Who Really Is Footing The Tab For Wildlife Conservation In The West?
For decades, hunters and anglers have claimed they're the economic bulwarks for protecting species. But is it true? Also: Is it time that outdoor recreation users be asked to pay taxes on gear?
An autumn archer in the field. Image courtesy Shutterstock ID 672066934/Zoran Orcik
by Todd Wilkinson
Who foots the bill for wildlife conservation in America—especially the public-land-rich West which gives large charismatic mammal species more of the room they need to roam?
The answer to that question figures prominently in controversial debates over delisting of the Greater Yellowstone grizzly population, for example, and in assessing the need for predator control, whether Wyoming should keep artificially feeding thousands of elk amid mounting fears over Chronic Wasting Disease and other issues.
Sportsmen and women have long claimed they are the bulwarks of wildlife conservation and therefore should wield more sway in setting wildlife management policies that favor their desires. Is their perception accurate? Merely pondering the premise should not be misconstrued as being pro or anti hunting.
Sportsmen and women have long claimed they are the bulwarks of wildlife conservation and therefore should wield more sway in setting wildlife management policies that favor their desires. Is their perception accurate? Merely pondering the premise should not be misconstrued as being pro or anti hunting.
There’s no doubt that selling millions of hunting and fishing licenses have been, and are significant revenue generators for all state fish and game departments who are on the front lines of managing public wildlife in America.
Did you know that the least populous state, Wyoming, ranks second in the country, at 22.7 percent, in terms of the percentage of its citizens who purchase hunting licenses? The total number of paid license holders is just over 131,000, the total number of licenses, tags, permits and stamps is over 256,000 and the gross revenue of all hunting license fees is $26 million.
The state ranked number one is South Dakota with 24 percent of its residents buying hunting licenses and third is neighboring Montana at 21 percent. Living out here in this part of the rural West gives the impression that hunting looms large as a cultural passion. Does that reflection exist elsewhere? Do we dwell in reality or a bubble?
Did you know that the least populous state, Wyoming, ranks second in the country, at 22.7 percent, in terms of the percentage of its citizens who purchase hunting licenses? The total number of paid license holders is just over 131,000, the total number of licenses, tags, permits and stamps is over 256,000 and the gross revenue of all hunting license fees is $26 million.
Of course, one reason why there are so many hunters in the three Greater Yellowstone states is that here there's still healthy populations of wildlife. And it's vital to ask: Why is that?
Often, hunters and anglers will say that they, more than others, "are paying for conservation." And they cite funding generated through special federal excise taxes on hunting and fishing gear—the Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson acts—that generate a lot of revenue which directly supports state wildlife agencies.
In 2017, the US Department of Interior, which oversees the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, US Geological Survey and Bureau of Land Management, offered this overview that gets at part of the answer: "Hunters are a driving force behind funding many of our nation’s conservation efforts,” it stated in a blog said. “After the extinction of the passenger pigeon and the near elimination of the bison and many migratory bird species in the early 1900s, Americans realized the impacts humans could have on wildlife. To ensure that there would be animals to hunt in the future, hunters began to support programs that helped maintain species populations and protected habitat for wildlife.”
Thereare other hunted-related revenue generators, widely supported by people who hunt, like the federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation stamp, better known as the "Duck Stamp," Conceived in 1934, the program was put into place by hunter J.N. "Ding" Darling who was director of the Bureau of Biological Survey, which became today's US Fish and Wildlife Service. Every waterfowl hunter in the country is required to buy a decorative Duck Stamp and since its inception over $1.1 billion has been generated, with one outcome being the protection of six million acres of habitat inside the National Wildlife Refuge System.
A model of efficiency, some 98 percent of Duck Stamp revenue goes into habitat protection. Even if a person doesn't hunt, buying a duck stamp (it costs $25 and can be purchased at the local Post Office or outdoor gear store) is a great investment for national wildlife refuges and any waterfowl habitat serves the survival of hundreds of other species. On top of that, there are things like pheasant stamps and trout stamps and other funding mechanisms in states.
Right now there's also a flood of new money that has the potential to do a lot of great things for wildlife that is, in some areas, confronting unprecedented development pressure. Among the new pools and/or actions being taken at the federal level that have positive implications for Greater Yellowstone and wildlands. Let's go through some of them.
There's the Recovering America's Wildlife Act, working its way through Congress, that would that would help states, tribes and territories invest up to $1.4 billion annually in habitat restoration, protecting migration corridors, controlling invasive species and confronting emerging wildlife diseases. That could be a boon for Greater Yellowstone, which has the longest documented migrations of pronghorn, mule deer and elk.
Plus, there was the issuance of Secretarial Order 3362 by Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke in 2018 that instructed federal land management agencies to focus on protecting habitat and winter range important to migratory ungulate species like elk, mule deer, and pronghorn. A number of valleys in the Greater Yellowstone region inspired that order. And now Zinke is a Montana Congressman.
That federal action was complemented in 2020 with Montana releasing a plan for safeguarding wildlife movement and migration. In Wyoming, Governor Mark Gordon issued an executive order to protect corridors in his state, including vital mule deer habitat in Sublette County where populations of deer have plummeted related to energy development and private land sprawl.
In addition, there's the America's Conservation Enactment Act, signed into law with bi-partisan support by former President Trump in October 2020 that, among other things, compensates ranchers and farmers for livestock lost to predators, takes aim at the spread of noxious weeds, provides research money for studying Chronic Wasting Disease, and even establishes a "Theodore Roosevelt Genius Prize" for technological innovation to reduce human-predator conflict using non-lethal means.
Visitors to Zion National Park wait in line to catch a shuttle bus, one of the tools the park uses to get people out of their cars in order to alleviate traffic congestion. With a lot of federal investment being made in public land infrastructure, will it result in more crowding or less and what will be the consequences for wildlife? Here's also a major difference between how hunters/anglers and outdoor recreationists approach the backcountry. Hunters and anglers do not like having a lot of people in the areas where they hunt and fish; non-hunting outdoor recreationists, meanwhile, seem to have a much higher tolerance for playing amid crowds of people. Photo courtesy Shutterstock ID 1973723012
And, there's the omnibus Great American Outdoors Act, also advanced with bi-partisan support and signed by President Trump that reauthorized the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a bulwark for state and federal conservation, that generates $900 million annually in revenue from a surcharge placed on oil and gas development in coastal waters of the US. It helps with key habitat acquisition, creating new urban parks and provides up to $1.9 billion annually to help national parks deal with their maintenance backlog.
Plus, there's the Biden Administration's America the Beautiful initiative that steers $1 billion toward locally-led conservation and restoration projects and could markedly increase infrastructure to serve industrial strength recreation and enhanced access to public lands. Plus, there was the announcement by the US Department of Agriculture in June 2023 that $500 million is being made available to promote private land conservation, some of it aimed at protecting wildlife migration corridors, by supporting a combination of incentives, easements, and paying short-term rents to landowners to benefit wildlife and prevent them from subdividing.
The above represents a veritable juggernaut of public investment and some are concerned that if a significant amount goes to expanding outdoor recreational infrastructure that putting a lot more humans into sensitive wildlands will actually harm wildlife. Look for a forthcoming story from Mountain Journal on what the science says about the impacts of outdoor recreation.
Equally as important in the wildlife conservation equation are conservation-minded private landowners and trying to find incentives that help keep farmers and ranchers on the land instead of selling to developers. There is an extraordinary list of non-profit hunting, fishing and conservation groups whose work intersects with the above and is directed at protecting land and aquatic habitat on private and public land. Together, all of these actions have profound positive potential but in the Rockies from Colorado to the US border with Canada, they are happening at the same time of rising levels of residential sprawl and recreational users of public lands, new natural gas development coming on line in southwest Wyoming, and other factors.
So, how much of the wildlife conservation happening in Greater Yellowstone is owed to hunters and anglers?
Grizzlies are being proposed for delisting and being hunted again by the states, in part to placate the desires of hunters. Predator control programs are carried out in part to answer to erroneous claims by the hunting and livestock community that bears, wolves and mountain lions are exacting a huge negative toll on game herds and livestock. Artificial elk feeding continues at the National Elk Refuge in Jackson Hole and 22 state-run feedgrounds in Wyoming in part to keep elk herd numbers inflated, despite the state now embarking on a new strategy aimed at reducing elk numbers over complaints there are way too many.
Preserving quality, secure habitat is the foundation of successful wildlife conservation.
It's irrefutable that, historically, the American approach to wildlife conservation, which has been emulated around the world, arose from hunters who stepped forward to protect species they liked to hunt from vanishing. This is evident, for example, in Theodore Roosevelt's involvement with founding the Boone & Crockett Club that pushed for professionalizing of wildlife management, establishing hunting seasons and adopting regulations aimed at poaching.
“Hunters and anglers have more than paid their share and their contributions have been momentous,. But there's more to the story." —Hunter, angler, and former national director of the US Fish and Wildlife Service Dan Ashe
It's not true that hunters and anglers alone are responsible for all of the landmark wildlife conservation that has happened in America and is ongoing, says Dan Ashe, former national director of the US Fish and Wildlife Service and who has hunted and fished all his life. “Hunters and anglers have more than paid their share and their contributions have been momentous,” Ashe said in an earlier interview. "But there's more to the story."
One study noted that even though hunter numbers overall in the US are declining, tax revenue generated through those laws continues to increase but then again conservation needs, amid soaring land values, is a lot more costly today than when those laws were enacted with bi-partisan support generations ago.
In a story written by Christine Peterson forOutside Magazine titled "Is It Finally Time For A Backpack Tax?," Bozeman's Randy Newberg, host of the online show Fresh Tracks with Randy Newberg and one of the nation’s most visible hunting personalities, told Peterson: “The cost of conservation is increasing faster than the cost of excise taxes [ever could]. If you think the old idea that hunters and anglers, through excise fees and licenses, can foot the increasing conservation bill, I have some news for you. That’s just a terminal path.”
The bulk of Greater Yellowstone is encompassed by federal public lands and the habitat afforded species on them plays the pivotal role in their survival. Who pays for that? Nationwide, billions of dollars annually, paid by everyone, goes to fund America's national parks, national forests, national wildlife refuges, Bureau of Land Management tracts and river systems overseen by the Army Corps of Engineers. That investment, combined with laws mandating environmental protection, mean that all US citizens, not just hunters and those who cast a line, are footing the bill to maintain quality public land habitat.
Mountain bikers savor a sunset in the Utah desert near Vernal. Studies show that outdoor recreationists are passionate about opening new pathways into wild country and, at the same time, many user groups that claim to value wildlife conservation do not want their access limited in order to protect wildlife habitat. Another study, mentioned below, shows that college-aged outdoor recreationists are resistant to paying a tax on outdoor gear that would generate funds for conservation. Therein lies a disconnect. Photo courtesy Bob Wick/BLM
In one of the recent US Fish and Wildlife Service surveys of outdoor enthusiasts, the findings pointed out that 101.6 million Americans engage in hunting, fishing and wildlife watching—40 percent of the adult population older than 16. They collectively spent $156 billion. But the findings also allude to an ongoing trend. Though there are 11.5 million hunters, there are fewer hunters out there even as the overall population grows. Around five percent of Americans 16 and older hunt, which is half of what it was the 1970s.
From 2011 to 2015, total expenditures by hunters declined 29 percent from $36.3 billion to $25.6 billion. "However, expenditures for related items such as taxidermy and camping equipment experienced a 27-percent uptick, and hunting trip-related expenses increased 15 percent," the report says.
However, it's the larger public, not sportsmen, who are footing the lion's share of conservation. An analysis from the non-profit Mountain Lion Foundation and others found that "in summary 98 percent of federal, 88 percent of nonprofit, and 94 percent of total funding for wildlife conservation and management come from the non-hunting public."
In Greater Yellowstone, anecdotal evidence suggests that many newcomers and travelers are interested in hunting and fishing, most likely a reflection of the existing tradition of both of those activities and the fact that our ecosystem stands apart. In Greater Yellowstone's roughly 24 million acres, there is about six million acres of private land that provides important seasonal habitat.
Private lands provide some form of habitat for 90 percent of the species in Greater Yellowstone and those lands in many valleys are threatened by degrading impacts of sprawl. In light of this reality, land trusts, sportsmen’s groups like the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, and entities like The Nature Conservancy, Trust for Public Land, Western Landowners Alliance, and have championed conservation easements that incentivize landowners for protecting their lands. More recently, entities like the Western Landowners Alliance, Property and Environment Research Center, and Greater Yellowstone Coalition have unveiled habitat occupancy leases that reward ranchers who create space for wildlife. The latter is considered an important short-term tool for slowing the transition from ag lands to subdivisions that is happening with Greater Yellowstone’s increasing population growth and development.
As Ashe noted, the number of wildlife watchers represents a juggernaut that dwarfs the size of the hunting community. Numbers of people who love wildlife but do not hunt continues to soar and so, too, their economic presence. Of the 101-million people identified in the Fish and Wildlife Service survey, the most substantial increases in participation involve wildlife-watching—observing and photographing wildlife.
The report indicates wildlife watching activities surged "20 percent from 2011 to 2016, from 71.8 million to 86 million participants. Expenditures by wildlife watchers also climbed sharply—28 percent—between 2011 and 2016, from $59.1 billion to $75.9 billion. Around-the-home wildlife-watching increased 18 percent from 2011, from 68.6 million in 2011 to 81.1 million participants in 2016. More modest gains were made for away-from-home wildlife watchers: 5 percent increase from 2011 to 2016, from 22.5 million to 23 million participants."
This survey appeared in 2016, four years before the arrival of Covid which fueled already rising visitation levels to Greater Yellowtone's national parks, forests and other public lands. More people, however, equate to more pressures on wildlife habitat. The problem is that all people enjoying the outdoors don't pay an excise tax on outdoor gear, the same as hunters and anglers do, Ashe says, and that, in the eyes of some, weakens the position of wildlife watchers in conservative states that rely on hunting dollars to fund their fish and game departments.
Many say the outdoor industry, which exploits public lands to rack up growing profits and grow the market of product consumers, can't have it both ways. It needs to do far more in giving back and to walk the talk that it claims to be an advocate for wildlife conservation.
Although fought by manufacturers of outdoor gear and retailers who are, according to Bozeman-based Headwaters Economics, part of the $454 billion outdoor recreation economy, a modest “backpack tax” could be applied to all gear used for outdoor recreation apart from hunting and fishing. Activities such as hiking, skiing, mountain biking, boating, mountaineering, trail running, and even golf, tennis and pickelball. Such a tax, though equal to pennies on ever dollar spent, would generate billions over time that could be used to help keep more farmers and ranchers on the land, provide reimbursement for livestock losses caused by predators, foot the bill for more wildlife biologists in state and federal agencies, underwrite the cost of restoring landscapes sullied by previous human activity. Here's a story that lays out the arguments pertaining to a backpack tax.
Of course, the devil would be in the details, in insuring that monies generated go back directly to conservation and not to the general funds of states or the US Treasury. Could the distribution of funds via the Duck Stamp serve as a model?
There's also the question of values being carried forward by new generations. While young people who recreate claim they support conservation and they like wildlife, a study showed they balk at the idea of paying a small tax on outdoor gear. "Like previous research, our study suggests that although many college students want more funding for conservation, they may be less inclined to support pro-environmental causes when they perceive tangible financial costs to themselves or their lifestyles," the authors wrote in a study published inConservation Science and Practice, a journal of the Society of Conservation Biology. "College students' relative lack of support for user-pay approaches contrasts with previous studies of older adults who often favor user-pay models."
Where do you stand on a backpack tax? Would you support it if its proceeds went to wildlife conservation, habitat protection and incentivizing private property owners to protect their land from development? Let us know by clicking here and sending us your thoughts.
Todd Wilkinson, founder of Mountain Journal, is author of the book Ripple Effects: How to Save Yellowstone and American's Most Iconic Wildlife Ecosystem. Wilkinson has been writing about Greater Yellowstone for 35 years and is a correspondent to publications ranging from National Geographic to The Guardian. He is author of several books on topics as diverse as scientific whistleblowers and Ted Turner, and a book about the harrowing story of Jackson Hole grizzly mother 399, the most famous bear in the world which features photographs by Thomas Mangelsen. For more information on Wilkinson, click here. (Photo by David J Swift).
