I hear it more and more: "Why isn't there more small game on public land?" or "Why isn't the State doing more to manage and sustain wildlife habitat on its lands?" Simply put, the reason is money ... or rather, not enough, according to State officials. And the forecast for the future isn't all that promising that things will change.
The NYS Department of Environmental Conservation has more divisions and subdivisions than Ken Lay had excuses for what happened to Enron. Considering the floundering economic climate that exists in the state, particularly after the 9/11 attack, the State, including DEC, has been operating on very shaky budgets, compared to the income it once enjoyed. Lagging budgets, attrition and changing priorities have hurt just about all State agencies, but particularly so in those responsible for fish, wildlife and habitat, much of that dependant on the NYS Conservation Fund.
The Conservation Fund represents 55-60 percent of the annual operating budget of the Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources, and 40-50 percent of the budget of the DEC Division of Law Enforcement as well. The Fund gets most of its revenue (90 percent) from sales of hunting, fishing and trapping licenses, fees and special taxes. As such, it's historically been the sportsmen and women's money and special taxes that drove these programs. However, expanding overhead operating costs of these agencies – especially salaries, benefits and increasing retirements – are gutting their ability to perform effectively. Also, drops in license sales, as sportsmen as a group age and quit hunting, and fewer younger people participate, have had an impact. Despite a recent license increase, these deficits have continued to grow. The introduction of a special voluntary $5 Habitat Stamp was poorly promoted by the DEC and, as such, has proven to be a total flop. In recent years, the legislature has been – for lack of a better term – subsidizing the divisions' budgets with monies from the General Fund, attempting to keep them at some semblance of effectiveness. This subsidy isn't a gift since every person, hunter, angler or not, benefits from a healthy environment, habitat and the creatures that live there. But elected officials also must look at the "big picture" ... which translates to votes. As hunters' numbers drift downward, that lowers wildlife and habitat's priority in the political scheme.
For example, on June 23, the NYS Legislature approved $225 million for the Environmental Protection Fund (EPF), thanks to advocacy on the part of more than 200 environmental and conservation organizations. This represents $100 million more than last year for the EPF. And consider how much new acquisitions of land have cost the State in recent years. Sadly, while noble on the surface, the State can't properly manage what it has had for decades. So how will its stewardship be on the additional thousands of acres?
Much of the problem comes down to who pays for conservation efforts in New York and who stands to benefit. It's a given that most of the best wildlife habitat exists on private land. But many landholders, especially farmers, view conservation laws that prevent them from developing their land as depriving them of income. As development continues to gobble up more rural habitat, it will only get worse.
According to the American Farmland Trust, "farming is crucial to New York's economy and way of life, yet farms are endangered throughout the state. Unchecked development has sprawled out from urban areas into the countryside. Economic factors have made it difficult for many farmers to turn a profit." Many farmers view their farmland acreage as their "retirement fund" when they quit and sell it, often for development. Can you blame them? There are programs available, such as the Agricultural Environmental Management (AEM) program that helps farmers address environmental concerns. Participating farmers benefit by documenting farm stewardship, addressing natural resource concerns, reducing farm liability and meeting regulatory requirements. AEM is implemented through the cooperation of several agencies, including Cornell Cooperative Extension, Soil and Water Conservation Districts and the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Agricultural assessment provides "use value" assessment for eligible farmland. This allows farmland to be taxed for its agricultural value, rather than its market (i.e., non-farm development) value. Any owner of land used for agricultural production may qualify if the land meets the requirements or is rented to an eligible farm operation.
To qualify for agricultural assessment:
• Enrolled land generally must be a minimum of seven acres and farmed by a single operation.
• Land must have been used in the preceding two years for crop production, commercial boarding of horses or livestock production.
• Farm operation must gross an average of $10,000 or more in sales per year.
