The Future of Wildlife-Related
Recreation: Exploring Funding Options
that Reflect the Needs of all Citizens
Laura E. Anderson
David K. Loomis
University of Massachusetts-Amherst
The 17th Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium
Monday April 11th, 2005
Issue

High demand for wildlife-associated recreation


Funding historically not adequate to provide for demand





Not necessarily hunting and fishing
Resource management
Land acquisition
Habitat restoration
Recreation facilities
Growing recognition of unfair reliance on hunters and anglers
as funding source
Background

Traditional expert-client relationship




Hunters and anglers pay for licenses, equipment taxes
Focus on game species management (Allore, 1998)
Pressure to open more hunting and fishing opportunities (U.S.
Sportsmen, 2004)
Stakeholder approach (Decker et al., 1996, p. 79)




Including all stakeholders
Identifying stakeholder views
Compromise between competing demands
Improving communication between managers and stakeholders
Background

Changing values of American public



Growth of animal welfare movement (Muth and Jamison, 2000)
Urbanization and epistemology
Sprawl and habitat loss
Wildlife-Associated Recreation in 2001

High demand for
wildlife recreation
not related to
hunting and
fishing
Wildlife Watchers (nonconsumptive)
Wildlife Watchers
Hunters

Wildlife owned by
all stakeholders
(DOI, 2001, p. 4)
44.3
Anglers
66.1
13
34.1
millions of participants
Purpose

To consider the disconnect between traditional
funding sources and current demands for wildlifeassociated recreation, by…



Reflecting on the connection between traditional funding
sources and client-based management
Examining an example that illustrates the tension between
client vs. stakeholder management
Exploring how proposed funding alternatives address
stakeholder-based management
Traditional Funding Sources:
Pittman-Robertson

Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937


“to restore, enhance, and manage wildlife resources, and to
conduct state hunter education programs”
1951: equipment excise taxes authorized




Permanent self-sustaining funding source



11% sport firearms/ammunition
12.4% archery equipment
10% handguns
Allocation based 50% land area, 50% paid licenses
States pay 25%
FY 2004: >$203 million to states
(FWS, 2005)
Traditional Funding Sources:
Dingell-Johnson

Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act of 1950



“to restore, enhance, and manage sport fishery resources”
“development and maintenance of boating access facilities
and aquatic education programs”
1951: equipment excise taxes authorized



Permanent self-sustaining funding source



10% sport fishing equipment
3% electric trolling motors and sonar fish finders
Allocation based 40% land and water area, 60% paid licenses
States pay 25%
FY 2004: >$260 million to states
(FWS, 2005)
Traditional Funding Sources:
Licenses

Licenses, tags, and permits administered by states

Permanent self-sustaining funding source

Licenses required for all hunters and anglers of age
2001: >$639 million for fishing (ASA, 2002)
 2001: >$693 million for hunting (IAFWA, 2002)

Traditional Funding Sources:
Duck Stamps
Migratory Bird Conservation Act
 Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act


Refuge land acquisition

Permanent self-sustaining funding source


Duck stamp required for waterfowl hunters
FY 2004: >$890 million for over five million acres
(FWS, 2005)
Traditional Funding Sources:
The Debt to Hunters and Anglers
Funding from Hunters and Anglers
Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration (2004)
>$203 million
Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration (2004)
>$260 million
Duck Stamp Funds (2004)
>$890 million
Hunting Licenses (2001)
>$693 million
Fishing Licenses (2001)
>$639 million
Total
>$2.6 billion
Additional Funding Sources:
Wildlife License Plates

Supplement state wildlife budgets



Vary by state
Voluntary participation
Florida example:


8 wildlife plates
88 special causes
Florida Wildlife Funds 2004
“Conserve Wildlife”
license plate
$486, 990
Pittman-Robertson
$3.6 million
Dingell-Johnson
$6.7 million
Species-Specific Plates 2004
Florida panther
$2.4 million
Wild dolphins
$1.7 million
Manatees
$1.6 million
Sea turtles
$1.3 million
Bass
$537,725
Whales
$384,525
Fishing
$148,940
(Florida DMV, 2005; FWS, 2005)
Additional Funding Sources:
Income tax check-offs




35 states with check-offs for non-game wildlife (Tax Administrators, 2003)
Competition with other causes: political, health, child welfare
Voluntary participation
Minnesota example:
 Chickadee Checkoff raised $1 million annually in early years
 Contributions declining since 1988 (Breining, 1997)
Minnesota Wildlife Funds 2004

Chickadee Checkoff
<$1 million
Pittman-Robertson
$6.2 million
Dingell-Johnson
$9.8 million
(FWS, 2005)
Other sources: state lotteries, speeding ticket fines, and sales tax (Allore,
1998)
Whose land?: Pennsylvania legislature enters debate
over who, besides hunters, should use game lands
(Lancaster New Era, January 8, 2002)

1.4 million acres state game lands
 Largely funded from Pittman-Robertson

State Game Commission (expert-client approach):
 Planned vote to restrict horseback riding and mountain biking during hunting
season

Opponents (stakeholder approach):
 Tourism industry, bike, equestrian, and snowmobiling groups

State Legislature:
 Proposed bill to subject commission to Independent Regulatory Review

FWS:
 Threatened loss of Pittman-Robertson funds if lands not managed for
wildlife programs

Game Commission restrictions effective February 2003
Alternative Sources:
Stakeholder Approach
Stakeholder Groups
1. Consumptive recreation
(hunting and fishing)

Some past initiatives


2. Non-consumptive recreation
(hiking, birding, photography)

Proposed or in place

3. Backyard wildlife interaction
(birdfeeders, wildlife observation)
4. Non-use values
(existence, bequest, option)
Teaming With Wildlife Initiative
Conservation and Reinvestment Act


Recreation Fee Program
American Outdoors Act
Get Outdoors Act
Teaming with Wildlife Initiative

Excise taxes patterned after Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson





Challenges




Outdoor recreation equipment
Photographic and optical equipment
Guide books
Recreational and sport utility vehicles
User fee vs. specialized tax
Major outdoor gear manufacturers opposed
Lacked bipartisan support
Stakeholders addressed


Non-consumptive recreation
Backyard wildlife interaction
(Allore, 1998)
Conservation and Reinvestment Act

Nearly passed 2001



15 year, long-term funding
source
$350 million annually to states
Outer continental shelf revenues

Challenges



State Wildlife Grants

FY 2004: >$61 million to states
(DOI, 2004)
 Allocation based 1/3 land
area, 2/3 population
 States pay 25%
(FWS, 2005)

Subject to Congressional
appropriation
Less funding than provided by
hunters and anglers
Stakeholders addressed



Non-consumptive recreation
Backyard wildlife interaction
Non-use values
Recreation Fee Program

Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act of 2004

“for the operation and maintenance of recreation areas, visitor services
improvements, and habitat enhancement projects on federal lands”

112 FWS sites collected fees in 2004
FY 2004: $3.4 million to refuges

Challenges



Equity concerns (More, 2002, More and Stevens, 2001)
Stakeholders addressed

Non-consumptive recreation
American Outdoors Act

Proposed in Senate, June 2004

“to ensure adequate funding for conserving and restoring wildlife, to
assist local governments in improving local park and recreation systems,
and for other purposes”

$350 million annually to Wildlife Conservation and Restoration
Account
Outer continental shelf revenues

Stakeholders Addressed




Non-consumptive recreation
Backyard wildlife interaction
Non-use values
Get Outdoors Act

Proposed in House, March 2004

“to get Americans outdoors by providing access to parks and recreation areas
in urban and rural communities, preservation of historic places, and
promotion of healthy and active lifestyles, and to provide for hunting,
angling, and wildlife viewing”

$350 million annually to Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Fund
Outer continental shelf revenues
Establish permanent trust fund

Stakeholders Addressed






Consumptive recreation
Non-consumptive recreation
Backyard wildlife interaction
Non-use values
Conclusion

Americans owe an enormous debt to hunters and anglers for
wildlife conservation and the wildlife-related recreation
opportunities provided

However, recognize that wildlife resources are owned by
everyone




Values of American public changing
Non-hunters/anglers not contributing fair share
Funding imbalance supports expert-client management
Stakeholder approach would benefit from a more equitable
funding structure
Conclusion

“State natural resource agencies manage fish and wildlife for
the benefit of all citizens, regardless of whether they hunt or
fish. Yet, sportsmen who buy licenses and purchase equipment
provide most of their budgets.”—International Association of
Fish and Wildlife Agencies (2002, p. 5)

“It is inevitable and appropriate that states will look to the
majority of Americans who enjoy wildlife without killing it to
finance wildlife stewardship and protection.” –Humane
Society of the United States (1997, p. 16)