Wildlife funding is bleak, survey shows

Funding for species not hunted or fished falls short of being able to provide protection.

August 27, 1999
Web posted at: 3:49 p.m. EDT (1949 GMT)

States lack the funding necessary to conserve the majority of our nation's wildlife species, according to a survey released Tuesday by the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.

The association is composed of federal, state and provincial agencies in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico dealing with the protection and management of fish and wildlife agencies.

The report found that program funding for species not hunted or fished totaled $134.9 million nationwide in 1998, far short of the $1 billion the association estimates is needed. Approximately 2000 species or 90 percent of our nation's fish and wildlife fall into this category, the report concludes.

"Every state fish and wildlife agency faces tremendous challenges trying to conserve a diverse array of wildlife, plus provide for recreation and education all on a shoestring budget," said Max Peterson, vice president of IAFWA. "User fees paid by sportsmen and women primarily finance state wildlife agencies, thus these funds are mostly used for the conservation of game species and are not sufficient to address the needs of all species."

Only nine states had $2 million or more in 1998 to conserve hundreds of fish and wildlife species.

The survey indicates that 14 states have less than $500,000 annually available for species funding. Twenty-eight states spent less than $1 million. Only nine states had $2 million or more to conserve hundreds of fish and wildlife species.

The consequences of inadequate funding are striking, the report says. More than 1000 species are currently listed under the Endangered Species Act, with hundreds more in the pipeline. Adequate and reliable funding could help states reverse this trend and prevent species from becoming endangered in a more flexible manner at far less cost.

Many agencies have worked hard to find alternative funding sources at the state level, the report concluded. Other funding sources detailed in the report include state sales taxes and lotteries, trust funds, interest income, private donations and money from merchandise sales. However, one of the main alternative funding sources, state income tax checkoffs, has been on a downward slide since 1992. Even though 35 of the 49 states reporting use checkoffs for wildlife funding, they raised just six percent of wildlife diversity budgets.

Overall, less than 15 percent of state fish and wildlife funding is targeted at the conservation of 90 percent of our nation's fish and wildlife species. "State agencies have scarcely enough funding for game species conservation," Peterson said. "However, dedicated funding sources make a tremendous difference for those programs derived primarily from hunting and fishing licenses and from excise taxes paid by hunters and anglers. We believe it is time to infuse fish and wildlife agencies with the additional reliable funding they need to repeat the success stories of the past for all species."

Congress is considering legislation, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, that would provide more funding.

Copyright 1999, Environmental News Network, All Rights Reserved

Note: Pages will open in a new browser window

External sites are not endorsed by CNN Interactive.