AprilApr
AprilApr
A white paper of the
Association of Fish &
Wildlife Agencies
FUNDING A 21ST CENTURY CONSERVATION MODEL
The Blue Ribbon Panel on Sustaining America’s Diverse Fish & Wildlife Resources
Executive Summary
A century ago, populations of wildlife prized by sportsmen and women were at all-time lows and in steep decline.
Conservationists rallied to create a unique funding system that directed excise taxes paid by manufacturers of guns
and ammunition (and later bows and arrows, fishing equipment and motor boat fuel) to state-based conservation of
those species.
Today, these funds exceed $1 billion annually and the conservation supported by hunters, recreational shooters,
anglers and boaters has brought many game species, such as deer and striped bass, back from the brink.
Yet, the job of securing a future for America’s wildlife is unfinished. Thousands of diverse fish and wildlife species
that are neither hunted nor fished face declines similar to those experienced by game species 100 years ago. Existing
funding sources are either ineligible or inadequate for the conservation of nongame species. Without action in the
near future, a growing number could require protection under the federal Endangered Species Act, spurring
additional regulation, increased compliance costs and more severe constraints on industries critical to the U.S.
economy.
State fish and wildlife agencies are committed to working collaboratively to develop a path forward that both
conserves the full array of fish and wildlife and provides certainty for natural resource-based enterprise.
Conservation works, but only when we have the funding to do it. Previous attempts to secure dedicated funding for
at-risk fish and wildlife have been unsuccessful.
The Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies is looking to its newly established Blue Ribbon Panel on Sustaining
America’s Diverse Fish & Wildlife Resources to reimagine a 21st century model of funding conservation that bridges
the funding gap between game and nongame species and secures a future for diverse fish and wildlife and the
economy.
A Conservation Success Story & an Unmet Challenge
In the early 1900s, many of the nation’s iconic game species such as wild turkeys, white-tailed deer, wood ducks, elk
and striped bass were imperiled, with some at risk of extinction. In 1937, hunters and other conservationists rallied
to support a new funding mechanism that dedicated proceeds from a federal excise tax on guns and ammunition
(and later on bows and arrows, fishing equipment and boat fuel) to fund fish and wildlife conservation.
This user-pay system of conservation funding, known as the Wildlife and Sportfish Restoration Program and the
Boating Safety Trust Fund, has led to the dramatic turnaround in game populations that is considered one of the
Founded in 1902, the Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies represents North America’s fish and wildlife
agencies to advance science-based management and conservation of species and their habitats for the
public’s long-term benefit and use. www.fishwildlife.org @fishwildlife
The voice of Fish & Wildlife Agencies
www.fishwildlife.org
greatest conservation successes in the world.
Today, the excise taxes—not federal income taxes—support a $1 billion annual apportionment to state fish and
wildlife agencies that is matched with license fees paid by hunters and anglers to provide state agencies with reliable
and sustained funding for managing game species.
The manufacturers who pay the excise taxes and tens of millions of hunters and anglers who pay license fees benefit
directly by having access to millions of acres of managed habitat and sustainable game populations for their pursuits.
In turn, state fish and wildlife agencies govern a wildlife-related recreational enterprise that supports 1.5 million jobs,
drives $86 billion in consumer spending and generates $26.7 billion in federal, state and local taxes annually.
There is a flip side to this success story. For the thousands of species under state management jurisdiction that are
not hunted or fished, no comparable dedicated funding source is in place to support their conservation.
Without funding, only a fraction of these species are being actively conserved, while thousands slip through the
cracks and face declining populations. Many are on a fast track for endangered species listings. In just the last five
years alone, petitions for federal endangered species listing have increased by more than 1,000%. When listing
occurs, regulatory uncertainty and conservation costs skyrocket.
The good news is that state agencies have had proven success in recovering and growing populations of targeted
species through strategic investments in habitat conservation and science with what little funding they have for this
kind of conservation.
History of State Nongame Conservation Funding
1975: The Wildlife Management Institute published a report highlighting a gap in funding for the conservation of fish
and wildlife that are not hunted or fished. These species represent the vast majority of species managed by state fish
and wildlife agencies, over 95%. The report recommended that Congress authorize an excise tax on certain outdoor
recreation equipment so that non-consumptive users (such as birders, hikers and campers) could join sportsmen and
women in funding fish and wildlife conservation.
1980: Congress passed the Fish & Wildlife Conservation Act (PL 96-366), which called for states to develop and
implement comprehensive nongame fish and wildlife plans and required the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to study
potential mechanisms for funding these activities. Despite passage of the Act, no funds were appropriated for its
implementation.
1990: The Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies launched the Wildlife Diversity Funding Initiative to expand the
excise tax on hunting and fishing equipment to additional products. The Teaming With Wildlife coalition was
organized to help lead the effort, attracting the support of most major conservation, hunting and fishing interests.
The Wildlife Diversity Funding Initiative proposed placing a 0.25%-5% sliding scale, wholesale excise tax on outdoor
recreation products such as binoculars, field guides, camping equipment, etc. to fund nongame fish and wildlife
conservation, outdoor recreation and conservation education. It was estimated that the average outdoor
recreationist would pay only an additional $20 per year to help raise $350 million annually.
The proposal also had the support of some key members of Congress, the Department of the Interior and several
major retailers and manufacturers of outdoor equipment. It was, however, opposed by the Outdoor Recreation
Coalition of America, a trade group representing many large outdoor recreation companies. In part due to a lack of
support from members of Congress who pledged “no-new-taxes,” it was abandoned by the mid-late 1990s.
2000: The Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) proposed to dedicate offshore drilling royalties on oil and gas
development to wildlife conservation, historical preservation and other purposes. CARA passed by a 3:1 margin in the
U.S. House of Representatives and had the support of 60 Senators, but failed to advance.
The voice of Fish & Wildlife Agencies
www.fishwildlife.org
2001: Thanks to strong support for Title III of CARA, Congress appropriated
funding for two new programs (referred to as “CARA-lite”)—the Wildlife
Conservation and Restoration (WCR) and the State Wildlife Grants (SWG)
programs —at $50 million each. Appropriators vowed that funding would
ultimately reach $350 million annually; but WCR funding ended after the
first year and SWG peaked at $90 million in FY10 and has been cut by 35%
in recent years.
2008: The Teaming With Wildlife Act (S2670) was introduced in the U.S.
Senate to provide $350 million annually in dedicated funding to states to
implement State Wildlife Action Plans. The source of funding was split
evenly between outer continental shelf drilling royalties and revenues
collected under the Mineral Leasing Act. The bill gained some support and
its sponsors planned to attach it to comprehensive energy legislation that
failed to advance.
2009: The U.S. House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy
Security Act (HR2454), which would have provided as much as $500 million
annually in dedicated funds for states to plan and implement natural
resources adaptation through State Wildlife Action Plans. The bill proposed
to take a small portion of revenue from a cap and trade protocol to fund the
WCR program. Similar legislation passed out of the Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee but failed to reach the Senate floor.
2013: Funding for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program declined to
just $58 million, leaving an average of about $850,000 per state, territory
and the District of Columbia for at-risk species management. Concurrently,
the Teaming With Wildlife Coalition grew to more than 6,400 organizations
representing millions of birders, hikers, hunters, anglers and other outdoor
enthusiasts who support dedicated funding for fish and wildlife
conservation.
The Opportunity
For too many fish and wildlife and for Americans, we are failing in our
custody to leave the next generation with healthier fish and wildlife
populations than those we inherited.
Association of Fish & Wildlife
Agencies
444 North Capitol St. NW
Suite 725
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: 202-624-7890
Fax: 202-624-7891
www.fishwildlife.org
Twitter: @fishwidlife
Facebook: /FishWildlifeAgencies
We need innovative, game-changing thinking that will move forward a 21st
century system of funding conservation that will produce both a rich and
diverse conservation legacy and a vibrant economic future.
Under the leadership of the Blue Ribbon Panel on Sustaining America’s
Diverse Fish & Wildlife Resources co-chairs—Bass Pro Shops founder John L.
Morris and former Wyoming governor Dave Freudenthal—the panel will
answer one of the most important questions facing fish and wildlife today…
What is the best and most equitable way to fund fish and
wildlife conservation to ensure their sustainability?