The Wildlife Management Institute, founded in 1911, is a nonprofit organization staffed by experienced resource management professionals dedicated to improving the management of wildlife and wildlife habitat. Our focus is wildlife policy both at the federal and state level, with a special emphasis on the administration and function of agencies. As an example, each decade for the past four the Institute has conducted a review of the organization, authorities, and programs of the 50 state fish and wildlife agencies. We have also reviewed fish and wildlife functions of the U.S. Forest Service on two occasions, and parts of numerous other agencies at other times at their request. We have been intimately involved in virtually all federal legislation concerning those agencies and their fish and wildlife and habitat programs.
Our Institute is pleased to lend its strong support for a consolidated approach to legislation reflected in the three pending Senate bills (S.25, S.2123, S.2181) to fund conservation programs through use of revenues received from outer continental shelf oil and gas production. We have been strong supporters of H.R. 701 recently passed by the House, and believe that the sportsmen and women of America would clearly be well served by passage of comparable legislation by the Senate.
This year more than $450 million for wildlife and fisheries conservation will go to state agencies on a (75:25) matching basis. Under the Pittman/Robertson, Dingle/Johnson- Wallop/Breaux programs, excise tax revenues from arms and ammunition, archery equipment, and fishing equipment provide stable funding that is the foundation of wildlife and fishery management in all 50 states. This constitutes a conservation legacy involving hunters and anglers that has persisted for more than 60 years. We in the wildlife management and hunting community are justly proud of the status of waterfowl, elk, wild turkey, whitetailed deer, and many other species that have recovered under Pittman/Robertson over those decades.
Other remedies have failed to address the needs in most states. In 1975, the Wildlife Management Institute worked with the Council on Environmental Quality and conducted a national assessment of needs for non-game fish and wildlife programs in the United States. Based on that information, an alliance of about 200 groups successfully supported passage of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980. This act outlined great intent to fund non-game programs, and was amended by this Committee in 1988 to try to strengthen it. Congress has never funded the Act. Those legitimate needs for funding to manage fish and wildlife that are neither hunted nor fished continue today, and in fact have accelerated greatly over the past 25 years.
The need is clear for our states to effectively manage the more than 1,800 wildlife and fish and their habitats that currently receive little attention, and that increasingly are been driven to scarcity and even listing under the Endangered Species Act because of human pressures on the land.
Our state fish and wildlife agencies are under tremendous pressure from declining funding, and increasing responsibilities. These agencies are forced to spend scarce sportsmen's dollars to conduct the extensive environmental review involved in state responses to federal actions regarding public lands, and endangered species work. This has become a significant burden on limited funding for wildlife conservation.
Most states receive 60-70% of their funding directly from excise tax funded programs and license revenues, and programs are vulnerable because of their limited sources. As an example, a 1993 die-off of several big game species has led the state of Wyoming to make 30% reductions in staff and programs because of reduced license sales. This not only reduced services to hunters beyond the recovery of the herds, but affected the overall function of the agency in delivering its broader programs. It is neither to the benefit of sportsmen nor advantageous to the vast array of other fish and wildlife species that need management, for such major fluctuations in programs to occur. Currently there are no buffers to excise tax or licence sale decreases. Other fund raising devices like fees on site, speciality license plates, or tax checkoffs have had very limited success. Only a small handful of states have been able to independently take significant steps to provide alterative funding for broad fish and wildlife programs.
We have worked with a large array of wildlife and fishery organizations to support new funding to broaden wildlife management programs through the existing state agencies to cover all wildlife, and meet the needs of all of the public. It is clear that both hunters and non-hunters would benefit from these programs. In fact, we think all those interested in the future of wildlife in America have a stake in not only new funding, but the continued flow of dollars to conservation from hunting and fishing excise taxes and license fees. We are not replacing programs with new funding proposals, but rather building on the success of the past, with our eyes on a better future.
Looking practically at the role of state fish and wildlife agencies and management needs, such new funding would:
Maintain the leadership role of the sporting community in fish and wildlife conservation that has made so much progress.
Reduce the financial pressure on license fee and current excise tax revenues derived from hunters and anglers.
Spread the cost of habitat and wildlife and fishery conservation to the broader American public.
Add more habitat accessible to traditional uses like hunting and fishing as a dividend from broader conservation actions.
Strengthen existing fish and wildlife agencies that have the legal authorities for necessary management of all wildlife.
Widely expand the public involvement in guiding and supporting those broader fish and wildlife agencies.
Build on the existing, proven administrative system of Pittman/Robertson, Dingell/Johnson-Wallop/Breaux programs.
Allow the state fish and wildlife agencies to satisfy their broader responsibilities to all wildlife.
Traditional fish and wildlife management organizations in America believe very strongly that active management programs through our agencies are essential to complement any investment in conserving the land base. Certainly, we all recognize that habitat conservation is essential for the future of wildlife. As important as acquisition is, provision of stable funding for active management programs is an equally important investment to assure that those lands return the values for fish and wildlife and people that the Congress intends.
The need by the 50 states is clearly more than the $350 million per year included in H.R. 701. While that will be a major step in the right direction, down the road additional funding will be necessary to satisfy what is currently a need more than three times that large. The states have documented the size of that need and it will continue to grow.
Mr. Chairman, I do not presume to speak for the millions of hunters and anglers in America or for their organizations. I do know that they strongly support the legislation that passed the House, and their outspoken support played a role in that success. I know you will hear directly from many of them.
The common message on the need for legislation you will hear is:
The need is clear and well documented.
We have a model with a good record in Pittman/Robertson and Dingell/Johnson.
The authority and responsibilities for broader fish and wildlife management lie with the 50 states.
Traditional wildlife management, and sportsmen and women themselves will benefit from proactive conservation for all wildlife.
We request that you act now to meet a real need and take advantage of an opportunity of strong bipartisan support for this landmark legislative initiative .
Much of the publicity about the passage of H.R. 701 has incorrectly cast it as a "land acquisition bill". In fact, the majority of the money that would go to the state fish and wildlife agencies will support long-term management programs, with professionally trained staff, to ensure that those lands and other lands in each state adequately provide for the fish and wildlife resources that we value. We believe that concerns of private property owners have been fairly addressed in the legislation that has passed the House. The Congress will have solid oversight over all federal land acquisition.
All of this should be viewed as a reinvestment in critical resources for the future, providing environmental and conservation values far beyond the dollar cost of this annual funding. It will leverage additional funds for conservation. It provides a base for proactive action to keep the states in control of wildlife management, within their authority. This can avoid further erosion of state management authority over wildlife, and reduce the need for federal control, by avoiding species declines to the point of listing. While this is not an endangered species bill, it is an investment in forestalling the rate of loss and decline of our valued wildlife and fishery resources. Moreover, it continues the very successful flow of funding to the states to be used at the local level to solve real problems.
The original vision of Teaming With Wildlife that brought a large coalition of interests together was to broaden wildlife and fisheries programs to address species that are neither hunted or fished. After a decade of work to reach the current opportunity, clearly the need for such work remains highest priority for the states. We are ready to work with the Senate on these and other details of legislation.
Mr. Chairman, the wildlife management and hunting community has an equal stake in appropriate expenditures under the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the conservation of habitats. It was the Izaak Walton League of America that lead other old-line traditional conservation groups that supported the original Land and Water Conservation Fund, before many current organizations even existed. Careful addition to the federal land base is still an important wildlife conservation and public access need in America. We believe that the additional protections for property rights written into H.R. 701 provide a model the Senate can use to cover such concerns. We urge you to deal positively with both state and federal programs to finally deliver the true promise of the Land and Water Conservation Fund as an investment in the quality of life for future Americans.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this extraordinary legislative opportunity.