[tyjen]

The article is missing significant context surrounding "reducing bycatch," so I'll try to provide a little.

Bycatching is a problem, because you have large trawler fleets drag netting for a specific species, like pollock; but, since nets do not discriminate, they also catch other fish and animals, including thousands of chinook. Those same fleets fishing for other species are involved in community development quota programs that share a portion of their profits with tribal Bering Sea coastal communities.

The Bering Sea communities are extremely dependent on such subsidies and a restriction on the trawlers to the benefit of Yukon and Kushkokwim tribes, comes at the detriment of Bering Sea tribes.

It's a weird situation.

[ricc]

Kinda sounds like how trophy hunting actually have hidden benefits for the local community and even to the hunted species (i.e., trophy hunting for lions can generate money for lion preservation). I’m of course no expert, this is just how it was explained to me.

[levi-turner]

Let's not use the term "trophy hunting". It's analogous to calling an OBGYN an "abortionist". People hunt for all sorts of reasons. The question is often not whether X number of a particular animal will be killed, the question is who will do the killing. State game quotas are set by biologists who are fine tuning populations. If the animals aren't killed by hunters, they will be killed by State wildlife employees. This process is a core tenant of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Model_of_Wildli... ) which is the reason why there has been a flourishing of game animals in North America in the last century.

But to your point, they are referencing two main funding streams for state fish and game / wildlife / natural resources departments:

1. Pittman-Robertson funds ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman%E2%80%93Robertson_Fede... ). The gist is that there's an excise tax on firearms and ammunition. One fun consequence of this is that hunters aren't making up the bulk of funds here, it's recreational shooters. A hunter may shoot 10 shots on a hunting trip. It's gun nuts at firing ranges who disproportionately pay this tax.

2. Sale of hunting and fishing licenses. This varies by state since states' wildlife vary in quantity and quality. Western states with prized large game animals (elk, mountain goats, etc) earn more from this funding stream than Eastern states.

To take an example of Vermont ( https://anr.vermont.gov/sites/anr/files/FY%202023%20ANR%20Bu... ), 36% of funding comes from hunting and fishing licenses and 33% from matching Federal funds. $7.1M of the $9.67M in Federal funding is from Pittman-Robertson ( https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/WR%20Final... ).

[ricc]

Sorry, my statement was not clear. I was talking more about the "hunting" they do in some African countries, and not about the North American system of hunting permissions. And what I meant is indeed "trophy hunting" where there is not much actual hunting involved: Locals will trap or corner an animal, so that the "hunter" will have nothing else to do but shoot.