You would think that one of South Carolina’s biggest industries might warrant a little special treatment from the state legislature and the governor’s office. You know, if we can spend millions to attract shiny new industries, we ought to be able to spend the money we need to keep one of our best industries humming along.Apparently, however, sportsmen must not have the right pull.
The S.C. Department of Natural Resources finds itself in a tremendous financial crunch, looking already at a hiring freeze, not having the resources to compete for and hire top-drawer people and facing a 3-percent budget cut for the 2008-09 fiscal year.
I understand that the phrase “no new taxes” is at the core of the problem, which is coming home to roost with conservation agencies across the country. When money is tight, who gets to squeeze the quarter so hard that the eagle screams?
According to the American Sportfishing Association — and we’re only talking fishing here — South Carolina was seventh in the nation last year in angler expenditures, with 810,000 fishermen spending almost $1.5 billion in the Palmetto State.
The fishing industry — and we aren’t foolish to believe that the hunting industry is all that far behind — accounted for $370 million in money spent by out-of-state visitors. Fishing generated $697 million in salaries for more than 25,000 people, and almost $30 million in federal, state and local taxes collected.
We don’t have good statistics for hunting numbers like we do fishing, but there’s little doubt that if we were an industry, sportsman would be among the most important to South Carolina.
It’s time we were treated that way.
The SCDNR hasn’t recovered from a 41-percent budget cut — that’s $12.9 million — five years ago. And the legislature sent the 2008-09 budget to the DNR; it includes a cut of 3 percent ($900,000).
I don’t care how you cut it, that’s an insult to the residents of South Carolina who spend money for licenses, for gas for their trucks and boats, for rods and reels, ammo and tree stands, dog food and decoys.
“Natural resources is clearly a (lesser) priority,” a DNR official told me. “Three percent is a big reduction. It’s gonna be a struggle.”
Many DNR employees were lost in the big budget crunch five years ago. When you start cutting jobs and putting people out of work, the morale at the old office tends to go down the tubes — and stays there.
I’ve heard three different numbers from three different people, and sort of combining them, I come up with the DNR being between 75 and 100 people short of its 1990s staffing levels. That may not sound like much, but with a hiring freeze in effect, if an important fisheries biologist retires or a wildlife biologist takes a better-paying job in another state or with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and you don’t replace him or her, then something has to suffer.
About 15 months ago, I filled up with my pickup with $2.42-a-gallon gas at a station in Columbia. Around Memorial Day, I paid somewhere around $3.75 right around the corner from the first station. The DNR is feeling the gas crunch the same way the public is — and they’re bound to a budget. Does the enforcement division reduce the number of patrols its officers make? That might save money, but then again, how many poachers will miss out on a well-deserved ticket and fine?
Outdoors-friendly legislators like Rep. Mike Pitts shake their heads at the situation. I’ve heard Pitts speak on the subject, and it’s clear he thinks hunters and fishermen across the state deserve better, but that getting the message across to the rest of the legislature isn’t easy.
Hopefully, the Camo Coalition will have a big role in letting the crowd in Columbia know how motivated sportsmen can become come ballot-box time.
Be the first to comment