Why It Matters: Although sportsmen and women have long carried the banner as the primary funders of conservation, supplemental revenue streams are needed in nearly every state to meet fish and wildlife management needs. Without alternative funding sources that complement the long-standing leadership of sportsmen and women, conservation programs, and associated outdoor opportunities, are likely to suffer.
Highlights:
- Each legislative session, the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation (CSF) advocates for the American System of Conservation Funding to be safeguarded from being eroded by uninformed policies.
- Even with the dollars generated by sportsmen and women, many state fish and wildlife agencies are experiencing budget shortfalls due to growing program costs and stagnant hunting and fishing license prices.
- To supplement sportsmen and women reliably and effectively funding fish and wildlife management, alternative dedicated funding can complement the existing model.
Throughout the country, conversations in the halls of state government often fall to a common topic: conservation funding, and a lack thereof. State fish and wildlife agencies need funding to carry out their missions of conserving fish and wildlife resources, while state legislatures are tasked with building budgets that support the functions of many different state programs and agencies. However, unlike other state agencies, fish and wildlife agencies across the country derive, on average, about 80% of their funding off the backs of a dedicated user base: sportsmen and women.
The American System of Conservation Funding (ASCF) is the single-most successful model for generating dollars to manage fish and wildlife resources and provide access and opportunity for sportsmen and women to participate in our time-honored outdoor traditions. Under this “user pays – public benefits” structure, those who consumptively use the resource pay for the privilege, and in some states the right, to do so. This funding is generated through excise taxes levied on sporting goods including firearms and ammunition, fishing gear and motorboat fuel, as well as purchasing hunting and fishing licenses, which are eligible to be matched by federal dollars through the respective Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs.
Because hunters, anglers, trappers and recreational shooters have shouldered the burden of conservation for more than 80 years, legislative bodies have become accustomed to that self-sufficiency. Understandably, legislators are oftentimes reluctant to increase the price of hunting and fishing licenses, which means that inflation and the growing cost required to deliver conservation programs outpaces the revenue that sportsmen and women generate. A reliable solution to this growing problem is to find creative, dedicated conservation funding mechanisms that supplement the existing ASCF model. Midwestern states have taken a few creative approaches:
- Since 1991, Minnesota has directed at least 40% of the net proceeds from its state lottery to the state’s Environmental and Natural Resources Trust Fund.
- In 2008, voters in Minnesota approved a ballot measure that increased sales tax by 3/8ths of 1% and has since directed more than $2 billion towards outdoor recreation and conservation initiatives.
- Missouri voters approved a measure in 1976 to direct 1/8th of 1% of the state’s sales tax towards funding the Missouri Department of Conservation, which generates more than $100 million a year.
There are creative strategies employed outside of the Midwest, as well. Georgia, Virginia, and Texas allocate sales tax levied on outdoor goods towards conservation initiatives, while Montana directs nearly a quarter of its sales tax on marijuana towards conservation. Additionally, while not a new revenue stream, states have created frameworks to reimburse state fish and wildlife agencies for free or discounted licenses which maximize the conservation funding potential offered through the traditional ASCF model.
The Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation is dedicated to finding legislative solutions to the growing conservation funding shortfalls that states are experiencing throughout the country and will continue to work with state Legislative Sportsmen’s Caucuses to ensure that state agencies have the resources they need to manage fish and wildlife resources and provide opportunities to sportsmen and women – the original conservationists.