1 / 21

The Future of Wildlife-Related Recreation: Exploring Funding Options

This study examines the disconnect between traditional funding sources and the increasing demand for wildlife-associated recreation. It explores alternative funding options that reflect the needs of all citizens and promote stakeholder-based management.

doloresadams
Download Presentation

The Future of Wildlife-Related Recreation: Exploring Funding Options

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  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: >$203 million to states (FWS, 2005)

  7. 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 • 10% sport fishing equipment • 3% electric trolling motors and sonar fish finders • Permanent self-sustaining fundingsource • Allocation based 40% land and water area, 60% paid licenses • States pay 25% • FY 2004: >$260 million to states (FWS, 2005)

  8. Traditional Funding Sources:Licenses • Licenses, tags, and permits administered by states • Permanent self-sustaining fundingsource • Licenses required for all hunters and anglers of age • 2001: >$639 million for fishing (ASA, 2002) • 2001: >$693 million for hunting (IAFWA, 2002)

  9. Traditional Funding Sources:Duck Stamps • Migratory Bird Conservation Act • Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act • Refuge land acquisition • Permanent self-sustaining fundingsource • Duck stamp required for waterfowl hunters • FY 2004: >$890 million for over five million acres (FWS, 2005)

  10. Traditional Funding Sources:The Debt to Hunters and Anglers

  11. Additional Funding Sources:Wildlife 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. Some past initiatives Teaming With Wildlife Initiative Conservation and Reinvestment Act Proposed or in place Recreation Fee Program American Outdoors Act Get Outdoors Act Alternative Sources:Stakeholder Approach

  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. Nearly passed 2001 15 year, long-term funding source $350 million annually to states Outer continental shelf revenues State Wildlife Grants FY 2004: >$61 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 Conservation and Reinvestment Act (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)

More Related