Copied directly from Connecticut Sportsman's Coalition email newsletter:
This issue impacts Every Sportsman! A question I've been asked is "What's Next - Hatcheries?" COMMUNICATE! Most won't know what you want unless you tell them! Many won't know the basics of the program unless you inform them. There will be no Public Hearing on this issue. DO IT NOW- Communicate as you did on the License Fee Reduction issue. Be polite.
In the Governor's Midterm Budget Adjustments under DEEP p.67, the following statement is found: "Reduce Funding for Sportsmen's Programs - Funding is eliminated for the pheasant stocking program $ - 160,000."
The Pheasant Stocking Program is Sportsmen funded and is self sustaining - NOTHING comes from the General Fund. Elimination of the program saves the state nothing and in the future reduces revenue to DEEP through reduced license sales, and to the state in terms of economic impact. The methodology is to count revenue generated from Pheasant Stamps ($28) and Small Game licenses ($19/$11 Junior) from those who purchased the stamps to get a total revenue. This number then determines the number of Pheasants that will be stocked in the following year. The $160,000 to be cut is the revenue generated last year and constitutes the stocking program for 2012.
The economic impact of eliminating Pheasant Hunting is substantial. ALL Resident hunters averaged 12.2 trips and nonresidents 3.0 trips in Connecticut. Pheasant hunters number 4000-5000. Based on 2010 hunting licensees, resident hunters undertook 770.0 thousand trips and nonresident hunters 9.8 thousand. Total Hunting expenditures in Connecticut are impressive at $109.3 million in 2010 dollars. http://www.ct.gov/dep/lib/dep/outdoor_recreation/2011economicimpactstudy.pdf Table 3.2.3. Using a few of the most common costs (in 1,000s $): Food and Lodging 2,801.5; Hunting Equipment 29,266.3; Transportation 5,365.5, with approximately 60,000 hunters in the state and dividing the totals by 4-5000, economic loss to retail sales is substantial.
It is imperative you write, call, e-mail your state Senator and Representative and all the members of the Appropriations Committee expressing your position. E-mail addresses for the complete Appropriations Committee can be found at http://www.ctsportsmen.com Under "Legislation". To find your legislators with their addresses, tel numbers, etc. go to "How to Find Your Legislators" on the Legislative page. Contact Gov. Malloy "Share Your Opinion" http://www.governor.ct.gov/malloy/cwp/view.asp?a=3998&q=479088 . Contact the Commissioner DEEP Dan Esty (860) 424-3001 and Deputy Commissioner Susan Frechette (860) 424-3005.
UPDATE: Since Feb. 16 when we sent this original message little has been accomplished to solve the Pheasant Stocking problem either by the administration or the Appropriations Comm.. We have heard that Summer temps at State Parks, etc may be cut to insure the Pheasant program is implemented in the Fall - this we feel is unlikely. As it stands now, there will be no Pheasant program. We cannot conclude this budget item concerning our interests is nothing but a rip-off - after all it is Sportsmen's money! It is inconceivable to us that The Gov. and members of the Legislature don't recognize that the $160,000 cut will be negatively offset by the loss of state revenue through sales, recreation, and political impact. According to Sen.. Williams (Pres. Pro Tem of the Senate) in a Press Conference a few years ago said "DEP hasn't been adequately funded in over 30 years." We agree - more appropriations, not cuts are needed. Currently, sportsmen pay for 80-90% of the activities of DEP bureau of Natural Resources (Hunting, Fishing, Trapping, etc.) through License fees, tags, stamps, and in effect we pay to "field manage" wildlife - a DEEP statutory management responsibility. This is an extremely important issue and will seriously impact our outdoor activities in the future. What's the next cut for the DEEP (BNR)-Fish Stocking? What percentage of the 20 Billion $ budget is $160,000? Is this cut necessary? We need ALL Sportsmen to communicate to the Governor and the Appropriations Committee that this cut is both economically and politically inappropriate.