NJAS Opinion: Winter, 1995-1996

In this space over the last 9 years, we have frequently underscored the imbalance in wildlife funding, and the difficulty in funding protection of common and abundant non-game species and their habitat (see njas opinion, summer 1989.p. 26; also winter 1990, p. 24; and autumn 1991, p.23). Traditionally at both the state and federal levels, about 350 species have received 95% of the funding, or, to say it better, only 5% of the funding has gone to 1800 species. In fact, until 1990, if the species was not a game animal or endangered or threatened, it got negligible funding from the federal programs, and a similar short end of the stick from the states. Now comes a response to the problem in the form of The National Wildlife Diversity Funding Initiative.

Dubbed Teaming with Wildlife, and spearheaded by the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA), this effort is picking up steam with numerous national coalition members including NJAS. Along with IAFWA, seven national groups act as steering committee for the Initiative. They are World Wildlife Fund, National Wildlife Federation, National Audubon Society, Wildlife Management Institute, American Fisheries Society, The Wildlife Society and Defenders of Wildlife. All 50 state fish and wildlife agencies are members of the coalition, as well as numerous non-governmental organizations (NGOs). To solve the problem of funding wildlife, the groups favor a modest, dedicated user fee or surcharge on outdoor recreational equipment at the manufacturer level (not retail) on such things as binoculars, cameras, camping gear, field guides, wildlife supplies and related items. This same concept of dedicated surcharge has been very successful in game management programs funded under the Wildlife Restoration Act and the Sport Fish Restoration Act that generated millions of dollars for conservation of habitat for game species. The program can raise 350 million dollars for state-based wildlife conservation, recreation and education, with very low administrative cost capped at 8%.

The user fee or surcharge would go up to 5% on the manufacturer's price of product, with lowest rates applying to the most expensive products. For example, a 5% surcharge on a $100 tent that wholesales for $50 would be $2.50; a $10 field guide would have a surcharge of 30 cents; a $300 canoe would have a surcharge of $9. Customers will recognize the fund's green logo on the product's tag. It will have a brief explanation of how the funds are dedicated for wildlife conservation, recreation and education.

What would keep the administrative cost low at 8% is the use of the existing Sportfish and Wildlife Restoration process, an efficient and proven system for collection and distribution of funds that would eliminate the need for a new bureaucracy.

The US Treasury collects the user fees from manufacturers or through import duties and passes the funds to US Fish and Wildlife Service for distribution as grants to state fish and wildlife agencies. Matching grants would be made available to states and territories as a 75% federal and 25% state match. Funds would be allocated to the states using a formula based on population (2/3) and land area (1/3) of each state. No state would receive less than .5% or more than the 5% of the total funds. If we assume the total fund to be $350 million, California would be capped at $15 million. New Jersey would do well under the formula because of its population. Since the fund is dedicated by law, there can be no diversion of the funds for other purposes.

The funds will benefit the 1800 or more non-game species for which no reliable funding sources now exist. The funding will support conservation, education and recreation. The benefits of the program would extend to the 160 million Americans who enjoy the outdoors, including birders, backpackers, campers, hikers, canoeists, nature photographers and others who feed birds in their backyard. The industries that earn $18 billion a year from these folks will also benefit, especially equipment manufacturers and eco-tourism companies. The support of wildlife-related companies is crucial to this enterprise. Some optics companies like Swift and Swarovski have already indicated their support; others may need to be nudged. Letters to companies and to newspapers supporting the dedicated user fee concept will be helpful in making this happen. Note that the user pay-user benefit concept extends both to the consumers of wildlife-related products and to the producers!

NJAS thinks this funding mechanism is long overdue. We think the legislation establishing wildlife diversity funding should spell out clearly that the monies are to be used for acquisition, research, education and recreation related to unfunded non-game species and their habitats. The legislation should also require that a non-game advisory committee be in place in each state as a condition for the federal-state match. Some 32 or more states have an endangered and non-game committee with members from universities, NGOs, and the public at large to advise the state on its non-game and/or endangered species programs, so there is a mechanism that insures expert and necessary input on wildlife diversity programs already in place. It could be extended to the other states as well. Most important of all, this legislation complements existing wildlife programs; it is not a replacement for the Endangered Species Program, or wetlands protection or the Land and Water Conservation Fund. It fills a need not met by existing programs.

More information for you or your organization is available from IAFWA, 444 N. Capitol St. NW, Suite 544, Washington, DC 20001; tel (202) 624-7890 or from NJ Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife, CN 400, Trenton, NJ 08625.

Richard Kane

Director of Conservation.