the voice of fish & wildlife agencies
DESCRIPTION
The Voice of Fish & Wildlife Agencies. Est. 1902. Mark Humpert Wildlife Diversity Program Director. 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 - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: The Voice of Fish & Wildlife Agencies](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56813d06550346895da6ac96/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
The Voice of Fish & Wildlife Agencies
Mark Humpert Wildlife Diversity Program Director
Est. 1902
![Page 2: The Voice of Fish & Wildlife Agencies](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56813d06550346895da6ac96/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
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
![Page 3: The Voice of Fish & Wildlife Agencies](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56813d06550346895da6ac96/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
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
![Page 4: The Voice of Fish & Wildlife Agencies](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56813d06550346895da6ac96/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
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
![Page 5: The Voice of Fish & Wildlife Agencies](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56813d06550346895da6ac96/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
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
![Page 6: The Voice of Fish & Wildlife Agencies](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56813d06550346895da6ac96/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Wildlife Action Plans for Wildlife Action Plans for All 56 States & TerritoriesAll 56 States & Territories
![Page 7: The Voice of Fish & Wildlife Agencies](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56813d06550346895da6ac96/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
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
![Page 8: The Voice of Fish & Wildlife Agencies](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56813d06550346895da6ac96/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
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
![Page 9: The Voice of Fish & Wildlife Agencies](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56813d06550346895da6ac96/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Conservation Priorities
![Page 10: The Voice of Fish & Wildlife Agencies](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56813d06550346895da6ac96/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
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
![Page 11: The Voice of Fish & Wildlife Agencies](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56813d06550346895da6ac96/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
• Federal
• State
• Local/Private
Funding SWAP
Estimated need ~$900M annually
![Page 12: The Voice of Fish & Wildlife Agencies](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56813d06550346895da6ac96/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
State Wildlife Grants
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
Mill
ions
![Page 13: The Voice of Fish & Wildlife Agencies](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56813d06550346895da6ac96/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Advocacy
![Page 14: The Voice of Fish & Wildlife Agencies](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56813d06550346895da6ac96/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
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
![Page 15: The Voice of Fish & Wildlife Agencies](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56813d06550346895da6ac96/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies
15
Match Challenges
![Page 16: The Voice of Fish & Wildlife Agencies](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56813d06550346895da6ac96/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
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
![Page 17: The Voice of Fish & Wildlife Agencies](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56813d06550346895da6ac96/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
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
![Page 18: The Voice of Fish & Wildlife Agencies](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56813d06550346895da6ac96/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
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
![Page 19: The Voice of Fish & Wildlife Agencies](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56813d06550346895da6ac96/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
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
![Page 20: The Voice of Fish & Wildlife Agencies](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56813d06550346895da6ac96/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
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
![Page 21: The Voice of Fish & Wildlife Agencies](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56813d06550346895da6ac96/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
• 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
![Page 22: The Voice of Fish & Wildlife Agencies](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56813d06550346895da6ac96/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
![Page 23: The Voice of Fish & Wildlife Agencies](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56813d06550346895da6ac96/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Working together to prevent wildlife from becoming
endangered…
http://www.teamining.com