As fewer people take to the Maine woods to hunt and fish and more to hike, canoe and photograph wildlife, Maine’s land and wildlife management agencies must coordinate their efforts to ensure the state’s open space is managed for multiple uses. The transition also highlights the need to move beyond hunting and fishing license fees to support wildlife management.

A study, recently released by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, found that the percentage of anglers in the United States dropped 12 percent from 2001 to 2006. The percentage of hunters dropped 4 percent during the same period. Maine has the highest percentages of hunters and fishermen in New England and the highest participation nationally in wildlife watching.

According to the data, which came from the U.S. Census Bureau, which asked people what outdoor activities they participate in, 11 percent of New England residents are anglers and 3 percent are hunters. In Maine, 21 percent of residents said they were fishermen and 14 percent were hunters. Fifty-seven percent said they partake in wildlife watching.

According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife survey, fishing brought more than $250 million to the state in 2006 and hunting accounted for $240 million in expenditures. Both were dwarfed by the nearly $818 million spent on wildlife watching, the highest in New England.

This highlights the perennial problem of the state’s Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Department’s heavy reliance on hunting and fishing license fees to balance its budget. In the last legislative session, this issue surfaced with a proposal to charge people who needed rescue. Past debates have focused on charging fees to people who canoe and hike.

A better solution would be to fund the department from the state’s General Fund. In 2003, the Legislature passed a bill requiring the state to fund 18 percent of the department’s budget with money from the General Fund. Immediately the state faced shortfalls, and this mandate was disregarded. The department now gets about 5 percent of its money from the General Fund.

One solution would be to move toward the Legislature’s 2003 promise. Another, that does not negate the need for the first, would be to consider combining the state’s wildlife and conservation agencies. From a simplistic perspective, IF&W manages animals and the Department of Conservation manages land. Combining the two responsibilities as some states do, and funding both from the General Fund, would have merit, especially if it meant land and game management focused on ensuring Maine’s attractiveness as a destination for outdoor enthusiasts of all types. A downside could be that these responsibilities get diffused and remain underfunded.

With a shortage of state resources and two agencies managing Maine’s outdoor resources for differing and sometimes competing goals, this is a worthwhile review.