PNNL

Abstract

State wildlife management agencies in the United States have depended on a “user-pay” 12 funding model for conservation efforts that relies on revenue from hunting license sales and a federal 13 excise tax on firearms, ammunition, and archery equipment. Declines in hunting participation, 14 however, jeopardize sustainability of the current funding model. Ensuring support among 15 stakeholders for wildlife management and conservation may require expanding sources of funding 16 and incorporating the perspectives and values of a diversifying constituency into decision making 17 processes. We used a web-based survey of wildlife-associated recreationists in Michigan, USA to 18 evaluate support for a range of conservation funding policies. Respondents self-identified primarily 19 as hunters (n=2558) or wildlife watchers (n=942). We used binary logistic regression to evaluate 20 support for four conservation funding policy options: state sales tax, lottery proceeds, extractive 21 industry revenue, and a user-based tax on outdoor gear (i.e., “backpack tax”). Determinants of 22 support varied by type of policy and stakeholder characteristics. We found no statistically significant 23 differences between hunters and wildlife watchers in their support for conservation funding policies 24 when accounting for other variables such as wildlife value orientations, engagement in stewardship 25 behaviors, age, and gender. The industry-based policy achieved the greatest level of approval, while 26 the backpack tax had the lowest. Respondents were mixed in their support of the sales tax and lottery 27 proceeds options. Cluster analysis revealed three homogenous groups related to conservation funding 28 policies: ‘strong support,' 'mixed/opposed,' and 'anti-backpack tax.' Clusters differed in their support 29 for conservation funding policies and on psychological and demographic variables. The ‘strong 30 support’ and ‘anti-backpack tax’ groups differed in their levels of stewardship engagement, 31 knowledge of conservation funding mechanisms, and support for the backpack tax option. The 32 ‘mixed-opposed’ group tended to be older, less educated, and less likely to be a member of a 33 conservation organization. Results suggest support for conservation funding differs by policy type 34 and social and psychological characteristics of stakeholders. Based on differences in policy support 35 revealed in this study, we suggest a multi-tiered approach to funding conservation and building on 36 support among wildlife stakeholders to mitigate the looming funding crisis for state wildlife agencies.