Celebrating the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration program: 75 years of conservation and partnership success

              U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
75 years of Conservation and Partnership Success
Celebrating the Wildlife and
Sport Fish Restoration Program
ii Celebrating the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program
Foreword
In the middle of the Great
Depression in 1937, America faced
an unprecedented environmental
crisis. The Dust Bowl afflicted
much of the nation’s heartland.
Unwise development ravaged
millions of acres of wetlands and
other vital wildlife habitat, and
many species were near extinction.
In response to this crisis, the
nation’s sportsmen successfully
lobbied Congress to pass what
is arguably the most effective
conservation law in history -- the
Pittman-Robertson Wildlife
Restoration Act.
In effect, sportsmen selflessly
convinced Congress to tax them
to fund conservation. The Act
established an excise tax on
firearms, ammunition and archery
equipment that is apportioned to
states to support the conservation
mission of their fish and wildlife
agencies. Along with the Dingell-
Johnson Sport Fish Restoration
Act passed in 1950 to establish a
similar tax on fishing and boating
equipment, the law ensures a
permanent, dedicated source of
conservation funding. It is widely
recognized as having provided the
foundation for professional wildlife
management at both the state and
federal level.
As we celebrate the 75th
anniversary of this landmark
law, President Obama and his
administration are building on
this great foundation through
the America’s Great Outdoors
initiative. In partnership with
communities across the country,
we are seeking to establish a
conservation ethic for the 21st
century and to reconnect people,
especially young people, to the
natural world.
For three generations, Pittman-
Robertson has served as a model
of conservation partnership.
Let us celebrate its success.
Let us also seek to build new
partnerships that will ensure
the health of our land, our
water and our wildlife and
provide opportunities for future
generations to enjoy them.
Foreword iii
Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar
Credit: DOI/Tami A. Heilman
iv Celebrating the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program
equipment manufacturers who pay
an excise tax on the equipment
they produce as well as the millions
of sportsmen and -women who
effectively pay that tax through the
purchase of equipment to hunt,
fish, shoot and boat, or otherwise
enjoy the great American outdoors
and our wildlife heritage.
The funds collected provide
the very foundation of wildlife
management in this country. They
are dispersed to the various state
wildlife agencies, through the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
and complement the funding
from the sale of hunting and
fishing licenses. They also provide
critical funding for vital habitat
enhancement projects proposed
by the states. This approach,
born of the Dust Bowl days and
echoing that first gathering of
conservation visionaries, has
resulted in what has become
known worldwide as the North
American Conservation Model --
which recognizes we all do our best
work for wildlife when we work
together. For their dream to indeed
become a reality, there would be a
continuing need to establish strong
conservation partnerships at that
time and in the future to face the
serious challenges in wildlife and
environmental conservation.
In 1987, as part of its
commemoration of the 50th
anniversary of the Federal Aid
in Wildlife Restoration Act,
commonly referred to as the
Pittman-Robertson Act in honor
of its Congressional sponsors,
the Service produced a book
entitled Restoring America’s
Wildlife, a retrospective volume
In 1936, President Franklin
Roosevelt convened the first
ever North American Wildlife
Conference bringing together
representatives of the various state
wildlife agencies, conservation
organizations, and other wildlife
interests. He opened the meeting
charging those in attendance to
work together, and said he hoped
that “from it will come constructive
proposals for concrete actions…
and that through those proposals
state and federal agencies and
conservation groups can work
together for the common good.”
Thus was forged a partnership
among wildlife conservation
interests that in the following year
was to be formalized by enactment
of the Federal Aid in Wildlife
Restoration Act.
This year we pay tribute to
75 years of successful fish and
wildlife management and habitat
enhancement based on the
revenues resulting from the Act and
accompanying legislation enacted
since 1937. We also salute the
sporting arms, archery, and fishing
documenting the outstanding
wildlife conservation stories
resulting from that landmark
legislation. The intent of this
report is to present the same for
the past 25 years, and include
the many successes realized in
fishery conservation resulting
from passage of the Dingell-
Johnson Sport Fish Restoration
Act in 1950. Later, the Wallop-
Breaux Amendments effectively
combined these programs and
resulted in the conservation
model we follow today.
That book concluded that the
“Pittman-Robertson program is
the single most productive wildlife
undertaking on record…and that
it has meant more for wildlife in
more ways than any other effort.”
I believe this current volume
heartily reaffirms that conclusion,
and I hope you agree.
Finally, I would like to offer
a big thanks to the numerous
wildlife professionals, writers,
photographers, artists and
others who have graciously
contributed their time and effort
in order to make this outstanding
publication possible. I certainly
hope you find it a worthy salute
to three-quarters of a century of
outstanding American wildlife
conservation.
Fish and Wildlife Service Director,
Dan Ashe
(Foreword, contined)
Credit: USFWS/Lavonda Walton
Message from the Director
Seventy-five years of successful
wildlife management is the
remarkable legacy of the
Pittman-Robertson Wildlife
Restoration Act, and the cause
of our 75th celebration. Along
with the Dingell-Johnson Sport
Fish Restoration Act, it is the
foundation of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service’s (USFWS)
Wildlife and Sport Fish
Restoration Program (WSFR)
and a cornerstone of the North
American model of fish and
wildlife management – a model
venerated for its principles,
celebrated for its performance,
and embraced for its promise
for the future. The two Acts
mark the triumph of American
conservation, founded on public
ownership of wildlife, reliance on
partnerships, and commitment
to preserve our natural heritage.
America’s history of wildlife
management began in the chaos
of the “commons”—the vast wild
lands jointly held and used by
all U.S. citizens as a collective
asset. A seemingly unlimited
resource was relentlessly
hunted and fished by a growing
population with an insatiable
appetite for the food, clothing,
trophies, and commercial
products wildlife provided. In
the jargon of economics, the
marginal benefit of hunting one
more animal accrued exclusively
to the individual hunter, while
the cumulative costs of unlimited
hunting fell crushingly on
the shoulders of society. The
discrepancy in benefit and cost
led to uncontrolled harvest and
the rapid decline of wildlife
nationwide.
State wildlife agencies stepped
into the picture in the early
20th Century with the goal of
affirming public ownership
of wildlife – the Public Trust
Doctrine – and regulating its
harvest with licenses. Yet, apart
from the revenue from license
sales, the wildlife agencies
operated on a financial shoe
string. Pittman-Robertson and,
later, Dingell Johnson came to
their fiscal rescue. The excise
taxes raised by those Acts –
excise taxes paid for by hunters
and anglers – along with license
fees established the principle
of user pays/public benefits,
the fiscal foundation of game
management in America.
The funding enabled by these
Acts, however, is only part of
the success story. The glue
that secures the framework of
modern wildlife management is
partnership. Our celebration of
WSFR’s 75th Anniversary is
really a celebration of the power
of partnership, of the hunters
and anglers who pay the cost
of conservation with fees and
taxes, the outdoor sporting
industries that make the system
of excise taxes possible, the
State fish and wildlife agencies
that provide the scientific
know-how to manage game,
the many citizen groups and
nongovernmental organizations
that expand the States’ capacity
to manage wildlife, and the
USFWS that works hand-in-
hand with the States to
administer the WSFR Program.
We should take pride in the
legacy of the WSFR Program
over the past 75 years. It
has helped empower our
State agencies and citizen
conservationists to achieve
as a nation what no other
nation in the world has
achieved: unparalleled wildlife
Foreword v
management success. Sadly,
the full story of that success is
still largely untold; but it will be
told. The new Wildlife TRACS
performance reporting system
for the WSFR Program will
make that story known and
available to everyone who cares
about wildlife conservation.
Finally, to quote the great
English bard, what’s past is
prologue. Just as the North
American model calmed the
tempest of the wildlife commons,
that same model points the
way to conserving the diversity
and richness of all wildlife in
America. It won’t be easy, but
through the synergy of federal,
state, and private partnerships,
the work that began 75 years
ago in 1937 with the passage of
Pittman Robertson will carry
us to the next 75 years, into a
future where our success will
extend to all species.
Credit: DOI/Tami A. Heilman
Hannibal Bolton
Message from the Assistant Director
for Wildlife and Sport Fish
Restoration Program
vvii C Setleabtruasti nRge tvhiee wW ialdnlidfe C anodn sSeprovrta Ftiiosnh RReesctoormatmione nPdroagtrioamns for the Gull-billed Tern
Table of Contents vii
Table of Contents
Foreword ...............................................................................................................................................................iii
Message from the Director ...................................................................................................................................iv
Message from the Assistant Director for Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration .....................................................v
The Beginning 75 Years Ago..................................................................................................................................1
A History of Major Events in State and Federal Wildlife Conservation .................................................................. 5
National Outlook
Congressional Viewpoints ........................................................................................................................... 8
The Lifeblood of State Fish & Wildlife Agencies .................................................................................... 9
Industry Pride in its Conservation Efforts ............................................................................................ 13
Boating-Related Revenues Pack a Powerful Funding Punch for Aquatic
Conservation and Boating Infrastructure Programs ........................................................................... 17
Valuing the Benefits of Wildlife............................................................................................................................ 21
Quick Facts from the 2011 National Survey................................................................................................ 22
National Survey Trends Graph .............................................................................................................. 27
State Outlook
	
Reliable Funding Source Benefits America’s Sport Fisheries ............................................................. 29
Fishing and Hunting License Trends ...................................................................................................... 31
Preserving Virginia’s Wild Heritage ....................................................................................................... 33
Education Realm
Hunter Education ..................................................................................................................................... 37
Aquatic Resource Education .................................................................................................................... 41
Becoming an Outdoors-Woman................................................................................................................. 43
“Trophies” - WSFR’s 75th Anniversary Painting .................................................................................................. 44
Conservation Success Stories
Pacific Region: The Elements of Success: How WSFR Funds Helped Create
Summer Lake Wildlife Management Area ..............................................................................................45
Conservation on Sarigan Island, Northern Mariana Islands................................................................46
Southwest Region: Desert Bighorn Sheep Restoration in New Mexico .............................................47
Midwest Region: Renovation of Wisconsin’s Wild Rose State Fish Hatchery ...................................49
Southeast Region: Elk Restoration and Management in Eastern Kentucky .....................................50
Alabama Children Get Their Feet Wet in the Creek Kids Program.....................................................51
Northeast Region: Virginia’s Quail Recovery .........................................................................................52
Restoration of Arctic Char and Eastern Brook Trout at Big Reed Pond, Maine ...............................52
Mountain Prairie Region: Smith Family “Legacy” Becomes New Addition to
Utah’s Tabby Mountain Wildlife Management Area ............................................................................54
		viii C eSlteabtruatsi nRg ethveie Wwi ladnlifde Canodn Sspeorrvta Ftiisohn R Resetcoormatimone Pnrdoagtriaomns for the Gull-billed Tern
Whirling Disease Research in Colorado-Resitant Rainbow Trout Studies .........................................56
Alaska Region: Kenai Moose Research Center - A World Leader in Moose Science ........................57
Pacific Southwest: Lake Mohave Habitat Enhancement ......................................................................59
Wildlife Reflections
Hunting and Fishing: A Modern Answer to Environmental Concerns ...............................................61
A Noiseless Effort that Has Changed the World ....................................................................................63
Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................................................65
Appendix - Program Data ................................................................................................................................66-76
Name of Section 1
The Beginning 75 Years Ago
Mark Madison, Historian
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Creating a New
Conservation Constituency:
The Pittman-Robertson Act
of 1937 and the Dingell-
Johnson Act of 1950
The America of colonial times
teemed with wildlife and fish.
However, the country’s rapid
westward expansion in the 19th
century took an enormous toll on
wildlife habitat which disappeared
at an alarming rate. Moreover, by
the 20th century, decades of poor
enforcement of existing hunting laws,
the unregulated growth of market
hunting, and hunters who took
more than their share (commonly
referred to as “game hogs”) added
to the decline of once-abundant
wildlife populations with many game
species teetering on the brink of
extinction. Although today it may
be hard to believe, in 1937 there
were relatively few white-tailed
deer remaining in the country. In
Indiana, for example, the last known
specimen had been killed in 1893, and
spotting one anywhere on the East
Coast would have been a rare event.
Out West, pronghorn antelope,
elk, and bighorn sheep populations
were fast declining. Beavers were
practically nonexistent south of
the Canadian border, and wild
turkeys faced imminent extinction
across the country. Many dedicated
conservationists and sportsmen
alike watched this trend with
growing alarm and worked to get the
country’s first wildlife laws enacted
to protect America’s wildlife and the
habitat upon which it depended.
In the 1930s, a combined economic
depression and ecological disaster
led the federal government to
seek innovative ways to help
impoverished Americans and
conserve our nation’s lands and
wildlife. The Great Depression
and the Great Plains Dust Bowl
destroyed families and decimated
wildlife habitat, leading President
Franklin Roosevelt, wildlife
conservation organizations,
sportsmen, and several concerned
Congressmen to work together
to pass a series of laws that,
today, are still the foundation of
this country’s natural resource
conservation programs.
The creation of the Civilian
Conservation Corps (1933-
1942) introduced 2.5 million
young men to outdoor work
on national forests, parks, and
wildlife refuges. In 1934 the
Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp
Act (popularly known as the Duck
Stamp Act) raised money for
wetland acquisition through the
sale of special revenue stamps
required for legal hunting of
waterfowl. President Roosevelt,
in 1936, convened the First North
American Wildlife Conference,
which brought together a variety
of agencies and organizations
to discuss the future of wildlife
conservation in America.
The Beginning 75 Years Ago 1
Market hunters also known as
“game hogs”. Credit: USFWS
Senator Key Pittman of Nevada
Credit: USFWS
Representative A. Willis Robertson of
Virginia. Credit: USFWS
Drought and wind took a toll on
habitat. (Dallas, South Dakota
1936) Credit: U.S. Department of
Agriculture
Status Review and Conservation Recommendations for the Gull-billed Tern
sponsor the bill in the Senate and
the Senator quickly concurred
with the bill’s original language.
Shoemaker then asked Virginia
Congressman A. Willis Robertson
to co-sponsor the bill in the House.
Robertson, a former chairman
of the Virginia Department of
Game and Inland Fisheries from
1926-1932, closely examined its
language. As chairman, Robertson
had seen game funds repeatedly
raided for other state projects.
Based on his own experience, he
said he would support the bill
if Shoemaker would insert the
following sentence: “…and which
shall include a prohibition
against the diversion of
license fees paid by hunters
for any other purpose than the
administration of said State
fish and game department…”
Shoemaker agreed, stating that the
29 words were the most important
additions made by anyone. With this
amendment, Congress passed the
bill, shepherded by a constituency
of Congressional sportsmen and
-women.
Pittman-Robertson represented
a milestone in North American
conservation history. All hunters
(not just waterfowl hunters) were
actively investing in the future of
wildlife and its habitat. The North
American Model of Conservation
was solidified; not only did the
2 Celebrating the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program
The 1937 Federal Aid in Wildlife
Restoration Act (popularly known
as the Pittman-Robertson Act after
its Congressional sponsors) was
the next step in a quickly-evolving
American conservation movement.
It provided a much-needed, stable
source of funding for wildlife
conservation programs across the
country and today is considered
the single most productive wildlife
undertaking on record.
Interestingly enough, the
legislation’s most vocal supporters
were sportsmen and hunters – the
very group that would be most
affected by the tax. Many hunters
made it clear they willingly would
accept a permanent tax if it meant
the government would use the
funds to work with the states
to ensure the sustainability of
popular game animals.
Although these partners
recognized the urgency of securing
a permanent dedicated funding
source, it still took a great deal
of work to actually pass the Act.
The idea behind Federal Aid
goes back at least to 1935 when
a proposal was first made to use
an existing excise tax on sporting
arms and ammunition for game
restoration and habitat acquisition
to be managed by the Biological
Survey. Normally, this proposal
would have garnered support
from sportsmen; however in the
midst of an economic depression
it was a tough sell to transfer any
excise tax revenue out of general
government funds needed for the
country’s recovery.
During the 1930s, a group of
gifted conservationists and
new organizations kept the
issue alive for the next several
years. The recently-hired head
of the Biological Survey, Jay
N. “Ding” Darling was a noted
prize-winning political cartoonist,
conservationist, sportsman, and
influential friend of President
Franklin Roosevelt. A visionary,
Darling lobbied ceaselessly for
the funds to support wildlife
restoration. Upon retiring from
the Bilogical Survey in 1935 he
went on to found the National
Wildlife Federation (NWF)
in 1936 which made wildlife
restoration its mission. Darling,
himself, relentlessly pressed all of
his Washington contacts to move
the act forward.
Carl Shoemaker, NWF’s Secretary,
was equally influential in securing
the Act’s passage. A Washington
insider who knew Congress
well, Shoemaker also served
as the Secretary of the Senate
Wildlife Committee at the time.
He has been called the “father
of the P-R program” because he
drafted the original legislation
that would not only be acceptable
to both houses of Congress but
also satisfy conservationists and
sportsmen. Shoemaker asked
Nevada Senator Key Pittman to
J.N. “Ding” Darling – cartoonist,
hunter, and conservationist.
Credit:USFWS
J.N. “Ding” Darling illustration.
Credit: USFWS
Carl Shoemaker...author of the
legislation. Credit: National
Wildlife Federation
Name of Section 3
American people own the nation’s
wildlife, but now they actively
supported it financially. Finally,
the P-R Act was the beginning
of a series of acts which found
innovative ways to support ongoing
wildlife conservation needs.
Signed into law by President
Franklin Roosevelt on September
2, 1937, the Pittman-Robertson
Act specified a 10 percent tax
on hunting-specific guns and
ammunition and mandated the
money be set aside to aid the states
in funding wildlife restoration
projects. To account for vast
differences in land area and
population size among the states,
a formula was created to calculate
how much money each state should
receive, taking into consideration
both the size of the state and the
number of licensed hunters residing
there. States were eligible to receive
up to 75 percent of total project
costs from the Pittman-Robertson
fund, with the expectation they
would provide the remaining 25
percent. This provision encouraged
states to take greater responsibility
for their own conservation
programs, while also ensuring they
could afford the resources necessary
to implement them.
During the first ten years
following the passage of the
Act, 38 states acquired roughly
900,000 acres of land for use
as wildlife management areas.
Early projects focused on habitat
reclamation and wildlife relocation,
transplanting deer and other
endangered animals from states
such as Wisconsin and Michigan
(which had fewer people and
more wildlife) into states with
dwindling game populations. By
1948, wildlife experts across the
country had moved thousands of
deer, pronghorn antelope, and
elk, as well as smaller numbers
of mountain goats, wild sheep,
and bears. The success of these
efforts was quick and dramatic;
given access to protected habitat
with sufficient water and food,
transplanted species thrived.
Indiana quickly recovered from
its deer shortage, recording about
5,000 specimens in 1951 and more
than 50,000 by 1970. Other states,
The Beginning 75 Years Ago 3
particularly those in the South,
recorded similar upsurges in
deer populations. The pronghorn
antelope was brought back from
near-extinction, and beavers were
restored in nearly all areas that
made up their original range. The
rest of the targeted species saw
marked success as well.
Since its initial passage, the
Pittman-Robertson Act has
been amended several times. Of
the money provided by Wildlife
Funds in the past 25 years,
approximately 45 percent has
gone toward acquiring (through
purchase or lease) and maintaining
lands for wildlife management,
approximately 28 percent has
been used for wildlife surveys,
research, and technical assistance,
and approximately 12 percent has
been used for hunter education. A
small portion is set aside yearly for
coordination and administration.
(See Accomplishments Pie Charts,
Appendix). Hunter Education
Funds are made up partly through
the allocation of 50 percent of the
tax on pistols, revolvers, and some
archery materials.
The money collected by Pittman-
Robertson has grown steadily in
the 75 years since its enactment.
In 1939, the year it went into
effect, the amount of money
apportioned by the federal
government to the states totaled
$890,000. In 2010, the program
provided approximately $473
million, divided among all 50 states
as well as Puerto Rico, Guam,
American Samoa, the Northern
Mariana Islands, and the U.S.
Virgin Islands. Since 1937, more
than $7.1 billion (almost $14 billion
2012 dollars see Apportionments,
Appendix) has been dispensed
for various conservation projects,
matched by about $2.4 billion in
state contributions. In 75 years,
states have acquired millions of
Waterfowl sportswoman with dog. Credit: USWS
4 Status Review and Conservation Recommendations for the Gull-billed Tern
U.S. Congressman John Dingell (center) sponsored bill leading to Sport Fish Restoration Act. Credit: USFWS
acres of land for
conservation
purposes, and
have worked
with some
9.3 million
landowners
to help them
manage their
own lands for
the benefit of
native wildlife.
Today many
species
have been
successfully
restored,
including wild
turkeys, deer,
pronghorn
antelope, wood ducks, beavers,
bears, Canada geese, elk, wild
sheep, bobcats, and mountain
lions. Many other species have
benefitted indirectly from
Pittman-Robertson conservation
efforts such as songbirds, bald
eagles, falcons, sea otters,
and prairie dogs. Perhaps the
Act’s most important legacy
is the development of a new
conservation constituency of
millions of sportsmen and -women
who directly invest in the wildlife
resources they so deeply cherish.
The success of Pittman-
Robertson inspired anglers
to undertake a similar effort
to provide a source of funding
for the nation’s fisheries. In
1947, Michigan Congressman
John Dingell introduced a
bill patterned after Pittman-
Robertson to impose a 10
percent manufacturers’ excise
tax on certain equipment for
recreational fishing. The monies
collected under the authority
of the proposed legislation
were to be returned to the
states to help fund sport fish
programs. Although vetoed
by President Truman, the bill
ignited increased support from
the country’s growing number of
anglers. In 1950, Congressman
Dingell and Colorado Senator
Edwin Johnson introduced a
revised version and, on August 9,
1950, President Truman signed
the Federal Aid in Sport Fish
Restoration Act into law.
The Sport Fish Restoration
Act, commonly known today as
Dingell-Johnson, applied a ten
percent manufacturers’ excise
tax on fishing rods, reels, creels,
and artificial baits, lures, and
flies, with the revenue earmarked
for the states and territories
for projects that would enhance
sport fish restoration. Since 1950,
state projects have included
the full array of the sport, from
efforts to increase anglers’
access, to fish stocking, removal
of invasive species, improved
fish ladders to fish disease
studies. (See Accomplishments
Pie Charts, Appendix) However,
all share a commitment to the
better management of state
fisheries resources. The Dingell-
Johnson Act provided the perfect
complement to the earlier
Pittman-Robertson legislation.
Now, aquatic habitats and species
would reap similar benefits as
their terrestrial counterparts.
Equally important, anglers
joined hunters in investing in and
supporting conservation programs
aimed at saving this country’s
natural fish and wildlife heritage.
Celebrating the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program
U.S. Senator Edwin
Johnson of Colorado
sponsored bill leading to
Sport Fish Restoration Act.
Credit: USFWS
Name of Section Survey; still later, it is renamed
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
1887 - Efforts to ban or regulate
commercial hunting accelerate
when Theodore Roosevelt and
George Bird Grinnell start the
Boone and Crockett Club to
promote and ensure the future
of big game hunting in North
America.
1890 - Wyoming places a
moratorium on bison hunting.
1895 – Michigan and North Dakota
pass the first laws requiring all
hunters to purchase state hunting
licenses.
1900 - The Lacey Act is passed
prohibiting interstate shipping of
wildlife taken in violation of any
state game law. Managed by the
Biological Survey, it puts market
hunters out of business.
1903 - First National Wildlife
Refuge is established on
Pelican Island, Florida a habitat
devastated by market hunting and
plume traders.
1908 - On May 13, President
Theodore Roosevelt hosts the
White House Conference on
the Conservation of Natural
Resources. Attending are
governors, members of his Cabinet
and the Supreme Court, members
of Congress, scientists, industrial
leaders and conservationists - all
called together to focus on the
loss of wildlife, forests, and other
natural resources caused by the
exploitation of what had once been
perceived as inexhaustible.
1930 – Aldo Leopold and a
distinguished group of wildlife
conservationists are asked by
the American Game Institute
1865 - Massachusetts establishes
a Commission of Fisheries and
Game, the first State game
commission.
1875 - Pressed by sport hunters,
Arkansas passes the first law
banning all commercial hunting
of waterfowl. Similar laws were
quickly passed in Florida and
other states.
1878 - New Hampshire and
California create state game
departments.
1879 - With populations of many
major game species in severe
decline, Michigan placed a ten-year
moratorium on elk hunting.
1885 - Division of Economic
Ornithology and Mammalogy
is established within the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. With
Clinton Hart Merriam as its first
Chief, much of the Division’s
early work is focused on studying
the positive effects of birds in
controlling agricultural pests
and defining the geographical
distribution of animals and plants
throughout the country. The
Division later expands and is
renamed the Bureau of Biological
A History of Major Events in State and
Federal Wildlife Conservation
(now the Wildlife Management
Institute) to draft a policy to
guide wildlife conservation.
The 1930 American Game
Policy lays out a broad vision,
acknowledging that existing
conservation programs are
inadequate to stem the declines
in wildlife. It calls for a program
of restoration implemented by
scientifically- trained professionals
with a stable funding source and
declares it is time for wildlife
management to “be recognized
as a distinct profession and
developed accordingly.” Carl
Shoemaker is appointed special
investigator for the newly created
U.S. Senate Special Committee
on Conservation of Wildlife
Resources. He later becomes the
author of the Pittman-Robertson
Wildlife Restoration Act.
1934 - The Migratory Bird
Hunting Stamp Act, popularly
known as the “Duck Stamp Act,”
is passed by Congress. The Act
requires the purchase of a revenue
stamp by waterfowl hunters
16 years old and over. Money
generated by stamp sales is used
to acquire or lease important
wetlands. Since its inception,
the program has resulted in the
protection of approximately 5.3
million acres of waterfowl habitat.
Unregulated hunting sped the decline of
wildlife populations. Credit: Missouri
Department of Natural Resources
1934-1935 Federal Duck Stamp,
designed by J.N. “Ding” Darling
The Beginning 75 Years Ago 5
66 C Selteabtruatsi nRg etvheie Wwi ladnlidfe Canodn Sspeorrvta Ftiisohn R Reestcoormatimone Pnrdoagtriaomns for the Gull-billed Tern
1937 - The Federal Aid in Wildlife
Restoration Act (commonly
referred to as the Pittman-
Robertson Act) is passed by
Congress to provide grant funds
to the states’, and insular areas’
fish and wildlife agencies for
projects to restore, conserve,
manage, and enhance wild
birds and mammals and their
habitat. Through the purchases
of firearms, ammunitions, and
archery equipment, the Wildlife
Restoration program remains a
successful user pay, user benefit
program.
1939 - The Bureaus of Fisheries and
Biological Survey are moved to the
Department of the Interior and the
following year combined to create
the Fish and Wildlife Service.
1950 - The Federal Aid in Sport
Fish Restoration Act (commonly
referred to as the Dingell-Johnson
Act) is passed to create a program
to support the restoration and
improvement of America’s fishery
resources. It provides grant
funds to the states’, the District of
Columbia’s and insular areas’ fish
and wildlife agencies for fishery
projects. It is modeled after the
successful Wildlife Restoration
program. The purchases of fishing
equipment fund this program.
1954 - Funds from an 11 percent
excise tax on sporting arms and
ammunition [Internal Revenue
Code of 1954, sec. 4161(b)] are
appropriated to the Secretary
of the Interior and apportioned
to States on a formula basis for
paying up to 75 percent of the
cost of approved projects. Project
activities include acquisition and
improvement of wildlife habitat,
introduction of wildlife into
suitable habitat, research into
wildlife problems, surveys and
inventories of wildlife problems
and acquisition and development
of access facilities for public use.
1955 – Cossley, S-D Surveys Inc.
of New York conducts the first
National Survey of Fishing and
Hunting under contract to the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
1965 – Bird watching and wildlife
photography are added to the
National Survey of Fishing,
Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated
Recreation.
1970 - Public Law 91-503,
approved October 23, 1970, (84
Stat. 1097) adds provisions for
the deposit of the 10 percent tax
on pistols and revolvers, half of
which may be used by the States
for hunter safety programs. This
amendment also provides for
development of comprehensive
fish and wildlife management
plans as an optional means for
participating in the program, and
changes the maximum limit from
$10,000 to one-half of one percent
for Puerto Rico and to one-sixth of
one percent for the Virgin Islands
and Guam.
1972 - On October 25, 1972, the Act
is further amended by P.L. 92-558
(86 Stat. 1172) to add provisions
for the deposit of the 11 percent
excise tax on bows, arrows, their
parts, and accessories for use in
wildlife projects or hunter safety
programs.
1973 - The 1930 American Game
Policy is expanded into the
North American Wildlife Policy
to meet growing conservation
challenges: the continued
expansion of the human
population, increased resource
consumption, recreational use
of fish and wildlife, endangered
species, habitat management, and
multiple-use policies. The updated
Policy sets the stage for efforts
to sustain our hunting heritage,
focus on non-game and game
species, establish international
agreements to support wildlife
conservation, provide incentives
for private landowners for
wildlife habitat management,
enhance range management and
wetland protection, and expand
public outreach and conservation
education.
1975 – Archery and shooting
sports are added to the National
Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and
Wildlife-Associated Recreation.
11% excise tax on bows and arrows.
Credit: Missouri Department of
Natural Resources
Credit: Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
The BegNinanmineg o75f SYeeacrtsi oAng o 77
1980 – Congress passes the
Forsythe-Chafee Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Act (“Nongame
Act”), modeled after Pittman-
Robertson and Dingell-Johnson,
to expand federal support to
restore and conserve nongame
vertebrate species. Congress
never authorized funding for the
program.
1984 - Public Law 98-369, approved
July 18, 1984 (26 U.S.C. 9504, 98
Stat. 1012) creates the Aquatic
Resources Trust Fund comprised
of the Sport Fish Restoration
Account and the Boating Safety
Account. This amendment expands
the items of fishing tackle subject
to the 10 percent excise tax and
imposed a new 3 percent excise
tax on fish finders and electric
trolling motors. In addition,
it provides for the deposit of
receipts from these excise taxes
and from the following sources
into the Sport Fish Restoration
Account: the motorboat fuels tax
revenues less amounts deposited
into the Boating Safety Account,
and the import duties on fishing
tackle, yachts and pleasure craft.
This Act also directs that the
additional funds be equitably
allocated between marine and
freshwater sport fish and directs
States to use up to 10 percent of
funds for boating access facilities
and aquatic resources education
programs.
1984 - Public Law 98-369
also amends the Sport Fish
Restoration Act to require the
States to equitably allocate
these new funds between
marine and fresh water projects
and to allocate 10 percent of
apportionments to boating
facilities. Payments for multi-year
projects are authorized; the
administrative expense deduction
is reduced from 8 percent to
6 percent; up to 10 percent is
authorized for aquatic resources
education; and the District of
Columbia is qualified for one third
of one percent. The effective date
of these amendments is October
1, 1984, and they are commonly
called the Wallop-Breaux
amendments.
1988 - Public Law 100-448,
approved September 28, 1988 (102
Stat. 1836) increases the amount
authorized to be appropriated
from the motor boat fuels tax
receipts into the Boating Safety
Account from $45 million to $60
million for Fiscal Years 1989
and 1990, then to $70 million for
Fiscal Years 1991, 1992, and 1993.
It also amends the Sport Fish
Restoration Act to require States
to equitably allocate all amounts
apportioned between marine and
freshwater projects, with no State
to receive less than the amount
apportioned in 1988.
1998 – Public Law 105-178 (112
Stat.482), June 9, 1998, entitled
the Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century, contains the
Sportfishing and Boating Safety
Act. These provisions create a
national outreach program to
promote boating and fishing and
provide funds for fiscal years 1999
through 2003.
1991 – The Fish and Wildlife
Diversity Initiative is launched
by the Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies (AFWA).
Legislation titled the Fish and
Wildlife Diversity Funding Act
is drafted providing for excise
taxes on outdoor products and
conservation programs for all
vertebrates and invertebrates.
This effort would later be renamed
the Teaming with Wildlife
Initiative (TWW).
2000 - The Wildlife and Sport
Fish Restoration Programs
Improvement Act of 2000
authorizes the Secretary of the
Interior to develop and implement
a Multistate Conservation Grant
Program, a Firearm and Bow
Hunter Education and Safety
Program, and provides funding
for four fisheries commissions and
the Sport Fishing and Boating
Partnership Council.
2000 - Congress authorizes
the State Wildlife Grants
Program and passes the Wildlife
Conservation and Restoration
Act. Both programs are funded in
part through the Land and Water
Conservation Fund.
2005 - Public Law 109-59 (119
STAT. 1144) August 10, 2005,
entitled Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users,
amends the Dingell-Johnson Sport
Fish Restoration Act to make
authorization of appropriations
from the Sport Fish Restoration
and Boating Trust Fund.
2005 - Public Law 109-74 (119 Stat.
2030), entitled the Sportfishing
and Recreational Boating Safety
Amendments Act, increases the
authorization of appropriations
from the Highway Trust Fund to
the Secretary of Transportation
for payment of expenses of the
Coast Guard for the national
recreational boating safety
program
2011 - The first comprehensive
revision of the regulations that
govern the Wildlife Restoration,
Sport Fish Restoration, and
Hunter Education programs is
published and located in Part 80
of Title 50 of the Code of Federal
Regulations.
Status Review and Conservation Recommendations for the Gull-billed Tern
August 14, 2012
As a conservationist, life-long avid outdoorsman and former Park Ranger, few issues are as important
to me as the health and accessibility of our public lands and wildlife protection. Throughout my career, I
have been a tireless advocate for the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program and other initiatives to
conserve our natural resources and protect the environment, public lands, and wildlife. A large number
of wildlife species, as well as people, benefit from healthy wetland systems, and these enjoyable experi-ences
can instill a lasting appreciation for our great outdoors unlike any other. Wildlife-related recreation
generates over $120 billion of economic output each year in our country and such wildlife wetlands and
refuges are also proven to prevent flooding, reduce the severity of storm surges, and mitigate the damag-ing
effects of soil erosion. As my father, who helped create this program, used to say, “we are borrowing
the land from future generations.” I am proud of his work to create this program and our efforts to sustain
it, and I will continue to ensure that we leave the land in better condition than when we received it so our
children and grandchildren can enjoy it as I have throughout my life with my father and my children.
~U.S. House of Representatives,
John Dingell, Michigan
August 15, 2012
Throughout my career in Congress, I have amassed a reputation for being a fierce proponent of develop-ing
the resources of Alaska and our great nation. However, another priority that garners less attention is
my work for the conservation of America’s fish and wildlife. As a founding Member of the Congressional
Sportsmen’s Caucus, former Chairman of the House Resources Committee, and currently a senior Mem-ber
of the House Natural Resources Committee, I have worked on many bipartisan legislative efforts to
conserve fish and wildlife species, both at home and abroad, for future generations of Americans to experi-ence
and enjoy.
As Chairman, I sponsored one of these important initiatives - the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration
Programs Improvement Act of 2000, which continued and modernized the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish
Restoration Act and the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act. This legislation, which passed both
houses of Congress nearly unanimously, serves as an example of how Congress can work together, with
a supportive Administration, industry, and sportsmen stakeholders towards an achievable goal to enact
good legislation that makes a difference.
Through the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program, the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration
Act along with the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act (now the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Res-toration
Act) has contributed more than $14 billion to fish and wildlife conservation in the U.S. As we
celebrate the 75th anniversary of the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (now the Pittman-Robertson
Wildlife Restoration Act) we should pause and take note of the successes realized, while also looking to the
future and recognizing that there is much work left to be done.
~U.S. House of Representatives,
Don Young, Alaska
National Outlook
Congressional Viewpoints
8 Celebrating the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program
The Wildlife and Sport Fish RNesatmorea toiofn S Percotgioranm 9
The times were as bleak as
a nation had ever known.
Unemployment and economic
stagnation were worsening in
post-World War I America and
the abundance of wildlife riches
that once graced the landscape
were dwindling or disappearing
altogether.
By the 1930s, the United States
had already seen the extinction
of the Carolina Parakeet
and the Passenger Pigeon
due to indiscriminate killing,
unenforceable laws and a lack
of science on the two species’
behavior and ecology. White-tailed
deer populations were near
all-time lows and in some places
were completely eliminated.
Other species such as the wood
duck, wild turkey and bison
were not far behind. Americans
took the sustainability of the
country’s wildlife populations for
granted, without considering the
toll their actions were taking on
many species and, therefore, on
opportunities for hunting.
Fledgling fish and game agencies
of the early 1900s had become the
stewards of their state’s natural
resources, but they desperately
struggled to find funding to carry
out needed wildlife research and
restoration efforts. Most of the
activities within state wildlife
agencies were directed toward
ensuring the enforcement of
inadequate game and fish laws,
where, at least, they could acquire
funds through the sale of hunting
and fishing permits or licenses
and fines collected from game and
fish violations. In South Carolina,
for example, a game warden’s
pay equaled one-half of the total
monies he collected from fines.
But even with such meager
funding sources, state agencies
had to stay ever on guard against
threats by cash-strapped state
administrations. The agencies
knew the need for action in wildlife
restoration was urgent and the
timing was right.
With Franklin D. Roosevelt
in the White House, wildlife
conservation became one of the
two key components in his New
Deal; the other, employment.
Roosevelt believed that private
enterprise would be stimulated,
not threatened, by works in
conservation. The state agency
members of the International
Association of Game, Fish and
Conservation Commissioners
(IAGFCC—the precursor to the
Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies) saw the potential for
their own concerns in this new
federal attitude. Furthermore,
they were backed by conservation
leaders including Aldo Leopold
and Ding Darling, in addition to
THE WILDLIFE AND SPORT FISH RESTORATION PROGRAM:
THE LIFEBLOOD OF STATE FISH &
WILDLIFE AGENCIES
John Frampton, WSFR 75th Anniversary Director, AFWA
Carol Bambery, General Counsel, AFWA
others from Theodore Roosevelt’s
era.
After much hard work from
conservationists, sportsmen, and
Congress, in 1937, President
Roosevelt signed the Wildlife
Restoration Act into law.
Immediately, IAGFCC declared
its support for new legislation to
provide federal funding to states
for fishing resources. With the
creation of reservoirs across the
country during the 20th century,
state agencies recognized a need
for information on the ecology of
impounded fisheries and the state
of America’s hatcheries. These
hatcheries were (and continue
to be) essential for stocking
reservoirs and rivers. Increased
angling and commercial fishing
pressures emphasized the demand
for better management and
facilities.
Conservationists proposed that
the money to fund a Sport Fish
Restoration companion bill to
Pittman-Robertson could come
from an excise tax on fishing
equipment and lures. The bill
was introduced in 1939; however,
contrary to then IAGFCC General
Counsel Talbott Denmead’s,
opinion that “In spite of wars,
rumors of wars, sun spots, election
and politics, the trend in fish and
game legislation was upward,”
the bill failed. It was not until
after World War II that Michigan
Congressman John Dingell and
Colorado Senator Edwin “Big
Ed” Johnson would revive the bill.
President Harry S. Truman signed
the Sport Fish Restoration Act
(also known as Dingell-Johnson)
into law on August 9, 1950.
Credit: Arizona Game and Fish Department/George Andrejko
1100 C eSlteabtruatsi nRg ethveie Wwi ladnlifde Canodn Sspeorrvta Ftiisohn R Resetcoormatimone Pnrdoagtriaomns for the Gull-billed Tern
funded mainly through Wildlife
Restoration Funds and license
revenues, populations of various
subspecies of wild turkey are
thriving in the 48 contiguous
states and Hawaii. Today, the
Eastern Wild Turkey population
numbers more than 5.1 million
birds. Pronghorn antelope, elk,
wood duck, black bears and many
others share similar success
stories.
Moreover, such increases in
populations directly correlate to
greater hunting opportunities. In
1937, deer hunting was prohibited
These vital legislative efforts
provided national funding
mechanisms for conservation that
remain the lifeblood of every state
fish and wildlife agency. Since 1937,
more than $14 billion dollars have
been entrusted to state agencies
through the Wildlife and Sport Fish
Restoration Program for managing
and restoring fish and wildlife and
their habitats. Coupled with more
than $1.2 billion total in annual
license revenues reserved for the
administration of state game and
fish agencies, these funds have
yielded unprecedented conservation
success stories impacting not only
fish and wildlife, but also untold
generations of hunters, shooters,
anglers, boaters and outdoor
recreation enthusiasts.
When the Wildlife Restoration
Act was passed, there were fewer
than 500,000 white-tailed deer
in this country. Today, through
enhanced habitat management and
restoration efforts, there are more
than 30 million animals and are at
record numbers in almost every
state where they are found.
In the 1930s, there were
approximately 30,000 wild turkeys.
Through state restoration efforts
in Kansas; New Jersey had only
six deer hunting days available;
and the deer population in Illinois
was estimated at only 3,000
animals. Today, Kansas harvests
roughly 100,000 deer each year;
New Jersey has more than 160
deer hunting days available; and
Illinois deer hunters harvest in
excess of 188,000 animals each
year.
North Carolina and Ohio have
had similar success. In 1972,
the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission finally
was able to establish a fall turkey
season; in the spring of 1977,
only 144 turkeys were reported
harvested, however, by 2008,
more than 10,400 were reported
harvested. Ohio’s first turkey
season took place in 1966 during
which hunters harvested only 12
birds. In 2009, they took more
than 20,700.
Since 1950, state agency
hatchery programs have been
heavily supported by Sport Fish
Restoration funds. Over the
past 20 years, approximately 25
percent of Sport Fish Restoration
funds have supported hatchery
production and stocking. Sport
Fish Restoration funds have
also been used to improve tens
Healthy bull elk in velvet; just one of many
successful restoration efforts. Credit: Arizona
Game and Fish Department/George Andrejko
White-tailed deer populations
increased. Credit:
USFWS/Lori Bennett
Wild turkeys now flourish in previously poor habitat. Credit:
NEBRASKAland Magazine/Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
The Wildlife and Sport Fish RNeastmorea toiofn S Percotgioranm 1111
of thousands of acres of waters
diminished by siltation and
pollution, which, in turn, has led to
the recovery of America’s fishery
resources.
Techniques developed with
research funded through the Sport
Fish Restoration Program have
resulted in striped bass stocking
in reservoirs in almost every
state and in many other countries
worldwide. In South Carolina,
research on striped bass in the
Santee Cooper Reservoir System
during the 1950s and 1960s led to
a stocking program that has been
implemented nationwide for land-locked
striped bass.
Yet, research and restoration is
only half the story. With these
excise tax-derived funds coupled
with license dollars, state agencies
have been able to provide hunter
education to more than 24 million
people; build hundreds of public
shooting ranges; develop Walk-In
Hunting Access programs; provide
more than 22,000 public fishing
sites; educate youth in schools
about how conservation is funded;
and deliver outdoor skills training
to millions of Americans of all ages.
Wildlife and Sport Fish
Restoration funds have also helped
agencies acquire and maintain
hundreds of millions of acres of
habitat across the country as well
as provide hunting, recreational
shooting, fishing and boating
access through leases, easements
and purchases. These lands and
waters are economic assets to both
the states and local economies
that depend on the more than $85
billion market force of hunters and
anglers.
We like to say that hunters and
anglers pay for conservation
in this country, which is clearly
evident through the Wildlife and
Sport Fish Restoration Program.
However, we must also give
tremendous credit to the industries
that manufacture sporting good
By working with private landowners who voluntarily enroll their land into walk-in access agreements through Private Lands
Open to Sportsmen (PLOTS), the state is securing the hunting tradition and heritage in North Dakota. (Grant # ND W91L)
Credit: North Dakota Game and Fish Department/Corey Wentland
products and send their quarterly
tax checks to the U. S. Treasury,
often before those products are
sold at the retail or wholesale level.
It is a true partnership—from the
sportsmen and-women who pay for
the equipment and ammunition…
to the industry that writes the
checks… to the U.S. Department
of the Treasury that collects the
funds from industry… to the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service that
allocates them… to the state fish
and wildlife agencies for on-the-ground
conservation work and
access that allows hunters, shooters,
archers, anglers, and boaters greater
opportunities to enjoy the activities
they love best.
But, what would happen if a link
in this cycle of success were to
break and the Wildlife and Sport
Fish Programs lost? There would
be an immediate loss of more than
$800 million annually for fish and
wildlife conservation. License fees
would need to increase by at least
1122 C Selteabtruatsi nRg etvheie Wwi ladnlidfe Canodn sSeprovrta tFiiosnh RReesctoormatmione nPdroagtiroanms for the Gull-billed Tern
36 percent to recoup lost excise
tax revenues. There would likely
be a drop in hunting and fishing
participation due to higher license
fees. It is a future that could look too
much like the now distant past.
With the changing dynamics of
federal and state legislative entities,
state fish and wildlife agencies
need the continued involvement of
all partners in order to maintain
support for the excise tax program
and conservation. State legislation
is a fluid issue and must be
continuously reviewed for possible
license revenue diversion issues.
Likewise, it is imperative for state
agencies to remember that activities
and programs funded with Wildlife
and Sport Fish Restoration dollars
must remain visible to both industry
and legislative bodies; and that
America’s sportsmen-and-women
are, importantly, the first-line payers
into the program.
As we celebrate the 75th Anniversary
of the Wildlife Restoration Program,
let’s celebrate those who had the
wisdom and foresight to create
and advocate for the program that
helps keep us in business—both
Anglers, hunters, boaters,
purchase fishing/hunting
equipment and motor boat fuels.
CYCLE OF SUCCESS
Manufacturers pay excise
tax on that equipment and
boaters pay fuel taxes.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
allocates funds to state fish
and wildlife agencies.
State agences implement
programs and projects.
Better fishing, boating,
hunting and wildlife-associated
recreation.
6
4
5
1
3
2
States receive
grants.
state fish and wildlife agencies
and industry. Let’s recommit to
the partnership among state fish
and wildlife agencies, the hunting,
shootings sports, angling and
boating industries, and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure
our great shared legacy passes
down to tomorrow’s sportsmen-and-
women. Hunters and anglers
should take great pride in knowing
that the states’ conservation success
is the result of their continued
contributions to America’s unique
model of user-pay, everyone-benefits!
References
Outdoor Industry Association. 2012.
The Outdoor Recreation Economy
2012.
Belanger, Dian Olsen and Adrian
Kinnane. 2002. Managing
American Wildlife: A History of
the International Association of
Fish and Wildlife Agencies. The
International Association of Fish
and Wildlife Agencies
POTENTIAL DIVERSION ISSUES
OF STATE LICENSE REVENUES
FY 2012 – 7 States
FY 2011 – 3 States
FY 2010 – 6 States
After 75 years, states continue to face
potential diversions of hunting and fishing
license revenues. The increased fre-quency
in diversion issues in recent years
may be due to harsh economic times and
statewide budget shortfalls. USFWS
must continually monitor and audit state
expenditures, and proposed state legisla-tion
to protect funds. Federal and state
agencies work in concert to rectify
identified concerns.
Source:USFWS
Shepherd, Virginia. 2011. “A
History of the Federal Aid to
Wildlife Restoration Act.” Virginia
Department of Game and Inland
Fisheries.
Industry Pride in its CNoanmseerv oaft ioSne Ectfifoonrt s 1133
Industry Pride in Its Conservation Efforts
Glenn Sapir,
National Shooting Sports Foundation
The firearms and ammunition
industry is proud to be a leader and
proud to be a partner
When it comes to the unique
history of conservation in the
United States, the firearms and
ammunition industry stands
unabashedly proud of the leadership
it showed in the establishment of the
innovative Wildlife and Sport Fish
Restoration Program. Throughout
the 75 years since the passage of
the Pittman-Robertson Federal
Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, the
firearms and ammunition industry,
represented since 1961 by its trade
association, the National Shooting
Sports Foundation® (NSSF®),
has helped maximize the nation’s
funding of each state’s wildlife
management efforts and has worked
with a variety of partners to help
implement the internationally-envied
North American Model for
Wildlife Conservation.
Numbers are one way of telling
the story, an accounting that some
call “the greatest story never told.”
To help tell its story, the National
Shooting Sports Foundation has
distributed hundreds of thousands
of Hunter’s Pocket Fact Cards
throughout the country. The card
provides fascinating statistics and
describes some of the incredible
results of an historic partnership
among industry, sportsmen
and -women, state and federal
government and an array of sporting
organizations.
The numbers change upward
daily, ensuring some measure of
obsolescence almost immediately;
however, the data included on the
most recent edition of the card,
revised in July 2011, are eye-opening
nonetheless. Here are a few
examples:
• Sportsmen and -women
	 contribute nearly $8 million
	 every day, adding more
	 than $2.9 billion each year
	 for conservation. Some
$749 million of that annual
	 revenue is raised through
	 excise taxes paid solely by
	 sportsmen through the
	 purchase of firearms,
	 ammunition, archery gear,
	 fishing tackle and boats.
	 For 2009, for example,
	 firearms and ammunition
	 manufacturers contributed
	 approximately $450 million
	 to wildlife conservation
	 through excise payments.
	 [In 2011, the figure was
	 $460 million, the greatest
	 one-year amount in history.]
• Hunters and target
	 shooters [through the
	 firearms and ammunition
	 manufacturers] have paid
$6.8 billion in excise taxes
	 since the inception of the
	 Pittman-Robertson Act
	 in 1937.
• In 1900, less than half a
	 million white-tailed deer
	 remained in the nation.
Today, conservation
	 programs have returned the
	 white-tail population to
	 some 32 million.
Sportsmen and -women, whether at the range
or in the field, are important partners
in the Wildlife and Sport Fish
Restoration Program. Credit: NSSF
• 1901, few ducks remained.
	 Today, there are 44
	 million populating the
	 United States and Canada.
• By the early 1900s, the
	 nationwide population
	 of wild turkeys was less
	 than 100,000. Today,
	 that population exceeds
	 7 million.
• About 55 years ago, the
	 pronghorn antelope
	 population in the United
	 States was only about
12,000. Now it is in excess
	 of 1,100,000!
State wildlife management agencies
deserve the lion’s share of the credit
for their professional management
of wildlife resources, both game
and nongame, within their borders.
Their work, of course, is dependent
Status Review and Conservation Recommendations for the Gull-billed Tern
though perhaps not obvious,
presented the potential for the
firearms and ammunition industry
to generate even more funding for
wildlife conservation.
“The bill strengthens wildlife
conservation,” declared Lawrence
G. Keane, NSSF senior vice
president and general counsel,
after the legislation was passed
by Congress. “By enabling
manufacturers to grow their
business [by diverting funds from
administrative and bank fees to
reinvesting in manufacturing
production], excise tax receipts will
actually grow.”
History commonly attributes
1937 to the start of the federal
excise tax paid by the firearms
and ammunition manufacturers
on the products they manufacture.
Actually, such an excise tax
was initiated in 1932, but those
funds were not earmarked for
conservation purposes.
It was the voice of the firearms and
ammunition industry, along with
other conservation-minded allies,
that called for redirecting these
taxes to benefit wildlife populations
and assuring that these funds
could not be redirected for other
purposes. To preserve hunting as
an American tradition and, thus,
to help discourage any further
moves toward nationwide gun
control following passage of the
National Firearms Act of 1934, the
14 Celebrating the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program
upon adequate financial resources,
so it is with understandable pride
that NSSF, on behalf of the firearms
and ammunition industry, recognizes
the contribution of its members and
the sportsmen and -women they
serve.
Robert Scott, chairman of the board
of governors of NSSF, said, “The
wisdom and commitment to the
conservation of our great natural
resources displayed 75 years ago—
and today—speaks volumes about
the dedication, commitment and
responsibility that the leaders of our
industry have shown to our sports
and to our great outdoors.” The
Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration
Act, passed in 1937, earmarked
an excise tax of 10 percent on
sporting long arms and ammunition,
which was transferred from the
federal treasury to state wildlife
management agencies. During
World War II the tax was raised to
11 percent and now yields about
$310 million per year for wildlife
conservation programs.
The Dingell-Hart Bill was enacted
in 1970, creating a 10 percent excise
tax on handguns, which would fund
wildlife restoration and hunter
education. This measure produces
an estimated $125 million per year.
The firearms industry, the pioneer
of this funding program, was joined
by the archery community in 1972
when the Dingell-Goodling Bill,
creating a similar, 11 percent excise
tax on archery equipment, was
passed. The Federal Aid in Sport
Fish Restoration Act, enacted in
1950, commonly known as Dingell-
Johnson after its Congressional
sponsors, implemented a similar
excise tax on fishing tackle, which
yields an average of an additional
$380 million annually.
Payment of these excise taxes
presents a financial burden on
manufacturers, who must pay
the tax after their goods are
distributed but typically long
before payments for these products
have been received from retailers
or distributors. Until 2010, the
firearms and ammunition industry
was required to adhere to a more
frequent payment schedule than
other industries contributing to
the wildlife restoration program.
The archery and fishing tackle
industries always have made
payment on a quarterly basis.
However, the firearms industry,
the trail-blazing participant of the
cornerstone of the North American
Model of Wildlife Conservation, had
historically followed a bi-weekly
payment schedule that required not
only extra paperwork and staffing
but also the necessity for some
companies to incur debt to pay
the excise tax for which they had
not yet been reimbursed by their
customers. In 2010, the Firearms
Excise Tax Improvement Act
resolved this issue by adjusting
the firearms and ammunition
manufacturers’ schedule to
quarterly payments. This change,
The sportsman and -women are an important
partner in the firearms distribution chain, and
thus a key contributor to wildlife conservation,
not only by buying a firearm that has already
contributed to the Wildlife Restoration Fund,
but by purchasing hunting, fishing and trapping
licenses that direct funds to the state’s wildlife and
or fish management agencies. Credit: NSSF
Hunters and target shooters, through the firearms
and ammunition manufacturers, have paid $6.8
billion in excise taxes since the inception of the
Pittman Roberston Act in 1937. Credit: NSSF
Since 1970, a 10 percent excise tax on handguns
has helped fund wildlife restoration and hunter
education. The measure produces an estimated
$125 million per year. Credit: NSSF
Industry Pride in its CNoansmerev oatfi oSne Ectfifoornt s 15
25%
32%
34%
9%
Wildlife Restoration Account
Revenue Sources
Pistols
Firearms
Ammo
Archery Equipment
Based on Annual Averages
industry realized that its funding of
conservation was necessary for the
survival of our hunting heritage and
the wildlife that inhabited the nation.
“I can think of no other industry
that took such a bold step, in the
midst of such hard economic times,
to unselfishly establish specific
earmarks of the excise taxes paid
on the first sale of every product
to go to broad-based conservation
of all species, game and nongame
species alike,” said NSSF President
and CEO Steve Sanetti. “Between
excise taxes and licenses, sportsmen
[and–women] pay for 75 percent of
all wildlife and fishery management
efforts in the nation, a record that no
group can match.
“Every hunter and target shooter
should be immensely proud of
the important part we play in our
industry-established system of
‘user pays—everybody benefits,’”
Sanetti added, “which is the envy
of the world…” and the pride
of the firearms and ammunition
manufacturing industry.
References:
License sales. Source USFW: http://
wsfrprograms.fws.gov/Subpages/LicenseInfo/
LicenseIndex.htm
Excise tax collections on firearms &
ammunition. Source Alcohol & Tobacco Tax &
Trade Bureau: http://www.ttb.gov/tax_audit/
tax_collections.shtml
Excise tax collections on bow hunting and
fishing products. Source Internal Revenue
Service: http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/
article/0,,id=175900,00.html
Duck & Wildlife Stamp revenues. Source
USFW: http://www.fws.gov/duckstamps/
federal/sales/sales.htm
Excise tax collection reports. Source USFW.
2011 Final Apportionment Wildlife
Restoration Funds: $384 Million
http://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/
Subpages/GrantPrograms/WR/
WRFinalApportionment2011.pdf
2011 Final Apportionment Sport
Fish Restoration Funds: $365
Million http://wsfrprograms.fws.
gov/Subpages/GrantPrograms/SFR/
SFRFinalApportionment2011.pdf
Wildlife restoration apportionments 1939 –
2010. Source USFW: http://wsfrprograms.
fws.gov/Subpages/GrantPrograms/WR/
WR_Funding.htm
Bowhunter Magazine Deer Forecast 2009
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/22381806/2009-
Bowhunter-Magazine-Deer-Forecast
USFW Waterfowl Report Population Status
2011 http://www.flyways.us/sites/default/files/
uploads/statusreport2011_final.pdf
National Wild Turkey Federation http://www.
nwtf.org/for_hunters/all_about_turkeys.html
Texas Parks & Wildlife 2007 https://
www2.tpwd.state.tx.us/business/feedback/
webcomment/ TTB http://www.ttb.gov/
tax_audit/tax_collections.shtml
1166 C Setleabtruasti nRge tvhiee wW ialdnlidfe C anodn sSeprovrta Ftiiosnh RReesctoormatmione nPdroagtrioamns for the Gull-billed Tern
Name of Section 17
Radonski and the SFI to help.
With SFI’s help, as well as sup-port
from other conservation
organizations, Breaux endorsed
an alternative funding concept:
gas tax revenues on the portion of
fuel used in motorboats would be
used to fund the expanded Sport
Fish Restoration Program. Rep-resentative
Breaux and his Senate
colleague, Malcolm Wallop of Wy-oming
introduced and shepherded
the legislation through Congress.
The Wallop-Breaux amendments,
enacted in 1984, were designed to
dramatically increase the amount
of available funding for aquatic
resource conservation programs
Boating-Related Revenues Pack a Powerful Punch Boating-Related Revenues Pack a Powerful
Funding Punch for Aquatic Conservation and
Boating Infrastructure Programs
Douglas Hobbs, Sport Fishing & Boating Partnership Council Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Ryck Lydecker, Assistant Vice President for Government Affairs, Boat Owners Association of The United States
The effort to expand funding for
the Sport Fish Restoration Pro-gram
began more than 30 years
ago. The genesis of how this
expansion would eventually be
funded started innocently enough
on a fishing trip on Pennsylvania’s
Juniata River, which included a
member of Congress and the head
of a respected fishery conserva-tion
organization. Today, the leg-islation
and subsequent amend-ments
and bills that came about
thanks to a conversation between
a couple of anglers power not
only aquatic resource conserva-tion
efforts but also programs
designed to increase recreational
angling and boating opportunities
on America’s waterways.
The member of Congress on that
long ago fishing trip was then-Rep-resentative
John Breaux of Louisi-ana
and his angling partner was Gil
Radonski, president of the Sport
Fishing Institute (SFI). An avid
boater and angler since childhood,
Breaux was seeking an alternative
source of funding to dramatically
expand the original 1950 Sport
Fish Restoration Program funded
under Dingell-Johnson. He wanted
to contribute more to the sport he
loved. As Radonski recounts, Con-gressman
Breaux lamented that the
bill he had introduced to capture
revenue from an excise tax on boats
and their motors, to be used to pro-vide
additional monies for the Sport
Fish Restoration Program, was not
getting any support from his Con-gressional
colleagues. He asked
and for greater recreational op-portunities
for anglers and boat-ers.
Subsequent revisions created
additional funding sources to
support this country’s aquatic re-sources
and provide better fishing
and boating opportunities for the
American people.
Boating-related revenues
pump up conservation funding
In the broadest sense possible,
Wallop-Breaux was critical
because it brought boaters and
the revenues they generated
into the Sport Fish Restoration
Program fold. For more than 30
years, Sport Fish Restoration
Credit:RBFF
Motorboat fuel tax is a major source of
funding for the Sport Fish Restoration Program. Credit: RBFF
18 C Setleabtruast iRnge tvhiee wW ialdnldife C aonnd sSeprovrat tFiiosnh RReesctoormatmioen nPdraogtiroanms for the Gull-billed Tern
had been funded through excise
taxes on sport fishing equipment.
However, this funding model did
not take into account the fact that
many anglers fished from motor-powered
boats. It was a natural
fit to bring recreational boaters
into the Sport Fish Restoration
community.
Aside from the alliance it created
between anglers and boaters, per-haps
the most important aspect
of the Wallop-Breaux legislation
was that, in its first year, ap-portionments
were made under
the provisions of the legislation
and funding apportioned to the
States increased from $35 million
in 1985 to almost $110 million in
1986. The newly- created Boating
Access Program directly benefit-ted
recreational boaters because
it provided a dedicated funding
source States could use to build
and maintain boat ramps and
associated infrastructure. The
legislation also enabled States to
use funds for Aquatic Resources
Education programs. Finally, the
law called for equitable funding
between saltwater and freshwater
projects.
Building on success: Program
Expansion Benefits Anglers,
Boaters and Aquatic Resources
Building on the successful 1984
legislation, Congress passed
subsequent laws expanding both
program funding and support for
the improvement and/or construc-tion
of boating infrastructure,
such as docks and sanitary
sewage pumpouts, as well as the
promotion of boating safety.
The 1988 Wallop-Breaux reau-thorization
and amendments not
only supported boater safety
education, but also funded much-needed
research to verify the
actual percentage of fuel taxes
collected each year directly at-tributable
to recreational boaters,
since this would determine the
revenues available for use by the
Sport Fish Restoration Program.
In 1990, Congress expanded the
portion of fuel taxes deposited in
the program, increased funding
by adding taxes from small gaso-line
engines and funded coastal
wetlands protection and restora-tion
programs.
In 1992, Congress enacted the
Clean Vessel Act, which pro-vides
grants to States to install
and maintain sanitary sewage
pumpouts for use by recreational
boaters, and also increased
funding available for improving
boating access facilities. Also, in
1998, the Boating Infrastructure
Grant Program was enacted. It
funds grants to States and the
private sector to provide docks
and other boating infrastruc-ture
for non-trailerable boats.
Congress also further enhanced
boating safety programs, in-creased
funds available for boat-ing
access, captured more gas
tax for use by the program, and
created and funded the National
Outreach and Communications
program. The most recent major
enhancements to the program
occurred in 2005, when Congress
expanded the Sport Fish fund
by approximately $110 million
by capturing all remaining fuel
taxes attributable to motorboat
and small engine use that was be-ing
diverted for other purposes.
(American Sportfishing Associa-tion;
National Marine Manufac-turer’s
Association, 2005).
Case Studies: Examples of benefits
to the angling and boating public
Sport fishing is serious busi-ness
in Florida and, as so many
anglers attest, when it comes
to sport fishing, the largemouth
bass reigns supreme. Large-mouth
bass, the Florida subspe-cies,
grows faster and larger
than its bass cousins elsewhere.
Therefore, it puts up quite a fight
and poses a greater challenge to
anglers.
In 2002, the Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Com-mission
started planning to
transform an old hatchery, the
Richloam State Fish Hatchery,
into a modern state-of-the-art
rearing facility. Five years later,
the state unveiled the Florida
Bass Conservation Center
(FBCC) with a mission “to
conduct and utilize essential
research to optimize produc-tion,
stocking and recruitment
of Florida largemouth bass to
facilitate integrated conserva-tion
management of Florida’s
freshwater fisheries resources.”
A significant portion of the
project was funded through the
Sport Fish Restoration program
and came from revenues col-lected
from a special excise tax
on fishing tackle and motorboat
fuels. In essence, it is the anglers
who so enjoy Florida’s waters
who pay for the upkeep of those
very waters - and the FBCC
promises great returns on their
investment. Today, the FBCC is
the state’s major freshwater fish
production hatchery, supplying
largemouth bass and other fish
57%
15%
7%
6%
0.5% 14.5%
Sport Fish and Boating Trust Fund
Revenue Sources
Motorboat Gas
Small Engine Gas
Interest
Imports
Electronic Outboard
Motors
Domestic Fishing
Based on Annual Averages Equipment
Boating-Related Revenues PaNcka am Peo wofe rSfuelc Ptiuonnc h 1199
such as crappie, catfish, bream,
triploid grass carp, striped bass,
and sunshine bass. Thanks to the
Center, Florida anglers still enjoy
their stature as members of the
“Fishing Capital of the World,”
as they wrestle to reel in home-grown
trophies.
Aquatic resources education in
Minnesota helps develop future
conservationists
Minnesota has a rich fishing
heritage, with more than two
million people fishing its waters
and contributing approximately
$2 billion each year to the state’s
economy. Recognizing that
recreational fishing and hunting
can create strong connections
to the environment, the Min-nesota
Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) developed the
Fishing: Get in the Habitat! Min-nAqua
Leader’s Guide for use by
educators in formal and non-formal
educational settings. The
guide aims to increase students’
understanding of Minnesota fish,
aquatic resources, and resource
management; involve students
in water-related service learning
projects; and connect students
to their local aquatic resources
through the recreational activity
of angling.
Angling skills passed on to a new generation.
Credit:USFWS/Lori Bennett
Lessons and activities provide
angling and environmental edu-cation
opportunities for schools,
web-based education programs,
non-traditional schools, com-munity
park and recreation
programs, youth program lead-ers,
nature centers, museums,
sporting groups, environmental
learning centers, state agencies,
watershed districts, fisheries
resources and management
educators, and any organization
conducting academic, standards
based, science, outdoor, envi-ronmental,
natural resources,
conservation and/or outdoor
recreational education program-ming
for children. The program
accommodates multiple learning
styles through the differen-tiation
and diversity of lesson
activities.
Through funding from the Sport
Fish Restoration Program,
Minnesota and other States are
actively engaging the public in
order to raise awareness of the
importance of conserving our
nation’s aquatic resources.
Boating Access: Recovering
from Disaster
In September, 2003, Hurricane
Isabel roared up the Chesapeake
Bay leaving havoc in its wake.
One of the casualties it left be-hind
was the boating access facil-ity
on the York River in Glouces-ter
Point, Virginia. The facility,
which was 90 percent destroyed,
had been a key point of access for
recreational boaters and anglers
for not only the York River but
also the wide-open waters of the
lower Chesapeake Bay. How-ever,
thanks to core funding of
$685,282 from the Sport Fish
Restoration funds matched with
$228,428 from other sources, a
$913,710 facility was constructed
and was ready for the 2006 prime
boating season. Two accessible
piers were constructed as well as
a 9,237 square yard parking lot
capable of handling 69 car/trailer
combinations. Other amenities
including restroom facilities and
walkways – all handicapped ac-cessible
– were added. To protect
the environment, erosion and
sediment control devices were in-stalled
and sensitive submerged
aquatic vegetation established.
“Most weekends, the facility is
filled to capacity,” said James Ad-ams
of the Virginia Department
of Game and Inland Fisheries,
“and during certain fish migra-tion
times the facility is filled
to capacity for several weeks
at a time.” The Boating Access
provisions included in the 1984
Wallop-Breaux legislation made
this and other boating access
projects possible.
Access for Transient Boaters:
Boating Infrastructure
Grant Program
When the Tennessee Wildlife
Resources Agency started talk-ing
about a water trail through
the state in 1999, it was not
thinking about canoes, kayaks
and cartop boats. It was thinking
big, as in 800 miles of designated
rivers and waterways; big, as
in accommodating vessels up to
100 feet and longer; and BIG,
as in the federal Boating Infra-structure
Grant (BIG) program.
After a series of BIG-funded
projects along its route, to build
dedicated transient facilities for
cruisers, the agency declared
the Tennessee Boating Trail
complete. Seven BIG-funded
projects built in partnership
with private marinas, state parks
and municipal governments in
Tennessee helped create the
water trail. With a total of eleven
BIG-funded transient projects
on the Tennessee and Cumber-land
rivers now complementing
the commercial marinas already
available, boaters have tie-up
facilities that are never more
than an easy day cruise apart--
about six hours, maximum, at
typical trawler cruising speeds.
These BIG projects are at a
major crossroads for boaters
cruising the Great Loop—the
increasingly popular water route
around the entire eastern United
States via inland rivers, the Gulf
of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean,
major coastal tributaries, and
the Great Lakes—and provide
critical boating facilities along
the way.
2200 C Setleabtruast iRnge tvhiee wW ialdnldife C aonnd sSeprovrat tFiiosnh RReesctoormatmioen nPdraogtiroanms for the Gull-billed Tern 20
Clean water needed: Clean Vessel
Act Protects Alaska’s Coastal Waters
Juneau, Alaska’s Aurora Harbor
marina faced a dilemma common
to many other marinas in the
United States. Pumpout equip-ment
had been installed in years
past; however, its location on the
fuel dock meant that boats only
used the service when re-fueling.
Often, boaters not needing fuel
either were reluctant to occupy
that space or did not want to wait
for access to the pumpout.
Using a $100,000 Clean Vessel
Act grant, Juneau installed a new
system powered by a single pump,
which provided five new connec-tions
along the harbor’s main
float, every 140 feet. Today, boat
owners with assigned slips near
the main float are able to pump
out their holding tanks without
ever leaving their slips. Other
boaters, including transients,
are able to temporarily moor
in specially designated zones
to service their holding tanks
without blocking the fuel dock
or other boats. With installation
of the new pumpout equipment
at the new location, boaters can
properly dispose of their sewage,
thereby reducing discharge of
untreated sewage into Alaska’s
coastal waters.
A Successful and On-Going Legacy
All Americans have reason to
celebrate the 75th anniversary
of the Wildlife and Sport Fish
Restoration Program. Since pas-sage
of the original legislation
to expand funding for the Sport
Fish Restoration Program and
subsequent program revisions,
funding apportioned to the States
for the program has grown from
roughly $35 million in 1985 to
more than $400 million in 2009.
Critical not only to the future
of aquatic resource conserva-tion,
the funding also supports
improved recreational opportu-nities
for boaters and anglers.
Programs like CVA, BIG and
Boating Access have provided
Posters and postcard images designed by USFWS to convey WSFR program benefits and partners. Credit: RBFF
real benefits to the angling and
boating public through the instal-lation
of approximately 3,800
coastal pumpout facilities and
more than 2,200 inland pumpout
facilities. Some 3,500 facilities
have been maintained through
the CVA program to ensure boat-ers
can do their part to maintain
clean water. Since the inception
of the Boating Access provisions
of the Sport Fish Restoration
Program, new boating access
construction has taken place at
more than 3,800 sites and renova-tion
or improvement of boating
access at more than 7,400 sites.
By uniting the economic resourc-es
generated by the recreational
endeavors, conservation leaders
such as John Breaux, Malcolm
Wallop and Gil Radonski created
a conservation legacy that is
still paying dividends to not only
anglers and boaters, but to the
entire American public.
Name of Section 21
from just knowing a resource ex-ists,
although they may not actu-ally
experience it first-hand, such
as, protecting an endangered spe-cies
in the Arctic. Option values
include not only the availability of
wildlife for current use but also its
continued availability for future
use. The benefits accrued from
preserving natural resources for
future generations are known as
bequest values.
Total economic value is the sum
of all use and nonuse values. Net
economic value is measured as
participants’ “willingness to pay”
for outdoor recreation over and
above what they actually spend to
participate. The benefit to society
is the summation of willingness-to-
pay across all individuals.
A price is society’s way of placing
values on the goods it wants to
consume. How high the price is
depends on how much consumer
demand there is for the product
and how much of it can be pro-duced
at that price. The cost of
a recreational trip serves as an
implicit price for outdoor recre-ation
since a market price gener-ally
does not exist for this type of
activity. All other factors being
equal, the lower the cost per trip,
the more trips recreationists
will take. An individual demand
curve gives the number of trips
a recreationist will take per year
for each different cost per trip. A
downward sloping demand curve
represents marginal willingness
to pay per trip and indicates that
each additional trip is valued less
than the previous trip. By total-ing
the net economic values of
all individuals who participate in
an activity, we derive its value to
society.
Economists have developed
Valuing the Benefits of Wildlife
Anna Harris, Economist
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
During the 19th Century, America
saw a dramatic demographic shift.
In 1820 only 5 percent of the U.S.
population resided in urban areas;
by the late 1800s, it exceeded 20
percent, and some feared America
was losing her pioneering spirit
and becoming too urban. With
the onset of this migration, re-source
exploitation of America’s
wildlife created a catalyst for con-servation,
as described in detail
throughout this publication.
A Total Valuation Framework
for Wildlife
Economists usually value wildlife
resources from the point of view
of society as a whole. Economic
value is determined in terms of
maximum willingness to pay or
minimum compensation demand-ed.
Recreational expenditures can
be used to understand local eco-nomic
impacts, but these, alone,
are not a satisfactory measure of
the economic value of wildlife to
society as a whole.
To calculate the total economic
value of outdoor recreation, econ-omists
measure both “use values”
and “nonuse values.” Use values
are generated when management
decisions affect the enjoyment
people get from current use of
wildlife and include direct as well
as indirect use. Direct use values
include activities such as hunting,
fishing and wildlife observation;
indirect use considers personal
enjoyment of wildlife without
direct interaction such as reading
a book about wildlife.
Nonuse values are generated
when management decisions
affect possibilities for future use
and consist of existence, option,
and bequest values. Existence val-ues
are the benefits people receive
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Bait
2011
National Survey
of Fishing, Hunting,
and Wildlife-Associated
Recreation
“Wildlife-associated recreation not
only sustains our spirit and con-nects
us to each other and the natu-ral
world, but also provides signifi-cant
financial support for wildlife
conservation in our nation’s econo-my.
According to information from
the latest national survey, 90 million
Americans, 38 percent of the U.S.
population whom are 16 years and
older, participated in wildlife-related
recreation in 2011 and spent almost
$145 billion dollars. This spending
supports thousands of jobs in indus-tries
and businesses connected to
fishing, hunting and the observance
of wildlife.”
	 ~Dan Ashe, USFWS
Valuing the Benefits of Wildlife 21
2222 CSetlaebturast iRnge vthieew W ailndldif eC aonn Sspeorrvt aFtiisohn R Resetcooramtimone Pnrdoagtriaomns for the Gull-billed Tern
QUICK FACTS FROM THE 2011 NATIONAL SURVEY OF FISHING,
HUNTING, AND WILDLIFE-ASSOCIATED RECREATION
Wildlife-Related Recreationists: 2011
33.1 million anglers
13.7 million hunters
71.8 million wildlife watchers
In 2011, 90.1 million U.S. recreationists spent $145 billion on their fishing, hunting,
and wildlife watching (closely observing, feeding, and photographing wildlife).
3 8
19
22 18
18
12
Percent of Anglers by Age Group
16 and 17
18 to 24
25 to 34
35 to 44
45 to 54
55 to 64
65 and older
Source: 2011 National Survey
3
9
15
18
23
21
11
Percent of Hunters by Age Group
16 and 17
18 to 24
25 to 34
35 to 44
45 to 54
55 to 64
65 and older
Source: 2011 National Survey
Anglers Pursing Selected Fish by Type of Fishing
(Numbers in millions)
	
	
	
	
	
Fish sought 	 Number of anglers Percent
Anglers, total 	 33.1 100
Freshwater except Great Lakes 27.1 82
Black bass 	 10.6 32
Panfish 		 7.3 22
Trout 			 7.2 22
Catfish/bullhead 	 7.0 21
Great Lakes 		 1.7 5
Walleye, sauger 	 0.6 2
Black bass (largemouth) 	 0.6 2
Perch 			 0.5 2
Salmon 		 0.4 1
Saltwater 		 8.9 27
Striped bass 		 2.1 6
Flatfish (flounder, halibut) 2.0 6
Red drum (redfish) 	 1.5 5
Sea trout (weakfish) 	 1.1 3
Hunters Pursuing Selected Game by Type of Hunting
(Numbers in millions)
Game sought 	 Number of hunters Percent
Hunters, total 	 13.7 100
Big game 	 11.6 85
Deer 	 	 10.9 79
Wild turkey 	 3.1 23
Elk 			 0.9 6
Bear 			 0.5 4
Small game 		 4.5 33
Squirrel 		 1.7 12
Rabbit, hare 		 1.5 11
Pheasant 		 1.5 11
Quail 			 0.8 6
Migratory birds 		 2.6 19
Ducks 			 1.4 10
Doves 			 1.3 9
Geese 			 0.8 6
Name of Section 23
are visible during the fall migra-tion.
Home to some 270 species of
birds, including threatened and
endangered species, Crex Mead-ows
is a hub of biodiversity.
Purchases for the prairie and
marshland began in 1945. At
present, Wisconsin DNR owns
28,019 acres of the 31,094 acres
proposed to create Crex. Pitt-man-
Robertson funds helped
leverage the effort; the average
annual cost of acquisition, habitat
development, maintenance, and
general operations was approxi-mately
$1.9 million (2009 dol-lars).
The state matched these
expenditures with an additional
25 percent.
Twenty-five percent of all visitors
come to Crex to hunt or trap
deer, bear, waterfowl, and a
variety of small game. In Wis-consin,
the average deer hunter
spends $28 per day on trip-related
expenditures including
food, lodging, and transportation.
Each year, on opening day for
white-tail deer at Crex, about 550
hunters take to the field. In 2009,
deer hunters spent an estimated
$15,400 in trip-related expendi-tures.
Along with deer, Crex offers
stated preference techniques to
assess participants’ “willingness
to pay” for outdoor recreation.
The demand curve approach
uses both expressed preference
methods and revealed preference
methods to find the maximum
amount a person would be willing
to pay for a service. The National
Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and
Wildlife-Associated Recreation,
conducted for the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service by the U.S.
Census Bureau, asks contingent
valuation questions to find an
individual’s “willingness to pay”
for participation in outdoor recre-ation.
Contingent valuation is one
technique widely used to measure
user values. The National Survey
asked anglers, hunters and wild-life
watchers about the number of
recreational trips taken in 2006
and the average cost per trip.
Respondents were then asked
how much money would have
been too much to pay per trip.
This question, in a different form,
was asked again in case there had
been a misunderstanding. As-suming
a linear demand curve,
annual net economic value can be
calculated using the difference be-tween
current cost and the maxi-mum
costs at the intercept, (i.e.
the “choke price”) in combination
with the number of recreational
trips taken. Contingent valuation
data from the National Survey
are studied only to determine use
values and do not measure non-use
values.
Public Use Values for Wildlife and
Sport Fish Restoration Projects
The net economic benefits of
wildlife-related recreation vary
considerably depending on the
particular site and the activity
involved. Wildlife-recreationists
differ widely according to income,
activity, skill, knowledge, and
other personal factors. Even the
places we decide to explore differ
in location, scenery, time of year,
accessibility, and other factors.
To approximate the likely range
of user values for each of the fol-lowing
examples, use estimates
derived from similar activities in
the same state are applied.
The $14 billion, approximately
$25 billion 2012 dollars, (See
Apportionment Data, Appendix)
spent on restoration and manage-ment
does not entirely reflect
the national economic benefits of
wildlife management attributable
to the 75-year-old Wildlife and
Sport Fish Restoration Program.
Although it is not possible to put
a value on all the wildlife restora-tion
projects funded in part by
WSFR monies, a representative
sample demonstrates the pro-gram’s
success.
Big Game Hunting:
Crex Meadows Wildlife
Management Area, Wisconsin
Crex Meadows, at 30,000 acres,
is one of the largest state-owned
wildlife areas in Wisconsin. Origi-nally
part of the Wisconsin Pine
Barrens, Crex is now the state’s
largest remaining portion of this
sensitive savanna community. As
a result of intense wetland and
prairie restoration practices, 22
miles of dikes now flood 6,000
acres of marsh. Extensive pre-scribed
burning is conducted
annually for habitat improvement.
Today, more than 9,000 sandhill
cranes use Crex as a staging area
and thousands of ducks and geese
Valuing the Benefits of Wildlife 23
Sandhill cranes are just one of the migratory bird species found at Crex Meadows.
Credit: NEBRASKAland Magazine/Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
24 Status Review and Conservation Recommendations for the Gull-billed Tern
$80,000, of which approximately
$48,000 each year was financed
by Pittman-Robertson funds.
Hunters in Georgia bagged
27,323 turkeys in 2009 during 1.2
million hunting days. Using aver-age
daily expenditures for food,
lodging, transportation, and fees
for Georgia hunters, it is esti-mated
that hunters seeking wild
turkey spent about $31 million (in
2009 dollars).
Contingent valuation estimates
were not available for wild turkey
per se, but turkey (and deer) is
considered big game in the 2006
Survey. Contingent value esti-mates
for deer hunting is about
Celebrating the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program
some of Wisconsin’s best bear and
waterfowl hunting. Estimated net
economic benefits for hunting in
2009 at Crex totaled nearly $2.6
million, based on a value per day
of $87. The benefits accrued from
just 25 percent of wildlife-recre-ationists
at Crex demonstrate the
powerful economic effect wildlife
recreation can have on an area in
a single year with minimal invest-ment.
Wild Turkeys: Georgia
North America’s wild turkey
population was nearly extirpated
in the early 1900s due to habitat
degradation and unregulated
market hunting. As recently as
1973, Georgia’s estimated wild
turkey populations numbered
only 17,000 birds. That same
year, Georgia DNR began an
intensive turkey restocking
program. Concluding in 1996, the
program has restored the bird to
most of its original range, with
the population now numbered
at some 300,000 birds. In 1980,
the average annual cost of the
restoration program was about
Today, more than 7 million birds thrive throughout North America, thanks to the efforts of conservation partners.
Credit: NEBRASKAland Magazine/Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
Figure 1
Name of Section observed. Since its inception,
waterfowl hunting has also been
an important activity at Fountain
Grove. Goose hunting for Canada,
White-fronted and snow geese
continues to be a popular pastime
in north central Missouri.
Hunters bagged an average of
1.29 Canada geese per day during
the month-long prescribed wa-terfowl
season in 2011. More than
1,700 hunters visited Fountain
Grove Conservation Area during
the regular duck season, spending
a total of about $95,000.
The National Survey no longer
determines contingent valuation
estimates for waterfowl hunting.
However, these questions were
asked in the 1985 Survey and,
adjusting for inflation, the data
gathered gives an estimated net
economic benefit for waterfowl
hunting at Fountain Grove in 2011
of $82,156, based on a value of $46
per day.
Waterfowl hunting is one example
of the difficulty in isolating the
benefits of a single project from
other national wildlife manage-ment
efforts. Visitors to Fountain
Grove and similar sites enjoy the
benefits of wildlife management
projects in distant locations that
provide habitat and food for mi-
$58 per day (2009 dollars) for
Georgia state residents and $63
for non-residents (2009 dollars).
Using a value of $61 per day gives
estimated net economic benefits
of hunting wild turkeys in Georgia
in 2009 of about $70.1 million.
It is an interesting aside that tur-key
hunting is increasing in popu-larity
at a time when participation
in most other forms of hunting
is decreasing. Figure 1 demon-strates
the significant increase
in the number of days hunters in
Georgia sought wild turkey. The
relationship of estimated ben-efits
to costs of this program is
remarkable. The dollars used for
restoration over the entire life of
the turkey restoration program
are far less than the net economic
benefits of hunting wild turkeys in
Georgia in 2009 alone.
Waterfowl Hunting: Fountain Grove
Conservation Area, Missouri
Fountain Grove Conservation
Area was the first wetland man-agement
area developed by the
Missouri Conservation Commis-sion.
It is an important migra-tion
stop for a variety of wildlife.
Sitting in the floodplain of the
Grand River, Pittman-Robertson
funds assisted in the purchase
of the initial 3,433 acres in 1947
for $6.2 million (2011 dollars).
As a result of extensive clear-ing,
draining, and cultivation of
surrounding wetlands, Fountain
Grove gradually deteriorated into
a silting basin for increasingly
constricted river flows, signifi-cantly
degrading the wetlands. In
view of declining duck populations
and other considerations in 1960,
the Missouri Conservation Com-mission
decided to develop the
area primarily as goose habitat.
Acquisitions have expanded the
management area to its present
size of 7,154 acres.
There are significant public uses
of Fountain Grove for a variety
of outdoor recreation activities.
The area is managed to provide
diverse wetland habitats, includ-ing
marshes, bottomland forests,
grain fields, oxbow lakes, and
sloughs. Throughout the win-ter,
bald eagles are commonly
Valuing the Benefits of Wildlife 25
gratory populations. Some of the
benefits of investments at Foun-tain
Grove really belong to other
projects elsewhere, but some of
the costs at Fountain Grove are
offset as well by benefits at other
sites.
Nonconsumptive Uses: Swan Island
Wildlife Management Area, Maine
Swan Island is one of only two
state-owned wildlife management
areas in Maine where camping
is allowed and education pro-grams
are provided for visitors.
Abundant migrating waterfowl,
wild turkeys, white-tailed deer,
and bald eagles provide excellent
wildlife watching opportunities
on the Island. In the 1940s the
Department of Inland Fisheries
and Wildlife, through the use of
Pittman-Robertson funds, began
buying Swan Island farms.
Since becoming state operated,
Swan Island’s existing township
remains relatively unaltered. In
fact, a number of the original
buildings still stand and, in 1995,
the Maine Historic Preservation
Commission successfully had
Swan Island listed on the National
Register of Historic Places.
Each year, from the first day
of May through Labor Day in
Despite widespread drought, USFWS reported record numbers of waterfowl with an es-timated
population totaling 48.6 million in spring 2012 in the traditional survey areas.
Credit: Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
26 C Setleabtruast iRnge tvhiee wW Ialndldif eC aonnds Seprovrat tFioisnh RReesctoomramtioenn Pdraotgiroanms for the Gull-billed Tern
September, some 3,000 to 4,000
visitors come to Swan Island. An-nual
revenue from public use fees
have ranged from a low of $5,000
to a high of $18,000. In 2009, the
operating cost was approximately
$96,500, with about $16,700 re-ceived
in visitor fees.
Wildlife observation is the major
recreational use on Swan Island.
With an average of 3,500 visitors
in 2009, the value of Swan Island
for wildlife-associated recreation
is $336,000, based on a value per
year of $90. Swan Island’s operat-ing
costs are about a quarter of the
net economic benefits of wildlife
observation.
Fishing and Nonconsumptive Uses:
Skagit Wildlife Management
Area, Washington
The Skagit Wildlife Management
Area is located on the Skagit Bay
estuary and consists of 16,700
acres of intertidal mud flats and
marsh. Four hundred and fifty
acres are in agricultural food plots
for use by waterfowl. Currently,
the principal project involves
enhancement and restoration of
degraded habitats to help threat-ened
Chinook salmon popula-tions
recover. The recent federal
Endangered Species Act listing
of Chinook salmon as threatened
in the Skagit watershed is shift-ing
management priorities of
the Skagit Wildlife Management
Area.
The Skagit River system was
once home to one of the largest
runs of wild Chinook salmon in
Puget Sound. By 1999, how-ever,
the number of returning
wild spawning spring Chinook
had dropped below 500 fish and
the National Marine Fisheries
Service listed Puget Sound Chi-nook
as “threatened” under the
Endangered Species Act.
The major recreation uses of
Skagit include waterfowl hunting,
fishing, wildlife observation, hik-ing,
boating, and kayaking. Be-cause
of its proximity to Seattle
and other population centers,
the Skagit has become one of the
more important publicly-owned
wildlife areas in Washington
State, with 110,065 use days in
2005.
The land acquisitions for Skagit
Wildlife Management Area were
made thanks to a variety of fund-ing
sources, including $122,000 in
Pittman-Robertson funds in the
1950s, as well as land exchange
agreements with Bureau of
Reclamation, general state funds,
and private donations. Currently,
75 percent of operation and main-tenance
costs are funded with
P-R money.
Fishing values have been esti-mated
from the 2006 Survey.
Public use for this activity was
8,300 fishing days, with related
visitor expenditures of $260,000.
Non-consumptive use of the
Skagit Wildlife Management
Area was nearly 77,350 days
in 2005. Total expenditures for
wildlife observation, the most
prominent non-consumptive use
on Skagit, exceeded $1 million.
Estimated net economic benefits
of trout fishing were $207,500,
based on a value per day of $25.
It is also possible to estimate
the net economic benefits of
non-consumptive uses from the
2006 Survey. Wildlife watching
yields an estimated $1.9 million
in economic benefits, based on a
value of $25 per day. Estimated
net economic benefits of fishing
and non-consumptive use on the
Skagit totaled $2.1 million in
2006.
Conclusion
Hunting in Alaska is a dream-come-
true for most big game
hunters. Bison, one of the last
iconic animals of the American
West, are legally hunted in certain
areas of the State. Each year
roughly 15,000 hunters apply for
100 permits, and on average about
74 bison are harvested. The bag
limit for residents is one bison
every ten years and non-residents
may only bag one animal per
lifetime. Due to the small number
of tags available, combined with
the mystical attraction and zeal
for the animal, out-of-state hunt-ers
are willing to pay upwards of
$5,000 for this chance of a lifetime
to hunt bison in Alaska.
These examples demonstrate
that the benefits from Pittman-
Robertson and Dingell-Johnson
funded projects have been very
large relative to the modest
public investments which estab-lished
and maintain them. Much
of the economic impact goes to
rural areas, with relatively de-pressed
local economies, so that
expenditures of visitors to these
areas improve the distribution of
economic activity in the nation as
a whole.
The examples discussed in this
section represent typical wildlife
management program use values
and benefits. There are instances,
such as bison hunting in Alaska,
which demonstrate dramatic
success stories. Because of the
number of visitors to these
sites, the total annual benefits of
wildlife-related recreation are
quite large relative to costs in
each case. It’s important to keep
in mind that we only quantified
part of the public use benefits in
each area, and have done noth-ing
with existence, option and
bequest values. Some studies
Credit: Missouri Department
of Natural Resources
Valuing theN Baemneefi otsf oSf eWctilidolnif e 2277
have estimated these non-user
values at roughly twice the size
of user values. If this is true,
then our traditional emphasis on
hunting-related expenditures and
user values may have led to gross
understatements of the actual
value of wildlife resources to the
Nation.
References
Decker, Daniel J. and Gary R. Goff. 1987.
Valuing Wildlife- Economic and Social
Perspectives. Colorado: Westview Press Inc.
Freeman, Chris. “Data Request for Use
Values at Fountain Grove.” Personal Com-munications
03/14/2012.
The 2011 Survey estimates that over 17% of the 71.8 million wildlife watchers participated in away-from-home wildlife
photography. Credit: Christina Triantafilidis
Garrett, John, Belinda Schuster and
Donna Gleisner. 2006. “Skagit Wildlife
Area Management Plan.” Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Hoffman, Steven. “Data Request for Use
Values at Crex M eadows.” Personal Com-munications
12/15/2011.
Johnson, Reed. 1980. “Wildlife Benefits
and Economic Values.” In Harmon
Killman, ed. 1987. Restoring America’s
Wildlife, 1937-1987: The First 50 Years of
the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration
(Pittman-Robertson) Act. U.S. Depart-ment
of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
Martin, Roland. 2010. “L.D. 398- Resolve,
To Develop a Management Plan for the
Nonwildlife Components of Sawn Island
and Little Sawn Island in Perkins Town-ship,
Sagadahoc County.” A Report to
the Joint Standing Committee on Inland
Fisheries and Wildlife., Maine.
U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2006
National Survey of Fishing, Hunting,
and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Is-sued
October, 2007.
2288 C Setleabturast iRnge tvhiee wW ialdnldif eC aonnd sSeprovrat tFioisnh RReesctoormatmioenn Pdraogtiroanms for the Gull-billed Tern
Name of Section 29
including college graduates. For
example, in Wyoming, fishery
management crews were employed
to conduct watershed surveys to
measure species’ distributions and
abundance to reduce the need for
fish stocking (Wiley 1995).
To see some of the best projects
achieved across the country using
SFR funding, one only has to
examine the Outstanding SFR
awards presented annually by the
Fisheries Administration Section
of the American Fisheries Society.
Winners constitute a “Who’s Who”
list of innovation, creativity, and
application in fisheries management
and development, research and
surveys, and aquatic education
using SFR funds.
SFR funds are used to support a
wide variety of programs, projects,
and activities, but there are
some standard uses of the funds
that occur in most states. Many
states have been able to build
and operate new state-of-the-art
fish hatcheries because of SFR
funding. All states use SFR funds
to monitor fish populations and
assess how management practices
influence their recruitment, growth,
and mortality. Studies of human
influences on fish populations,
particularly angling, are also
important SFR-funded activities,
typically evaluated through angler
creel surveys. Data collected are
used to implement and evaluate
regulations, establish harvest
quotas, and document constituent
demographics, behaviors, and
opinions.
Property has been purchased
or leased, developed, operated,
and maintained with SFR funds,
and aquatic habitat has been
preserved, restored, and enhanced
Reliable Funding Source Benefits
America’s Sport Fisheries
Don Gabelhouse, Fisheries Administrator
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
Today, 62 years after legislation
was passed to create the Dingell-
Johnson program, state fish and
wildlife agencies are accustomed
to receiving DJ/Wallop-Breaux
Sport Fish Restoration (SFR)
apportionments. We probably take
the program for granted, because
it has been a constant, reliable
funding source for more than 60
years. Perhaps the best way to
portray the importance of the SFR
program to state fish and wildlife
agencies is to imagine what our
programs might look like today
without it, and consider all of the
great things that would not have
been accomplished if these funds
were not available.
Without the SFR program, we
would be looking at significantly
smaller state agency budgets. A
survey of state fish and wildlife
agencies in 2001 found that SFR
funding constituted an average
of 44 percent of inland fisheries
program expenditures in the 41
states responding (Gabelhouse
2005). This percentage ranged
from 11 percent in Missouri to
75 percent in Hawaii, Indiana,
Nevada, New Mexico, North
Dakota, Oklahoma, and Texas.
The face of fisheries management
would look far different today
in most states, without the SFR
program. Your state’s 1950 guide to
fishing regulations will remind you
about what fisheries management
amounted to before the DJ program
began.
How many of the differences
between then and now are due to
advances made possible because
of the SFR program? Perhaps
most importantly, the DJ program
provided the resources that
allowed state fish and wildlife
agencies to hire more employees,
in both marine and freshwater
environments. Man-made
impoundments have been built,
including fish-friendly features,
thanks to the SFR program, and
angling and boating access have
been established and improved.
Although most of the research
conducted with SFR funding is
applied, information generated
from basic research on fish life
history, behavior, genetics, and
ecology is sometimes required to
manage fish populations effectively.
Such research would often not
be accomplished if funding were
limited to just fishing license/
permit revenues.
Since 1950, a 10% excise tax on sport fishing
equipment has helped fund America’s fisher-ies.
Credit: NEBRASKAland Magazine/Ne-braska
Game and Parks Comission
Credit: Missiouri Department of Natural Resources.
Reliable Funding Source Benefits America’s Sport Fisheries 30 Status Review and Conservation Recommendations for the Gull-billed Tern
While the SFR program provides
up to 75 percent of project costs, the
25 percent non-federal match can be
an important obstacle for some state
fisheries programs. A significant
decrease in the numbers of anglers
will impact the amount of revenue
available from fishing license and
permit sales. Given the dependence
most state fisheries programs have
on those funds, it is sometimes
daunting for a state to achieve
its matching funds requirement
Celebrating the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program
in order to fund all that could or
should be done, if the state lacks
the necessary operating budget.
Today, as is the case with many
other underfunded programs, it
often takes partnerships for SFR
to be completely effective. Needed
work can still be accomplished
despite austere state budgets if
non-federal partners are willing
to provide the matching funds.
Additionally, SFR program support
may be even more important in the
future if angler numbers continue
to decline and revenue from fishing
licenses and permits does not keep
pace with inflation.
Twenty years ago, outreach,
marketing, and promotion were not
considered important components
of most state fisheries programs;
rather, the “build it and they
will come” philosophy prevailed.
Today, considerable effort is
directed toward understanding,
communicating with, educating,
influencing, recruiting, developing,
and retaining anglers and other
constituents. SFR funding helps
pay for many of these efforts.
As we continue to face new
challenges, such as the appearance
of new aquatic invasive species,
habitat fragmentation, global
climate change, and ever-increasing
competition for water, funding
through the SFR program remains
vital. To maintain this program, as
well as our base funding, we need
to do a better job of communicating
how our work, with help from the
SFR program, not only benefits
American fisheries, but also our
quality of life.
References
Gabelhouse, D.W., Jr. 2005. Staffing,
spending, and funding of state inland
fisheries programs. Fisheries 30:10-17.
Wiley, R.W. 1995. A common sense
protocol for the use of hatchery-reared
trout. American Fisheries
Society Symposium 15:465-471.
Lake Wanahoo, a Lower Platte North Resource District reservoir near Wahoo Lake nearly full with construction
underway on recreation facilities. (Grant # NE F162B) Credit: NEBRASKAland Magazine/Nebraska
Game and Parks Commission
Brenda Pracheil, biologist, scans the rostrum
of a paddlefish netted below Fort Randall Dam
to determine if it contained an electronic tag
identifying it as a hatchery-raised fish.
Credit: NEBRASKAland Magazine/Nebraska
Game and Parks Commission
Fishing and HunNtiangm Lei coefn Ssee Tctrieonnd s 31
32 Status Review and Conservation Recommendations for the Gull-billed Tern
Name of Section Preserving Virginia’s Wild Heritage
Virginia Shepherd (Retired)
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
In 1929, A. Willis Robertson,
the beleaguered chairman of the
Virginia Commission of Game and
Inland Fisheries wrote:
“Anyone who has an idea that a
public job is a bed of roses should
just lie on it for a few months and
he will soon find that the thorns
are more prominent than the
perfume.”
These words undoubtedly echoed
the frustration felt by his fellow
state fish and wildlife commission-ers
across the country in the early
1930s. Though charged to protect
their state’s wildlife legacy, fish
and game agencies were—without
exception—underfunded, under-staffed,
and politically controlled.
Most relied on hunting and fishing
license fees as the chief source
of income to carry out enormous
responsibilities; however, these
funds were sorely inadequate and
perpetually threatened by cash-strapped
state legislatures.
Simply put, state fish and wildlife
agencies alone could not rescue
the country’s imperiled fish and
wildlife resources. The science
of wildlife management was in
its infancy. Even the most basic
understanding of populations,
life histories, habitat require-ments,
and species interactions
was patchy at best— and grossly
flawed at worst. The Cooperative
Wildlife Research Unit Program,
providing academic training in
professional wildlife management,
would not be established until
1935. No state agency had the
funds, the knowledge, or trained
personnel to effectively restore
and manage its own fish and wild-life
populations.
Virtually the only management
tools fish and wildlife agencies
had at their disposal were the
setting of hunting seasons, bag
limits, and methods of hunting.
But even these were used as
political tools, wielded by state
legislators and carried out by
ill-equipped, politically-appointed
game wardens more concerned
with ferrying voters to the polls
than enforcing hunting and fish-ing
regulations.
In December of 1931, after five
frustrating years as head of
Virginia’s fish and game agency,
A. Willis Robertson wrote to his
politically-appointed Commission
board members:
“Frankly, I cannot point with
any degree of pride to a substan-tial
increase in either game or
fish during the past 5 years of our
Preserving Virginia’s Wild Heritage 33
administration…Unless, there-fore,
our Commission looks these
facts squarely in the eye and
develops some way of increasing
the supply of wild life without
reducing the shooting privilege
to the point where the average
hunter will quit in disgust, our
administration of this natural
resource is going to be regarded
as a failure.”
It took six more years for that
way to be found—and it would
happen on a national scale,
breaking new ground as the most
ambitious initiative ever launched
to save America’s fish and wildlife
legacy. The initiative mapped out
a federal-state matching pro-gram,
whereby federal monies
would be matched with state
funds on a 3:1 basis. Robertson
Robertson’s twenty-nine words heard around the conservation world.
Credit: Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries.
34 Status Review and Conservation Recommendations for the Gull-billed Tern
and wildlife work has been a high
priority for P-R funding. In Vir-ginia,
every category of wildlife has
received attention through applied
wildlife research and data collection.
In 1947, the State initiated a manda-tory
big game checking system and
the information gathered every year
since then has been part of an effort
to record important data for evaluat-ing
the status of various species of
wildlife. The knowledge gained from
P-R funded research and surveys
provides the basis for hunting and
trapping season recommendations
made by the Department’s staff of
professional wildlife biologists.
Not only does the P-R program fund
the management of game species,
but it has also helped DGIF fulfill its
P-R program allowed Virginia
to focus on long-range wildlife
research projects, habitat resto-ration,
education, and technical
assistance to landowners. P-R
funds supported the first-ever
comprehensive study of wild tur-key,
published in 1943 by Henry
S. Mosby at Virginia Tech. This
landmark achievement in the field
of wildlife management set the
stage for the restoration of wild
turkey populations nationwide.
The cannon-projected net trap,
originally developed for water-fowl
in Missouri in 1948 by H.H.
Dill and W. H. Thornsbery, gave
Eastern turkey biologists the tool
they needed to put their knowl-edge
to work. Using this technol-ogy,
Virginia embarked upon a 40-
year effort to restore turkeys into
suitable habitat around the state.
During this time approximately
900 turkeys were trapped and re-located,
and today Virginia turkey
hunters enjoy their sport in every
county in the state. An estimated
population of some 150,000 birds
supports both a spring and fall
season of 60,000-70,000 hunters.
At the same time newly-trained
biologists were working to restore
wildlife populations in Virginia,
the number of hunters and an-glers
taking to the woods nation-wide
skyrocketed. In the 1950s,
hunting and fishing revenue in
Virginia alone doubled from $1
million to $2 million, and the
number of hunters and anglers
increased from 400,000 to nearly
1,000,000 in a single decade. The
P-R program allowed DGIF to
respond to the surge in demand
for hunting and fishing opportuni-ties
by purchasing 45,000 acres of
public hunting and fishing lands,
increasing office and field person-nel,
and providing technical assis-tance
to improve wildlife habitat
on more than one million acres of
private land. By 1976, DGIF was
managing nearly 2 million acres
of land either owned directly or
managed cooperatively. More
than half of the land owned by
DGIF was purchased with P-R
dollars.
The research necessary for ef-fective
“on-the-ground” habitat
seized the opportunity to use his
experiences in Virginia to add a
provision to the bill, requiring
states to enact laws prohibiting
the diversion of hunting license
revenue from fish and game
agency coffers. With a mere 29
words, Robertson ensured that a
sustained and politically untouch-able
source of funding would be
available for long-term wildlife
restoration. Seventy-five years
later, the Federal Aid in Wildlife
Restoration (Pittman-Robertson)
Program has proven its worth as
the nation’s most effective tool
used to restore and sustain the
nation’s fish and wildlife legacy.
Once passed, the Pittman-Robert-son
(P-R) Program immediately be-gan
to provide states the matching
funds necessary to launch legitimate
wildlife restoration work. Virginia’s
Department of Game and Inland
Fisheries (DGIF), like other states,
first looked to restore depleted
wildlife populations. Its White-tailed
deer population had decreased
statewide from an estimated 400,000
animals to a mere 25,000. Using P-R
funds, Virginia purchased adult deer
from North Carolina, Pennsylvania,
Michigan, Wisconsin, and Alabama
and released the animals into suit-able
habitat. So significant was the
success of these restoration efforts
that from 1930 to 1957, Virginia’s
deer harvest rose from 1,299 to
a record 22,473. Today, the state
boasts an annual harvest of 231,000
and a deer population of one million
animals.
By the 1940s, support from the
Celebrating the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program
Virginia DGIF personnel rekease deer
purchased from other states. Credit: Virginia
Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
Relocated turkeys released. Credit: Virginia
Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
PR dollars fund trained biologists
and research. Credit: Virginia Department
of Game and Inland Fisheries
Preserving VirgNinaiam’se W oifld S Heecrtiitoang e 3355
mandate to ensure the health of
all wildlife in Virginia, including
such species as the bald eagle, the
Virginia northern flying squir-rel,
and the piping plover. The
P-R program has helped fuel
the development of the Depart-ment’s
Wildlife Action Plan, a
coordinated driving force for
all wildlife conservation efforts
across Virginia. It utilizes public
and private partnerships to help
protect and restore endangered
species and sustain healthy
populations of common species
as well. Further supporting the
research arm of Virginia’s wildlife
program are P-R funded regional
projects, including the Southeast-ern
Cooperative Wildlife Disease
Study, which provides southeast-ern
wildlife agencies access to
resources otherwise unavailable
to any single state organization.
In 1970-71, the state’s role in
hunter education received a
substantial boost when the P-R
Act was expanded to include
the receipts from a ten percent
excise tax on handguns and an 11
percent excise tax on the sale of
archery equipment. In Virginia,
DGIF manages a free, mandatory
hunter education program for 12-
to 15-year-old children and first-time
hunters using a dedicated
cadre of more than 900 trained
volunteer instructors. Thanks to
financial support from the P-R
program, these volunteers work
with 160 DGIF Conservation Po-lice
Officers and train 13,000 stu-dents
each year. Since 1988, there
The PR program benefits many species including the bald eagle.
Credit: Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
has been a 25 percent reduction
in the rate of hunting-related
shooting incidents statewide. In
2007, the program recorded more
than 500,000 graduates of the
course.
The Federal Aid in Wildlife
Restoration Act has proven a
remarkable framework to restore
and safeguard the future of our
nation’s fish and wildlife legacy.
Undoubtedly, the accomplish-ments
of the program throughout
the past 75 years have exceeded
the expectations of even the bold-est
of its early visionaries. How-ever,
the responsibility for the
health of America’s fish and wild-life
demands constant vigilance.
In Virginia alone, 925 species
have been identified as wildlife
species of greatest conservation
need, and the habitats they live in
are threatened by development,
fragmentation, and degradation.
The challenges we face today are
no less daunting than they were
75 years ago. However, since 1937
the Wildlife Restoration Program
has provided us with the means
to respond to overwhelming
odds with boldness, inspiration,
and steady, informed action. It is
our responsibility to protect the
future of our wildlife populations
and the integrity of their habitat.
Once again, we must figure out a
way to do it.
Loss of wildlife habitat remains a
future concern.
Credit: Virginia Department of
Game and Inland Fisheries
36 C Setleabtruast iRnge tvhiee wW ialdnldife C aonnd s Seprovratt Fioisnh RReesctoomramtioenn Pdraotgiroanms for the Gull-billed Tern
Name of Section 37
issue hunter certifications. As
more states followed suit, the
International Association of Fish
and Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA)
appointed a “Hunter Safety Com-mittee”
in 1957, and, in 1966, the
NRA hosted the first national
“Hunter Safety Coordinators
Workshop.” This evolution led to
the formation in 1972 of the North
American Association of Hunter
Safety Coordinators (NAAHSC),
now known as the International
Hunter Education Association
or IHEA. It was at this time, in
1970 and 1972, respectively, that
Congress passed key amend-ments
to the Pittman-Robertson
(P-R) Act, allowing states to fund
hunter education programs and
develop target ranges as part of
their already successful wild-life
conservation programs. In
1974, NAAHSC affiliated with
the IAFWA, and since then, all
50 states (as well as territories,
Canadian provinces and other
countries) have passed manda-tory
laws, requiring hunters of
varying age groups to complete
hunter education courses prior to
purchasing hunting licenses and
going afield. Today, IHEA serves
as a modern-day clearinghouse
for information and caretaker of
the hunting accident (incident)
database – a role turned over to it
by the National Safety Council.
The success of hunter education is
one of the hallmark achievem