The Future of WildlifeRelated Recreation: Exploring Funding Options that Reflect the Needs of all Ci

1
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

2
Issue

• High demand for wildlife-associated recreation
• Not necessarily hunting and fishing
• Funding historically not adequate to provide for
  demand
• Resource management
• Land acquisition
• Habitat restoration
• Recreation facilities
• Growing recognition of unfair reliance on hunters
  and anglers as funding source

3
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

4
Background

• Changing values of American public
• Growth of animal welfare movement (Muth and
  Jamison, 2000)
• Urbanization and epistemology
• Sprawl and habitat loss

• High demand for wildlife recreation not related
  to hunting and fishing
• Wildlife owned by all stakeholders

(DOI, 2001, p. 4)
5
Purpose

• To consider the disconnect between traditional
  funding sources and current demands for
  wildlife-associated 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

6
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
• 11 sport firearms/ammunition
• 12.4 archery equipment
• 10 handguns
• Permanent self-sustaining funding source
• Allocation based 50 land area, 50 paid licenses
• States pay 25
• FY 2004 gt203 million to states

(FWS, 2005)
7
Traditional Funding SourcesDingell-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
• 10 sport fishing equipment
• 3 electric trolling motors and sonar fish
  finders
• Permanent self-sustaining funding source
• Allocation based 40 land and water area, 60
  paid licenses
• States pay 25
• FY 2004 gt260 million to states

(FWS, 2005)
8
Traditional Funding SourcesLicenses

• Licenses, tags, and permits administered by
  states
• Permanent self-sustaining funding source
• Licenses required for all hunters and anglers of
  age
• 2001 gt639 million for fishing (ASA, 2002)
• 2001 gt693 million for hunting (IAFWA, 2002)

9
Traditional Funding SourcesDuck 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 gt890 million for over five million
  acres

(FWS, 2005)
10
Traditional Funding SourcesThe Debt to Hunters
and Anglers
11
Additional Funding SourcesWildlife License
Plates

• Supplement state wildlife budgets
• Vary by state
• Voluntary participation
• Florida example
• 8 wildlife plates
• 88 special causes

(Florida DMV, 2005 FWS, 2005)
12
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)
• Other sources state lotteries, speeding ticket
  fines, and sales tax (Allore, 1998)

(FWS, 2005)
13
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

14
Alternative SourcesStakeholder Approach

• Some past initiatives
• Teaming With Wildlife Initiative
• Conservation and Reinvestment Act
• Proposed or in place
• Recreation Fee Program
• American Outdoors Act
• Get Outdoors Act

15
Teaming with Wildlife Initiative

• Excise taxes patterned after Pittman-Robertson
  and Dingell-Johnson
• Outdoor recreation equipment
• Photographic and optical equipment
• Guide books
• Recreational and sport utility vehicles
• Challenges
• User fee vs. specialized tax
• Major outdoor gear manufacturers opposed
• Lacked bipartisan support
• Stakeholders addressed
• Non-consumptive recreation
• Backyard wildlife interaction

(Allore, 1998)
16
Conservation and Reinvestment Act

• Nearly passed 2001
• 15 year, long-term funding source
• 350 million annually to states
• Outer continental shelf revenues
• State Wildlife Grants
• FY 2004 gt61 million to states (DOI, 2004)
• Allocation based 1/3 land area, 2/3 population
• States pay 25

• Challenges
• Subject to Congressional appropriation
• Less funding than provided by hunters and anglers
• Stakeholders addressed
• Non-consumptive recreation
• Backyard wildlife interaction
• Non-use values

(FWS, 2005)
17
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

18
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

19
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

20
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

21
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)