http://www.salina.com/outdoors/Story/berger030111 Have you ever wondered just who pays for fish and wildlife management in Kansas, or in any other state for that matter. We hear all kinds of stories or rumors about that, the most notable one that it comes out of our taxes that we pay every year. Many people think that Kansas Wildlife and Parks gets lots of money from the State General Fund - your state income tax dollars. That is not the case! Granted, our State Parks do get some of their money from the General Fund because they cannot generate enough revenue fro Park Permits to cover their operating costs. Here are the facts about who actually pays for management of our fish and wildlife species. Actually, nationwide, almost 50 percent of the money that is used to manage critters come from fishing, hunting and furharvesting licenses which includes things like deer, turkey elk, and antelope permits, trout permits, etc. Interest on some of that money is also included here. The next largest contribution to state management programs are taxes on hunting and fishing equipment, accounting for another almost 25 percent of the management monies. Sixty years ago, America's hunters and ammunition manufacturers made and unusual plea: " Tax us!" Congress obliged with the Pittman-Robertson program - an 11 percent tax on ammo and firearms, automatically appropriated to state Fish and Wildlife agencies. Revenues from that tax helped bring back our deer, turkey, elk and antelope populations and continue to provide funds for their management. In the 1950's, anglers jumped on the bandwagon through a similar Dingell-Johnson program - an excise tax on sport fishing equipment to fund state fisheries programs. In the 1980's anglers supported the Wallop-Breaux expansion, which dedicated fuel taxes attributed to motorboats and currently adds another $250 million a year to the state fisheries management efforts. Kansas receives money from all of these federal tax funds and we call those Federal Aid Funds. Unfortunately, these federal funds have some pretty stringent guidelines attached to them. They must be used for management of game fish and wildlife species - those that we allow anglers or hunters to harvest. They cannot be used for state parks, other forms of recreation, or for non-game critter management. Certainly, some non-game critters often benefit when we do habitat enhancement for game fish and wildlife but the funds cannot be spent directly for non-game. In 1980, Congress passed the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, encouraging states to develop conservation plans for non-game fish and wildlife. However, the Act was not funded and many states lacked the funds to do the planning alone. So, along in about 1998 someone came up with the Teaming With Wildlife idea. This program would have taxed a group of outdoor related products - such as birdseed, binoculars, and camping gear - to fund state initiatives for non-game species. Some 5,900 organizations nationwide are supporting the proposal and it seems to have had broad bipartisan support in Congress but they could not figure out exactly how to fund it adequately. So, in 2001, Congress created the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program and State wildlife Grants Program. For the first time, funding was provided to state fish and wildlife agencies for the management of non-game species. The funding was distributed to states with a condition that each state develop a State Wildlife Action Plan. Kansas has received an average of $1 million per year to manage thousands of non-game species. Development of State Wildlife Action Plans in every state and territory was a historic accomplishment. At last, there was a national plan in place to conserve the nation's wildlife primarily for keeping fish and wildlife healthy and off the threatened and endangered species list. But now that the plans are in place, there is a lack of sustainable funding. So in 2008, the Teaming With Wildlife Act was introduced into Congress. It would amend the Pittman-Robertson Act to ensure adequate funding for the conservation and restoration of all species through funding of the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program. It would provide $350 million annually for 5 years getting 50% of the revenue from existing royalties on outer shelf drilling and 50% from existing revenues collected under the Mineral Leasing Act. Since drilling and mining use an irreplaceable natural resource, investment of some of the royalties to fund fish and wildlife conservation seems perfectly legitimate. Work continues to try and get this Act passed in Congress but tough times are upon us!!!! Getting back to the current funding base for state fish and wildlife management, the next biggest contributor are the special programs that each state runs. Income from the state magazines; sales of related materials like T-shirts, caps, mugs, license plates, etc; and other special programs brings in another 18 percent of the total. Generally, each state gets less than 10 percent of their funding from General Fund sources and that goes pretty much all to the State Parks. So, the next time you purchase a license, buy a KDWP T-shirt, or even buy a fishing rod or shotgun, you are helping foot the bill for fish and wildlife management in Kansas. It is what most call a 'user pay' system - if you use the resource, you should be helping to pay for its management. If the Teaming With Wildlife Act is implemented, there will be even more funds available to maintain healthy populations of critters that we all enjoy so much! ================================================ Fishing reduces stress and gives you a break from our modern world where everything is going a million miles per hour 73 Check & Clear 6 LOC: 38-54-14.60N / 097-14-09.07W |
__._,_.___
.
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment