Vermont’s Wildlife Crisis:

DRAFT

1/22/08

Vermont’s Wildlife at the Crossroads:

Funding and the Future of Fish and Wildlife

in the Green Mountain State

A report by

The Vermont Wildlife Partnership

c/o The Northern Forest Alliance
32 Park Street, P.O. Box 471
Stowe, Vermont 05672

802.253.8227

The Vermont Wildlife Partnership is a diverse coalition of hunting, fishing, and

conservation organizations, businesses, and individuals working together

to ensure the future of Vermont’s fish and wildlife legacy.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

Fish and Wildlife: At the Heart of Life in Vermont

Stretched to the Limit

Declines in Traditional Funding

The Consequences of Under-funding

Economic Pitfalls Ahead

A Vision Unrealized

The Department in a Changing World

Traditional Services and New Roles

A New Era for Wildlife Conservation

Game and Non-game Species: Funding for Both

Making the Investment

The 1990 Governor’s Commission Report

Sixteen Years of Growing Crisis

Taking a Second Look: The 2007 Task Force Report

Big Dividends: Reinvesting in Wildlife Resources

The Missouri-Arkansas Payoff

Opportunity at the Crossroads

A Popular Mandate: Vermonters Weigh In

Leadership and Commitment

Vermont Wildlife Partnership Members

References

Credits

This document was funded by contributions from Vermont Wildlife Partnership member organizations including the National Wildlife Federation, The Nature Conservancy, the Northern Forest Alliance, Trout Unlimited, the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, and the Vermont Natural Resources Council.

The document was written by Tovar Cerulli of Clearwater Communications. Dana Baker of Trout Unlimited, Emily Boedecker of The Nature Conservancy, Jamey Fidel of the Vermont Natural Resources Council, George Gay of the Northern Forest Alliance, Julie Hart of the Vermont Center for Ecostudies, Roy Marble and Eric Nuse of the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, Tom Slayton (editor emeritus of Vermont Life Magazine), and Steve Wright of the National Wildlife Federation edited and commented on the document.

Graphic design and layout was provided by Linda Mirabile of RavenMark Communications/Design.

Executive Summary

Life in Vermont is intimately tied to the land—woods, waters, fields and mountains—and to the fish and wildlife that inhabit the places we call home. For hunters, anglers, hikers, paddlers, backyard birdwatchers and all other Vermonters, our natural resources are priceless. Moreover, wildlife-related recreation adds $400 million to the state’s economy each year.

Responsibility for taking care of our fish and wildlife rests in the hands of the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department, a small team of hard-working professionals dedicated to the conservation of Vermont’s cherished fish and wildlife and their habitats, and to providing a wide range of public recreation, protection, and education services.

Like most states in the nation, we face a growing threat. The traditional sources of funding for fish and wildlife conservation are providing less and less revenue. Under-funded state wildlife agencies, including Vermont’s, are being forced to cut programs. And the challenges facing wildlife and wildlife agencies are becoming more numerous and more complex. Meanwhile, millions of dollars in available federal funds—often paying $3 for every $1 the state contributes—go unclaimed each year.

In the past two decades, Vermont has studied the problem twice. Both studies concluded that the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department needs an additional source of reliable, long-term funding and that we must, like a handful of states before us, significantly broaden the funding base. The solution recommended by the most recent study—the reallocation of 1/8 of a cent of the state sales tax—is supported by 4 out of 5 Vermonters, with similar support from hunters and non-hunters.

If such an investment is not made, the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department will become less and less able to provide the experiences and services we expect. Fish and wildlife populations and habitats will suffer, as will our economy.

Vermonters’ quality of life is at stake—ours, our children’s, our grandchildren’s.

Fish and Wildlife: At the Heart of Life in Vermont

Text Box: “The sports of hunting, fishing and trapping are as much a part of Vermont as maple syrup, covered bridges, and white steepled churches.”2
Dr. Alphonse Gilbert, UVM Many Vermonters remain connected to the traditions of hunting, fishing and trapping. In a recent survey conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 18% of Vermont respondents said they hunted or fished in 2006. In the same survey, 55% of surveyed Vermonters said they actively observed wildlife, one of the three highest participation rates in the nation.¹

Regardless of our particular pastimes, Vermont’s fish, wildlife and natural places benefit everyone. Clean air and clean water are priceless. And the health of wildlife often serves as an early indicator of disease and pollution that could affect us all.

Vermonters understand this. They place a high value on the state’s fish and wildlife. In a 2000 survey by Responsive Management, a nationally renowned polling firm, 97% of surveyed Vermont residents stated that the protection of fish and wildlife resources is important to them, as is the opportunity to participate in wildlife-related recreation.³

As Aldo Leopold put it at the beginning of A Sand County Almanac, “There are some who can live without wild things, and some who cannot.”⁴ Vermonters are people who cannot.

Text Box: As recently as 1990, license sales accounted for 64% of the Department’s budget. In FY06, they accounted for just 37%. Stretched to the Limit

Declines in Traditional Funding

The Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department, like most state wildlife agencies, has historically been funded almost exclusively by hunting and fishing license sales and funds from federal excise taxes on hunting and fishing equipment, established by the Pittman-Robertson Act of 1937, the Dingell-Johnson Act of 1950 and the Wallop-Breaux Amendment of 1984.

Nationally, sporting license revenues have been declining since the 1950s. Vermont’s peaks came later, with over 140,000 hunting licenses sold in 1974. In 2005 and 2006, hunting licenses numbered just over 80,000. Similarly, in the past 20 years Vermont’s total fishing license sales have declined from 161,000 to 122,000.5

In 1990, license sales accounted for 64% of the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department budget.2 In FY06, license sales accounted for just 37% of the budget.6

Meanwhile, Department responsibilities have grown and the basic costs of doing business—such as health insurance and medical benefits—have increased dramatically.

Marketing efforts aimed at enhancing participation in hunting and fishing may slow or even halt the trend, but are unlikely to bring back the license sales of yesteryear. And, with the traditional funding base shrinking so dramatically, periodic increases in license fees only provide a temporary fiscal boost. Experiences in other states have shown that raising them too high can backfire, making participation rates drop even further.

Text Box: “[Wildlife agencies] are trying to take care of all wildlife and all habitats on a shoestring budget.”21

Rachel Brittin, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Text Box: Federal Funds
Just Out of Reach

Every year, Vermont lacks the matching funds to claim much-needed Federal money. At the end of FY06, $2.9 million in Federal funds were left on the table. At the end of FY07, $1.6 million. The Consequences of Under-Funding

The ability of the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department to protect the public’s resources is now severely limited. For 20 years, the Department has been cutting vital programs and leaving positions vacant in an effort to reduce costs.

Additional federal funding has remained just out of reach. For lack of state-based matching funds, every year Vermont is unable to claim much-needed Federal money: at the end of FY06, $2.9 million in Federal funds were still available; at the end of FY07, $1.6 million.6 Vermont cannot afford to continue missing out on this crucial source of funding, one that is projected to grow in coming years.

Economic Pitfalls Ahead

The consequences are both ecological and economic. With numerous fish and wildlife species in urgent need of conservation, continued under-funding of the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department poses substantial risks for a key sector of Vermont’s economy. Many Vermont businesses, catering to both tourists and residents, depend on fish and wildlife—and healthy habitat—to draw customers.

A 2006 survey by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conservatively estimates that wildlife-watching, hunting, and fishing in Vermont add almost $400 million to Vermont’s economy each year. The survey notes that 150,000 people—residents and nonresidents—fished or hunted in Vermont and 468,000 participated in wildlife-watching in 2006 alone.1

Text Box: Based on national retail sales, if wildlife-related recreational activities were combined into a single corporation, it would have ranked 10th on the 1996 Fortune 500 list.8 In 1996, a report by the Izaak Walton League of America estimated that wildlife-watching, hunting, and fishing in Vermont generated $453 million in retail sales and $724 in total economic impact (in 1995 dollars). This economic activity sustained an estimated 10,114 jobs and $175 million in wages and salaries.8

Text Box: “Annual spending by Vermont sportsmen is more than twice the combined cash receipts for cattle, greenhouse/nursery, hay and maple products—four of the state’s top five agricultural commodities.”

Hunting and Fishing: Bright Stars of the American Economy20

A Vision Unrealized

Text Box: Wildlife Management Areas

Vermont’s WMAs—encompassing over 118,000 acres—are in dire need of improved operations, maintenance, and habitat management. Of the 86 WMAs, 39 lack management plans.

Cost of upgrading to adequate WMA management: $240,000 per year5 An under-funded and under-staffed Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department can only do so much. The current budget—including General Fund appropriations—merely keeps the Department on life support. It is not enough to implement the Department’s broader vision for the future of our natural resources, including:

Expanding conservation education programs
Enhancing habitat for grassland birds and other wildlife
Improving stream habitat and restoring lost spawning grounds
Effectively recovering rare and endangered species, including the sturgeon and bald eagle
Investing in new technologies and skills
Managing game populations and habitats more actively
Developing exemplary land-use practices and greater wildlife diversity in the state’s 86 Wildlife Management Areas and sharing these tools with private landowners
Creating incentives that encourage private landowners to allow public access5

Text Box: Law Enforcement

Cost of restoring the warden force to its 1971 level to provide adequate coverage and rigorously enforce laws that protect the wildlife and the people of Vermont:
$500,000 per year5 Text Box: Landowners Hold the Key

With 85% of Vermont in private hands, helping landowners steward their property is critical.

Cost of enhancing current efforts and providing interested landowners with the training, conservation assistance and equipment needed to restore and manage lands and waters for fish and wildlife: $500,000 per year (leveraging $1.5 million in federal funds)5
The Department in a Changing World

Traditional Services and New Roles

For decades, the responsibilities of state fish and wildlife agencies centered on law enforcement, management of game species, biological research, management of state lands designated for wildlife habitat, and public education.

In these areas alone, the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department provides a wide array of public services for which there is an ever-increasing demand. In education, for example: As part of a nationwide effort to “leave no child inside” and increase young people’s interest in hunting, fishing and conservation, the Department offers Conservation Camps, Hunter Education, Project WILD, and Let’s Go Fishing programs. It also offers Women in the Outdoors, Becoming an Outdoor Family, and training workshops for teachers.

But the Department’s charge is broader: “the conservation of fish, wildlife and plants and their habitats for the people of Vermont.” Over the years, its roles have become more numerous and more complex: helping local communities meet their development goals without harming sensitive habitat, conducting environmental assessments, protecting Vermont’s streams (and the endangered species that live in them) from toxic chemicals, providing search-and-rescue services, and more.

The traditional model of financing wildlife agencies with sporting revenues was developed long before the challenges of overdevelopment, habitat fragmentation and Act 250 hearings. Pittman-Robertson, Dingell-Johnson, and Wallop-Breaux funds were never intended to address these issues. The Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department tackles these challenges for everyone’s benefit and we all need to contribute to the effort.

A New Era for Wildlife Conservation

In 2001, Congress established the State Wildlife Grants program, the non-game equivalent of Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson funding. The program recognizes that the vast majority of fish and wildlife are neither “game” nor “endangered” and have therefore received little funding or attention. Since rare and endangered species recovery is difficult and expensive, State Wildlife Grants funds are aimed at conserving fish and wildlife before they become endangered.

Text Box: “The Wildlife Action Plan marks the start of a new era in wildlife conservation, one where we can keep common species common.”7

Governor James Douglas

To qualify for State Wildlife Grants funding, every state was required to complete a “comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy” or Wildlife Action Plan. Vermont’s Wildlife Action Plan is an historic achievement. The Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department, working together with scientists, sportsmen and women, conservationists and other community members, developed a proactive Wildlife Action Plan to conserve all of Vermont’s wildlife before they become rare and more costly to protect.

The Action Plan represents an inclusive inventory of the state’s fish and wildlife resources, threats to those resources, and action steps needed to conserve them. It identifies 323 Species of Greatest Conservation Need, including game species such as ruffed grouse, muskellunge, and black bear. And it provides voluntary, incentive-based solutions to crucial habitat needs.

Vermont’s Wildlife Action Plan offers a detailed roadmap for stewardship of the state’s wildlife legacy. Implementing it effectively will require all available federal State Wildlife Grants money. To leverage that money, Vermont must have new dedicated matching funds in hand.

Game and Non-game Species: Funding for Both

While 4 out of 5 Vermont hunters support the 1/8 of a cent sales tax solution, a minority of sportsmen want to preserve the traditional funding model. Concerned that the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department’s game-related efforts have been diluted by other responsibilities, they fear that an increase in non-sporting funds will further diminish the Department’s responsiveness to hunter-angler priorities.

Text Box: In a severely under-funded Department, every program suffers. Similarly, people concerned about non-game conservation feel that these programs have received far too little funding and that the Department is too focused on game species.

All of Vermont’s fish and wildlife are impacted by overarching problems: fragmentation and loss of habitat, pollution and sedimentation, invasive species, and climate change. The cost of facing these challenges cannot be borne by sportsmen and women alone.

The track records of other states with broad-based funding—such as Virginia, Texas, Missouri, and Arkansas—show that game and non-game priorities are compatible.

The recommendations of Vermont’s Wildlife Action Plan would benefit all of Vermont’s fish and wildlife. The members of the Vermont Wildlife Partnership, including many organizations and individuals concerned with both game and non-game species, share the view that all stakeholders will benefit from enhanced funding for the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department.
Making the Investment

The 1990 Governor’s Commission Report

In 1989, Governor Kunin issued Executive Order 80, establishing the 16-member Governor’s Commission on Fish and Wildlife Funding. The Order noted that:

Public demand for the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department’s services had increased dramatically;
The Department’s roles and responsibilities were increasing and becoming more complex; and
Traditional funding sources were proving insufficient to meet budgetary needs.²

The Commission was charged with analyzing the options and developing “alternatives that will provide a dependable financial base for the department in the foreseeable future.” The conclusions of the Commission’s 1990 report were straightforward:

In terms of funding, there was “an immediate need to broaden the base.”
License sales and federal aid—comprising 91% of the Department budget—would not support inflation, let alone additional growth.²

Text Box: The 1990 and 2007 reports came to the same conclusion: the funding base for the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department must be broadened.

The Commission’s recommendations included streamlining the Department to reduce costs, increasing existing fees and establishing new ones, reimbursing the Department for non-traditional environmental assessment and law enforcement work, dedicating a portion of the Property Transfer Tax to the Department, and establishing new revenue sources such as a Fish and Wildlife lottery or an additional state excise tax on hunting and fishing equipment.2

Sixteen Years of Growing Crisis

Between 1990 and 2006, various measures were taken. In 1993, the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department began receiving money from boat registrations. In 1996, a tiny fraction of the Rooms and Meals Tax was allocated, then a portion of the Gas Tax in 1998. None turned the tide. Responsibilities and costs continued to mount, while license sales continued to fall. To make ends meet, the Department streamlined, left staff positions vacant, cut existing programs, and refrained from launching other much-needed efforts.

In FY05, a shortfall could no longer be avoided and $2 million in General Fund appropriations were required to keep the Department afloat. The same was true in FY06 and the Legislature recognized that the problem needed to be addressed.

Taking a Second Look: The 2007 Task Force Report

In 2006, the Legislature established a Fish and Wildlife Department Funding Task Force “to develop recommendations for comprehensive, sustainable funding mechanisms…which complement existing funding sources.”6 The nine members of the Task Force, appointed by Governor Douglas, completed an extensive analysis of the options and submitted their report in February 2007. The message echoed the 1990 report. The funding base for the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department must be broadened. The Task Force recommendations included:

Dedicating 1/8 of a cent of the State Sales Tax to the Department
Dedicating 1/8 of a cent of the State Rooms and Meals Tax to the Department
Creating 5-year hunting, fishing and trapping licenses
Creating a wildlife lottery ticket
Dedicating General Fund money to offset law enforcement expenses
Creating a non-motorized boat permit

The Task Force’s first recommendation was the dedication of 1/8 of a cent of the sales tax.

On a $1 sale generating 6 cents in tax, the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department would receive 1/8 of a penny. This would generate an estimated $6 to 7 million annually.

And, it would leverage millions more in federal money each year. The Legislature could stop appropriating $2-plus million from the General Fund, as it has done each year since FY05.

Text Box: The immediate payoff would be huge: an extra $2 to $3 million in federal funding. And available federal funding—often paying $3 for every $1 the state contributes—will likely grow in future years. But Vermont can only claim that money if state matching funds are available. Big Dividends: Reinvesting in Wildlife Resources

In strictly economic terms, why should Vermont dedicate 1/8 of a cent of the State Sales Tax to its Fish and Wildlife Department? For one thing, the immediate payoff would be huge: an additional $2 to 3 million in federal funding. Available federal funding is likely to grow in coming years, with federal legislation providing money to mitigate the effects of climate change on wildlife. But Vermont will only get its slice of the pie if dedicated state matching funds are available.

And, as noted earlier, wildlife-watching, hunting, and fishing add hundreds of millions of dollars to the Vermont economy each year. A report by the Izaak Walton League of America estimated that, in 1995, these three activities accounted for 5% of Vermont’s GSP (gross state product) and brought $23.9 million in state sales and income tax revenues.8

Text Box: Wildlife-related recreation brings tremendous economic benefits to Vermont. But the state has not yet made a significant investment in its wildlife resources.

In 1995, of the estimated $23.9 million in wildlife-related state tax revenue, only 0.5% was invested in the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department.8 At that point the Department still relied almost exclusively on license sales and federal excise taxes. Even in FY06, with the Department receiving appropriations from the General Fund and the Gas Tax, Vermont was still reinvesting only a small fraction of the revenues generated by fish and wildlife.

Fish and wildlife are a boon to the Vermont economy. Earmarking a fraction of the revenue they generate—to be directed to their stewardship—is a smart, and responsible, investment.
The Missouri-Arkansas Payoff

Text Box: In 1976, Missouri invested in its natural resources by adding 1/8 of a cent to its state sales tax to fund conservation programs. In 1996, Arkansas followed suit. Both states have been able to fund vigorous programs for hunting, fishing, non-game species, education and more.

Referendum votes in 1976 and 1996 amended the Missouri and Arkansas Constitutions, increasing the state sales tax by 1/8 of a cent and dedicating those funds to conservation programs.

In 25 years, Missouri was able—for example—to:

Establish 60 ongoing research studies of deer, bear, turkey, grouse, furbearers, waterfowl and songbirds.
Create access to 530 new lakes and 290 new sections of rivers and streams.
Acquire 22 conservation areas within 50 miles of the state’s 7 major population centers.
Expand hunter education classes to 1,000 per year and construct conservation education centers near all major population centers.
Offer incentives to private landowners for improving stream habitats, and coordinate 35,000 stream-monitoring volunteers each year.
Initiate over 20 studies—up to 100 years in span—on forest management practices and their effects on plants and animals.
Provide free forest management education and technical assistance throughout the state.⁹

Missouri also boasts the highest “hunter replacement ratio” in the country, putting it at the very top of a small handful of states where per capita participation is projected to rise based on current youth participation rates.10

Text Box: “We can drive down country roads and watch flocks of wild turkeys, or ease through forests and photograph elk and deer, or listen to the chorus of songbirds.
One-eighth cent seems like a cheap price for those luxuries.”11
Editorial, Harrison (Arkansas) Daily Times

In just 5 years, the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission:

Added 30 enforcement officers plus new programs including K-9 units, covert operations and a dive team.
Initiated new education programs and completed the first of 4 planned nature centers.
Renovated hatcheries and added fish and wildlife management staff.
Purchased over 20,000 acres of new public use land and improved existing areas.¹²

Text Box: The reallocation of 1/8 of a cent of the State Sales Tax is supported by 4 out of 5 Vermonters, with similar support from hunters and non-hunters.14 Opportunity at the Crossroads

A Popular Mandate: Vermonters Weigh In

Vermonters from across the political spectrum support increased and broad-based funding for the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department. Responsive Management conducted surveys on the topic in 1995, 2000, and 2007. In 1995, Vermonters were presented with 12 potential mechanisms for augmenting Department funding and all 12 were supported by a majority of respondents.¹³ Again in 2000 (12 mechanisms presented) and in 2007 (4 mechanisms presented) a majority of Vermonters expressed support for every solution offered.^3,14

In 2000, 81% supported the reallocation of 1/8 of a cent of the State Sales Tax and 51% supported a 1/8 of a cent increase in the Sales Tax. The response was similar in 2007 with 79% supporting a reallocation and 57% supporting an increase. The 2007 survey also noted that there was no significant difference between hunters and non-hunters in their support for alternative funding mechanisms. In 2000, 84% indicated that they would be even more likely to support increased funding if they knew that a new state dollar would be matched by $3 of federal money.^3,14

Text Box: “Vermont’s fish and wildlife legacy is a high priority, one that demands real funding…All Vermonters will benefit from a stable department, properly funded and able to carry out its mission.”15

Roy Marble, President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs These are just a few of the comments the Fish and Wildlife Funding Task Force received while working on its 2007 report:

“The Department provides essential, expert services to the state that far exceed the needs of game species, and its funding should not rely only on hunting fees.”

- Robert A. Lloyd, Former President, Vermont Coverts

“It is to the state's benefit that its Department of Fish and Wildlife be adequately funded to properly manage its fish and wildlife resources.”

- Put Blodgett, President, Vermont Woodlands Association

“We strongly support a broad-based, stable, and significant source of long-term funding for the Department. Such an approach appropriately spreads the funding responsibility among all Vermonters.”

- Mike Winslow, President, Otter Creek Audubon

“With a new source of funding for the Department, the wildlife resources that all Vermonters rely on, including local communities, will be greatly benefited and will result in a healthy sustainable future for our great state.”⁶

- Rick Irick, Vermont State Chairman, Ducks Unlimited

Text Box: “The burden of funding Fish and Wildlife has become too heavy to put on the backs of just hunters and anglers. It's time to figure out a new way to pay for the work that benefits so many people.”16
Editorial, Burlington Free Press

Leadership and Commitment

With such strong public support, Vermont is poised for change. Our small state has long been known for its innovation and foresight. We are also known for our commitment to our rural traditions and natural resources.

Vermont now has an opportunity—at a critical juncture in the history of wildlife conservation—to combine those strengths and stride into the vanguard of states taking full responsibility for their fish and wildlife resources.

With two thorough studies of its own and many relevant surveys to point the way—plus a Wildlife Action Plan to ensure that funds are used appropriately—Vermont is positioned to demonstrate its vision and commitment by implementing a long-term funding solution to stabilize and enhance the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department.

Text Box: “The nation behaves well if it treats the natural resources as assets which it must turn over to the next generation increased and not impaired in value.”18
Theodore Roosevelt
Vermont Wildlife Partnership Members