The Voice of Fish & Wildlife Agencies

Mark Humpert Wildlife Diversity Program Director

Est. 1902

A Legacy of Success

• Sportsmen’s license fees and excise taxes provide more than two thirds of fish & wildlife agency funding

• Resulted in recovery of many game species

• Millions of acres of habitat protected & restored that benefit all species

• Fish & wildlife conservation disproportionately funded by sportsmen

Hunting, Fishing, Viewing

An economic engine for state economies…• $108 billion in consumer spending• If a single company would rank 7th on Fortune 500• More than $5 billion in tax revenues returned to the states

But little is returned to state wildlife agencies…• Less than $300 million in general funds and dedicated state

taxes nationwide

Broadening Funding

• 1980 F&W Conservation Act Passed

• Early ‘90’s TWW Program Started

• Mid ‘90’s TWW Coalition Reaches 3,000 organizations

• 2000 CARA Nearly Passes

• 2001 State & Tribal Wildlife Grants

• 2005 State Wildlife Action Plans

• 2008 TWW Coalition Reaches 6,000

State & Tribal Wildlife Grants

• Program started at $50M in FY01 reached $90M in FY10

• Requires 50% nonfederal match

• About 3/4th of funds apportioned

• Competitive grants to Tribes/States

• Administered by US FWS

• Each state required to develop State Wildlife Action Plan

Wildlife Action Plans for Wildlife Action Plans for All 56 States & TerritoriesAll 56 States & Territories

8 Elements

1. Distribution and abundance of SGCN

2. Location & condition of key habitats and community types

3. Key threats and priority research and surveys needed

4. Conservation actions needed

5. Monitoring & effectiveness measurement

6. Plan review interval (not to exceed ten years)

7.Coordination with Federal, State, local agencies & Tribes

8. Public participation

Species Total Species SGCN T&E

Mammals 64 24 5

Birds 244 28 6

FW Fish 306 57 14

Reptiles 93 26 9

Amphibians 73 14 3

FW Mussels 153 92 43

FW Snails 135 34 10

Crayfish 83 28

TOTAL 1151 303 90

Alabama Action Plan

Conservation Priorities

Strongly Favor

46%

SomewhatFavor34% Somewhat

Oppose8%

StronglyOppose

8%

Don'tKnow

4%

Total Favor 80%Total Oppose 17%*

* Denotes Rounding

Support for Wildlife Action Plans Among Voters

Nationwide

National Phone Survey

• Federal

• State

• Local/Private

Funding SWAP

Estimated need ~$900M annually

State Wildlife Grants

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2001 2003 2005 2007 2009

Mill

ions

Advocacy

TWW Act (S655)

Introduced by Sen. Tim Johnson (SD)

Six co-sponsorsStabenow (MI), Tester (MT), Thune (SD), Merkley (OR), Klobuchar (MN), Udall (NM)

$350M annually (2011-2016)

50% OCS; 50% Mineral Leasing Act

Wildlife Conservation & Restoration Account

Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies

15

Match Challenges

State Funding Successes

• With the help of diverse coalitions, a handful of states have secured dedicated wildlife agency funding

• Missouri, Arkansas, MinnesotaConservation sales taxes

• Virginia & TexasDedicating tax revenues from outdoor gear

• Colorado, Arizona & MaineDedicated lottery revenues

• Florida & South Carolina Real estate transfer taxes

Conservation Sales Taxes

• Examples Missouri Conservation Sales Tax: 1/8 cent, about $96 M/yr Arkansas Conservation Sales Tax: 1/8 cent, about $22 M/yr

• Pros Potential for large amounts of reliable, unrestricted funding Generally permanent and extremely difficult to divert Similar burden on urban vs. rural residents Passed in Missouri and Arkansas with the help of reports defining

wildlife needs Passing a sales tax increase is extremely difficult and will require a

powerful and dedicated coalition Long campaign and tax increase likely to attract organized

opposition

State Funding

State Funding

Dedicating Existing Real Estate Transfer Tax• Examples

South Carolina Conservation Bank Act: about $10 M/yr Florida Documentary Stamp Tax: about $36 M/yr

• Pros Justified by link between development and habitat loss Generally can be passed with a simple legislation Large windfalls are possible in a hot real estate market

• Cons Real estate industry opposed attempts to increase transfer

tax in Georgia and South Carolina’s Senate—only diverting existing tax is feasible

Revenues decline when property values fall or sales slow

State Funding

Dedicating Existing Sales Taxes on Outdoor Gear

• Examples Virginia House Bill 38: about $10 M/yr, based on national survey Texas Sporting Goods Sales Tax: up to $32 M/yr

• Pros The “user-pays, user-benefits” concept is appealing to legislators Generally can be passed with a simple legislation Unlike a new excise tax, retailers support dedicating existing tax Low administrative costs- Simple calculation based on “National

Survey of Fishing, Hunting & Wildlife-Associated Recreation.”• Cons

Not guaranteed; legislatures can appropriate less than promised:• Texas capped revenue at $32m/yr diverting some to debt service• Virginia has allocated fluctuating amounts under the $13m/yr cap

Allocated revenues and the mechanisms must be defended annually

State Funding

• Timing is never perfect • Consider a funding task force

• Build/Use a coalition to take the lead

• Legislative Sportsmen’s Caucus

• Conduct state-level polling and message development

• For legislative examples visit: www.teaming.com/state_funding_initiatives.htm

• TOP TEN – 1. Ohio (558)– 2. Alaska (384)– 3. Georgia (325)– 4. Nebraska (286)– 5. Arizona (265)– 6. Missouri (252)– 7. Iowa (236)– 8. Wisconsin (218)– 9. Florida (201)– 10. South Dakota (189)

6,300+ coalition members

TWW Coalition

Working together to prevent wildlife from becoming

endangered…

http://www.teamining.com