The Proposed Recovering America’s Wildlife Act

In fifteen of the US states, the agencies in charge of fish and wildlife still have game (not wildlife) in their names. Game means species (mainly mammals, birds, and fish) that are hunted. Most fish and wildlife funding in the United States goes to game species. However, a third of our wildlife species are imperiled and/or vulnerable, and mostly not because of hunting and fishing. Moreover, state fish and wildlife agencies desperately need monies that are not conditioned on hunting and fishing. (See my Public Lands Blog post “State Wildlife Management Agencies in Crisis.”) Legislation in Congress would generate a new and consistent source of revenues for nongame species.

I hate the word nongame, meaning wildlife (including fish) that are not hunted or angled, but I don’t know of a better word. Given the history, funding, and politics of fish and wildlife management in the United States, we are stuck with it. However, the legislation I’m about to discuss assiduously avoids using the term, even though nongame species are the target (pun intended) of the bill.

Figure 2. Goshawk nestlings (Accipter Gentiles) and their parents prefer large trees with an open understory. Source: Evelyn Bull (first appeared in Oregon Wild: Endangered Forest Wilderness [Timber Press 2004]).

Federal Funding of State Fish and Wildlife Agencies

In 1937, Congress imposed a federal excise tax on guns and ammunition, with the money going to state fish and wildlife agencies. The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (aka the Pittman-Robertson Act after the two chief sponsors of the bill), established a reliable pipeline of funds for “game” management by state wildlife agencies.

In 1950, Congress imposed a federal excise tax on sport fishing equipment with the money going to state fish and wildlife agencies. The Federal Aid in Sport Fish Recreation Act (aka the Dingell-Johnson Act, or with later amendments, the Wallop-Breaux Act) established a reliable pipeline of funds for “sport fish” management by state wildlife agencies.

Today, P-R and D-J (if not W-B) monies are the main (as in overwhelming) source of revenue for most state fish and wildlife agencies. We can hope that soon, “D-?” funds will be funding nongame fish and wildlife programs at state fish and wildlife agencies at a large scale.

Figure 3. The American marten (Martes americana) needs mature closed-canopy forests. Source: Evelyn Bull (first appeared in Oregon Wild: Endangered Forest Wilderness [Timber Press 2004]).

Legislation Pending in the Current (117th) Congress

The heavy lifting for the proposed Recovering America’s Wildlife Act (RAWA) is being done in the House of Representatives, where the bill passed in 2020. Alas, no Senate action occurred and the bill died.

Figure 4. The large paws of the lynx (Lynx canadensis) allow them to hunt atop heavy snow. The blood is not lynx blood. Source: George Wuerthner (first appeared in Oregon Wild: Endangered Forest Wilderness [Timber Press 2004]).

House Bill

Representative Debbie Dingell (D-MI-12th) has recently reintroduced her Recovering America’s Wildlife Act (H.R.2773, 117th). Representatives Peter DeFazio (D-OR-4th), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR-3rd), Kurt Schrader (D-OR-5th), and Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR-1st) are RAWA cosponsors.

(Dingell disambiguation: Rep. Debbie is a Democrat from Michigan and is the chief sponsor the current legislation. Rep. John Sr. is the Dingell whose name is on the 1950 Federal Aid in Sport Fish Recreation Act. Rep. John Sr., who entered Congress in 1933 and died in 1955, was succeeded by his son Rep. John Jr. [quite the fish and wildlife champion in his own right], who served until his death in 2015, whereupon he was succeeded by his wife, Debbie.)

Figure 5. The last grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) in Oregon was shot in 1931. It is possible that they are returning to the state from Idaho. Source: George Wuerthner (first appeared in Oregon Wild: Endangered Forest Wilderness [Timber Press 2004]).

According to the official summary:

This bill provides funding for (1) the conservation or restoration of wildlife and plant species of greatest conservation need; (2) the wildlife conservation strategies of states, Indian tribes, or territories; or (3) wildlife conservation education and recreation projects.

The Department of the Interior must use a portion of the funding for a grant program. The grants must be used for recovery efforts for species of greatest conservation need, species listed as endangered or threatened species, or the habitats of such species.

Figure 6. Wolverines (Gulo gulo) do not get along well with people or development. Source: Gerald and Buff Corsi (first appeared in Oregon Wild: Endangered Forest Wilderness [Timber Press 2004]).

The House bill would have the federal government spend $1.4 billion annually

to implement the Wildlife Conservation Strategy of a State, territory, or the District of Columbia . . . by carrying out, revising, or enhancing existing wildlife and habitat conservation and restoration programs and developing and implementing new wildlife conservation and restoration programs to recover and manage species of greatest conservation need and the key habitats and plant community types essential to the conservation of those species as determined by the appropriate State fish and wildlife department . . .

Identifying those “species of greatest conservation need” is left to each state or territorial government.

Oregon would spend the money on its Oregon Conservation Strategy. For Oregon to receive ~$24 million/year, the state would have to match it with ~$7 million/year, a more than tripling of the state’s investment.

Figure 7. The northern flying squirrel actually glides and is a major food source for the northern spotted owl. Source: Wikipedia.

Senate Bill

No Senate counterpart to H.R.2773 has yet been introduced in the 117th Congress, nor was one introduced in the 116th Congress (2019–2020). A version was introduced in the 115th Congress (S.3223, 115th) by Senator James Risch (R-ID) and six cosponsors (three Republicans and three Democrats, but those Democrats are, shall we say, very light green and/or somewhat brown on the brown-green conservation politics spectrum). The Senate version didn’t include ~$0.1 billion annually that would go to Tribes, as it would in the House bill.

Figure 8. Beaver (Castor americana) is a “keystone” species that creates habitat upon which many other species depend. Source: Don Getty (first appeared in Oregon Wild: Endangered Forest Wilderness [Timber Press 2004]).

How to Pay for $1.4 Billion Annually?

A major difference between the current House bill and the earlier Senate bill is how the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Fund would be funded with $1.4 billion annually.

The current House bill would simply draw the funds annually from the General Fund of the US Treasury. The earlier Senate version (Risch bill) would fund the program by taking $0.65 billion annually from fossil fuel revenues from both onshore and offshore federal lands, for a total of $1.3 billion.

Conservationists, understandably, object to tying wildlife conservation dollars to federal fossil fuel revenues. This is because

• fortunately, fossil fuel revenues won’t be a reliable and steady source of funds in coming years;

• we don’t need to develop another constituency, in this case state fish and wildlife agencies, that is addicted to the continued use of fossil fuels; and

• wildlife is in the general public interest, so public general funds should pay for it.

Figure 9. The gray wolf (Canis lupis) is back in Oregon big time and continues its reoccupation of its native ranges. Source: George Wuerthner (first appeared in Oregon Wild: Endangered Forest Wilderness [Timber Press 2004]).

All Money Is Tainted: T’ain’t Enough of It

So said a conservation colleague back in the day, when her specialties were raising both money and hell (that is, politics).

For the bill to pass into law, it is quite possible that Republican senators will get their way on earmarking good conservation with bad fossil fuel revenues—as is the case with the recently reauthorized Land and Water Conservation Fund, which comes from Outer Continental Shelf fossil fuel revenues, mainly from the Gulf of Mexico.

Figure 10. The Malone jumping slug (Hemphillia malonei) is only found in older forests. Source: William Leonard (first appeared in Oregon Wild: Endangered Forest Wilderness [Timber Press 2004]).

While tying nongame wildlife monies to the dead-weight anchor of fossil fuels is not an ideal solution, it should not be a deal killer. Nongame need the help now. The fossil fuel revenue coming in now comes from existing—not new—leases, and new leases are highly problematic in that President Biden campaigned on a promise to end them. If Senate Republicans prevail, all it will mean is that rather than $1.4 billion annually of existing federal fossil fuel revenues going into the Treasury General Fund and then out to the states for nongame wildlife, the same money will simply bypass the General Fund ledger and go straight out to the states for nongame wildlife.

Figure 11. The pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) requires mature and old-growth trees for nesting. Source: Evelyn Bull (first appeared in Oregon Wild: Endangered Forest Wilderness [Timber Press 2004]).

The fossil fuel industry loves the Senate approach because it’s a tax they’re already paying that will be earmarked for a popular program. In their dreams, this will make the citizenry more willing to overlook their sins against our climate.

Right now, tons of bucks from federal offshore (and onshore) oil and gas exploitation) are going unearmarked into the federal treasury, far more than $1.4 billion annually. So what if less goes into the General Fund? At some point, federal fossil fuel revenues will decrease enough to pinch

• the Land and Water Conservation Fund ($900 million/year),

• the National Historic Preservation Fund ($150 million/year), and

• the (prospective) Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Fund ($1,400 million/year).

Currently, there is a special draw of $1,900 million/year for the National Parks and Public Lands Legacy Restoration Fund, but it’s to fund a backlog of maintenance and replacement and will end after 2025.

Down the road, and for the sake of the climate we hope soon, there won’t be enough federal fossil fuel revenues to cover the three good-purpose funds. Conservationists can deal with the problem then. We must not let the ideal get in the way of the good-enough-for-now.

Figure 12. The white-headed woodpecker (Picoides albolarvatus) has a strong affinity for old-growth ponderosa pine. Source: Evelyn Bull (first appeared in Oregon Wild: Endangered Forest Wilderness [Timber Press 2004]).

A Federal Excise Tax on Outdoor Recreation Equipment?

There is fiscal and policy elegance to paying for “game” animal management and conservation by taxing the implements of their take. Hunters and anglers have power in the wildlife management debates by asserting that they are taxed to pay for it, while other wildlife constituencies are not. While there is some truth to the argument, the excise tax on handguns and their ammo that was collected from the COVID-driven sales to 5 million new handgun owners in 2020 is going to be spent on hunter education, when it might better be spent on gun-safety education.

More than a decade ago, there was a push in Congress to impose a federal excise tax on outdoor recreation equipment, such as coolers, hiking boots, binoculars, tents, stoves, and backpacks. The effort died for three reasons:

1. It would have been a new tax in an era of no-new-taxes.

2. Conservatives in Congress were smart enough to understand that a dedicated source of tax revenues going to activities and actions they didn’t like was not something they wanted.

3. Liberals in Congress were not smart enough to understand that a dedicated source of tax revenues going to activities and actions they like should be something they wanted.

An excise tax (collected at the factory and therefore buried in the price, not collected at checkout) would not be noticed—as is true in the case of guns and ammo and rods and tackle. (I cannot think of a less price-sensitive shopper than an REI member spending their annual dividend and topping it off using an REI credit card with the additional store credit kickback [been there, done that].)

A federal excise tax on outdoor recreation equipment is a very rational and fair way to wean the existing Land and Water Conservation Fund and the prospective Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Fund off federal fossil fuel revenues.

Rah-rah for RAWA!

Figure 13. In Oregon the Mardon skipper (Polites mardon) is found in and about the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument. It should be protected by the Endangered Species Act, but it is not. Source: Tom Kogut, Forest Service.

The Proposed Extinction Prevention Act

RAWA isn’t the only game in town. Congress is also considering other nongame conservation bills. Several categories of threatened and endangered species do not get enough respect, so Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Representative Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ-3rd) are trying to do something about it. Their Extinction Prevention Act (S.1728 and H.R.3396, 117th) would establish dedicated funds for North American butterflies, Pacific Islands plants, freshwater mussels, and Southwest desert fish. Alas, these species are not as charismatic as they are imperiled. As Grijalva notes:

North American butterflies are one of the fastest declining groups of all endangered species. Of the 39 listed species of butterflies, not a single one is known to be improving.

There are nearly 400 endangered and threatened plant species in Hawaii and the Pacific Islands, representing about 22 percent of all listed species. In Hawaii, more than 200 plant species have fewer than 50 wild individuals remaining.

Freshwater mussels are the most imperiled animal group in the country. Seventy percent of U.S. species are at risk of extinction; 38 species have already been lost.

Southwest desert fish are all in decline due to droughts and water scarcity. Many have experienced significant population and habitat reductions, and 42 species are listed as endangered or threatened.

The bill authorizes $5 million per each fund for six years. While authorization of a government program is not funding of that government program, I’m heartened that Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR), who chairs the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee on Appropriations, is an original cosponsor of the Senate bill.

Representatives Peter DeFazio (D-OR-4th) and Earl Blumenauer (D-OR-3rd) were cosponsors of the version of the bill introduced into the 116th Congress. Might they join again? Representative Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR-1st)?

Figure 14. California surf mussels (Mytilus californianus) are found along intertidal Oregon. Not considered a species of concern now, but the ocean is acidifying and warming due to the absorption of carbon dioxide. Source: Sharon Mollerus, Wikipedia Commons.