The Voice of Fish & Wildlife Agencies

1. The Voice of Fish & Wildlife Agencies Est. 1902 Mark Humpert Wildlife Diversity Program Director

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. Wildlife Action Plans for All 56 States & Territories

7. 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

8. Alabama Action Plan

9. Conservation Priorities

10. National Phone Survey Support for Wildlife Action Plans Among Voters Nationwide TotalFavor 80% TotalOppose 17%* Strongly Favor 46% Don't Know 4% Strongly Oppose Somewhat 8% Favor Somewhat 34% Oppose 8% * Denotes Rounding

11. Funding SWAP • Federal • State • Local/Private Estimated need ~$900M annually

12. State Wildlife Grants Millions

13. Advocacy

14. 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

15. Match Challenges Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies

16. State Funding Successes • With the help of diverse coalitions, a handful of states have secured dedicated wildlife agency funding • Missouri, Arkansas, Minnesota • Conservation sales taxes • Virginia & Texas • Dedicating tax revenues from outdoor gear • Colorado, Arizona & Maine • Dedicated lottery revenues • Florida & South Carolina • Real estate transfer taxes

17. State Funding 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. TWW Coalition • 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

23. Working together to prevent wildlife from becoming endangered… http://www.teamining.com