU’s members
(read sports participants) and the organiza-
tion’s approach have raised revenues sufficient
to conserve over 12 million acres of wetlands
in North America, and influenced the con-
servation of about 100 million acres. Perhaps
we can learn something from their organiza-
tion’s financial model. Moreover, is it time
for a wider spectrum of those involved in the
regulatory, monitoring, and education realms
of wetlands to form stronger alliances with or-
ganizations like DU?
While the DU model is excellent, and
shows that passion, loyalty, and dollars can
benefit wetland conservation, is there a way
to make wetlands more accessible in the way
the NFL is accessible to spectators, not just
those playing on the field (or hunting and
traipsing in a wetland)? There are several
“wetland sports” on TV these days: catfish
noodlin’ in Mississippi or Georgia; ‘gator
wrestling in Louisiana or Florida; and, for
the very hearty, untangling an underwater
ball of breeding anacondas in Amazonian
wetlands! These wetland sports do not have
a large number of participants (for obvious
reasons), but there are spectators that tune in
to cable channels to watch. Someone is mak-
ing money from these events, but I doubt it is
directed at wetlands conservation.
We do have other “sports” associated with
visiting wetlands. Birders race about trying to
detect the most species in a 24-hour period,
often concentrating on wetlands for their
“prey.” Duck hunters (more properly known as
waterfowlers) jealously guard their best hunt-
ing sites, but are proud to display their bag for
the day. Botanists compete with each other,
albeit politely, to see who can first identify an
obscure sedge, Carex xyz, thumbing through
their well-worn copy of Gleason and Cron-
quist. (And there are the four-wheeling swamp
buggy races, but let’s not go there. That “sport”
is not sustainable in wetlands.) Is there a way
that these competitions could become specta-
tor-based? The Amazing Bird Race? America’s
Next Top Waterfowler? Wading With the
Stars? Keeping Up With the Botanists?
Wetlanders have scoring too—no re-
ally! For birders, count the marks for species
seen on your checklist. Botanists could tally
obligate plants, or better yet, use the Floris-
tic Quality Assessment Index scores, where
narrow-niche species earn a coveted “10”, and
exotics only a “0”. For wetlands overall, the
assessor could use hydrogeomorphic (HGM)
functional assessment scores from 0-1, or indi-
ces of biological (or ecological) integrity (IBIs
and IEIs), with similar scoring systems. Obvi-
ously, our scoreboard would need to be adapt-
able to handle variable scoring systems for taxa
versus sites, but we are smart enough to work
that out! Okay, so maybe this is a narrow seg-
ment of the potential market for specialists,
but who knows?
Thus, I think we have the requisite pieces
for re-imagining a broader funding model to
finance wetland conservation. The key is in-
vesting the time, resources, and creativity to
pilot new efforts to ensure that there are funds
that reach beyond the participating water-
fowler, angler, and birder. And if there is such
a model, how much can be generated, and
how should the funds be distributed? Is our
financial model a nonprofit one, or can we
bravely partner with the corporate world? Do
we need to reorganize ourselves into compet-
ing teams to cheer on our favorite wetlands?
Do we need to call upon talented marketing
firms and sympathetic legal firms to help us
brand and protect wetlands using the NFL’s
franchises as a model for a spectator sport?
Let’s be bold and innovative. Send in your
ideas to nwn@eli.org, and we will share them
with the readership. Meanwhile, be loyal to,
and keep cheering for, your favorite wetland.
Go Wigeons! Go Fens! Go Acorus?!
- Robert P. Brooks
november-december 2012 9