Traditionally, much of the funding for wildlife management has come from the support of sportsmen and women through excise taxes on hunting and fishing equipment and through the sale of sporting licenses. Given that hunters and anglers pour millions of dollars annually into state wildlife programs, it is not surprising that the vast majority of those funds have historically been used for the management of hunted and fished (or "game") species.

Yet roughly 90 percent of species, those that are neither hunted or fished nor federally listed as threatened or endangered (often referred to as "non-game" species), receive significantly less reliable financial support. Annual funding for all state non-game programs amounts to less than $100 million compared to more than $1 billion spent for state game programs. It makes sense to set aside funding to prevent the decline of wildlife species before they reach a crisis point when recovery is often more costly.

There is widespread agreement about the need to increase funding for wildlife conservation, however, there are important questions about where the money should come from and a long history of failed attempts to get dollars for these programs. In 1980, Congress passed the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, which was designed to protect the nation's non-game species. Unfortunately, Congress never appropriated funds for this program — so the law was rendered meaningless.

The National Wildlife Federation, along with other organizations, developed the Teaming with Wildlife Initiative to address the unfulfilled promise of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act. The Teaming with Wildlife concept sought to garner funds for wildlife from a user fee on outdoor recreation equipment. The Teaming with Wildlife Initiative faced its own set of political obstacles that have kept the user fee concept out of the legislative arena. The idea of funding non-game wildlife programs, however, is still very much alive. Abroad constituency for wildlife funding now exists and strongly supports the inclusion of a non-game component in any permanent conservation funding bill.

The Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA - H.R. 701/S. 25) and Resources 2000 (H.R. 798/S.446) proposals would provide substantial and reliable funding for state fish and wildlife agencies. This legislation presents and historic opportunity to enact permanent and meaningful conservation funding that would benefit wildlife, wild places, and generation of Americans to come. The following four components should be incorporated in the wildlife component of the final piece of legislation:

Traditionally, much of the funding for wildlife management has come from the support of sportsmen and women through excise taxes on hunting and fishing equipment and through the sale of sporting licenses. Given that hunters and anglers pour millions of dollars annually into state wildlife programs, it is not surprising that the vast majority of those funds have historically been used for the management of hunted and fished (or "game") species.

Yet roughly 90 percent of species, those that are neither hunted or fished nor federally listed as threatened or endangered (often referred to as "non-game" species), receive significantly less reliable financial support. Annual funding for all state non-game programs amounts to less than $100 million compared to more than $1 billion spent for state game programs. It makes sense to set aside funding to prevent the decline of wildlife species before they reach a crisis point when recovery is often more costly.

There is widespread agreement about the need to increase funding for wildlife conservation, however, there are important questions about where the money should come from and a long history of failed attempts to get dollars for these programs. In 1980, Congress passed the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, which was designed to protect the nation's non-game species. Unfortunately, Congress never appropriated funds for this program — so the law was rendered meaningless.

The National Wildlife Federation, along with other organizations, developed the Teaming with Wildlife Initiative to address the unfulfilled promise of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act. The Teaming with Wildlife concept sought to garner funds for wildlife from a user fee on outdoor recreation equipment. The Teaming with Wildlife Initiative faced its own set of political obstacles that have kept the user fee concept out of the legislative arena. The idea of funding non-game wildlife programs, however, is still very much alive. Abroad constituency for wildlife funding now exists and strongly supports the inclusion of a non-game component in any permanent conservation funding bill.

The Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA - H.R. 701/S. 25) and Resources 2000 (H.R. 798/S.446) proposals would provide substantial and reliable funding for state fish and wildlife agencies. This legislation presents and historic opportunity to enact permanent and meaningful conservation funding that would benefit wildlife, wild places, and generation of Americans to come. The following four components should be incorporated in the wildlife component of the final piece of legislation: