Hunters and Anglers Still Pay for Wildlife Conservation—Even as Their Numbers Shrink

In 2011, Oregon tried something bold. Lawmakers proposed a five-cent tax on every pound of birdseed sold, with the goal of supporting wildlife conservation. It had wide support—including backing from the governor and birdwatching groups. Yet, legislative attempts in 2009, 2011, and again in 2015 failed to pass, each time derailed by fierce resistance by those opposed to any new tax on anything. Efforts to create a birdseed tax have since faded, mirroring similar struggles around the nation.

Oregon isn’t unique. Across the U.S., while more and more people embrace birdwatching, wildlife photography, and other non-consumptive enjoyment of nature, proposals for equitably sharing the cost of wildlife management have consistently failed. Outdoor enthusiasts, despite their deep love for wildlife, overwhelmingly oppose paying anything extra—whether via a birdseed tax, a special conservation license plate, a “backpack tax” on outdoor products like boots and binoculars or even voluntary donation programs, which have also fizzled in many states.

This reluctance is a key reason why America’s wildlife funding system is out of balance. Bird lovers alone spend around $3 billion annually on seed. If taxed at the same 11 percent rate hunters pay on firearms and ammunition, birders would contribute some $330 million each year for conservation—enough to transform funding for hundreds of species and their habitat. Yet, as of 2025, no state has enacted such a tax. As former Oregon lawmaker and lobbyist for The Wildlife Society, Stephen Kafoury, put it: “There’s no real path forward. They’ve got a real uphill battle.”

Hunters and Anglers Still Carry the Load

Contrast this with the Pittman-Robertson Act, which, since 1937, has taxed firearms, ammo, and archery gear to the tune of over $1 billion annually, funneled directly to wildlife management. Federal money and nearly all state wildlife agency budgets still lean overwhelmingly on hunters and anglers, a group that has been shrinking for years. The most recent U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Survey (2022) puts hunting participation at just six percent of adults, compared to nearly 50 percent a century ago. As hunter numbers fall, funding for the public trust of wildlife shrinks, too.

Meanwhile, the number of wildlife watchers and other non-hunting recreationists continues to explode. The 2022 USFWS survey recorded 148.3 million wildlife watchers who spent $250 billion—far eclipsing the contributions of hunters and anglers. Yet, almost none of that spending benefits wildlife management.

Why Has Reform Failed?

Resistance to paying for conservation—even a nickel per pound of birdseed—remains high. The outdoor industry (manufacturers of backpacks, mountain bikes, tents, sleeping bags) pays no excise taxes similar to Pittman-Robertson or Dingell-Johnson (the fishing equivalent), which are earmarked specifically to conservation. Even though the Outdoor Industry Association (OIA) recently cited data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, indicating that outdoor recreation generated $1.2 trillion in gross economic output in 2023, which accounts for about 2.3% of the U.S. GDP, they have consistently opposed any sort of excise tax.

Here’s a “Where We Stand” statement from the OIA website. “Some argue that the outdoor industry is not paying a fair share of the investment needed for our land and water. They have proposed an industry-specific tax on outdoor products as a viable alternative to holding Washington or state legislatures accountable for adequate funding.  We disagree with that argument and oppose an excise tax on outdoor products.” 

Lobbyists for manufacturers and outdoor retailers fight any new gear tax, arguing their products are already costly and their industry pays heavily through tariffs. Even efforts to add small fees to vehicle registration or create conservation lottery tickets meet stiff opposition in many states.
States are left to repeatedly raise fees on the shrinking group of license buyers. Take Washington State, which passed a 38 percent increase in hunting and license fees, effective in 2025. Other states, like Utah, have followed suit by raising the rates for non-resident hunters. 

States are left to repeatedly raise fees on the shrinking group of license buyers. Take Washington State, which passed a 38 percent increase in hunting and license fees, effective in 2025. Other states, like Utah, have followed suit by raising the rates for non-resident hunters. 

This chart displays the sum of nation-wide dedicated revenue in FY 2019 by source, as reported by all 50 Association of Fish and Wildlife Agency members. Click here to read the rest of the report, which is courtesy of Charlie Booher and Joshua Millspaugh. 

Silver Linings 

A few states have succeeded with creative funding solutions. Missouri’s 1/8-percent sales tax, enacted four decades ago, still generates nearly $100 million per year for wildlife. That means a penny for every $8 spent on taxable goods goes to conservation efforts in the state. Arkansas and Florida use versions of this approach. In 2023, Colorado made headlines with its Keep Colorado Wild Pass. This optional program (added to vehicle registrations) raised $39.7 million in its first year for state parks, search and rescue, and conservation efforts.

Stuck in legislative limbo since 2021 is the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act, which would have allocated $1.3 billion annually for non-game wildlife species, but as of September 2025, Congress has yet to advance a substantive proposal to fund this important work. For its part, the Boone and Crockett Club has engaged the House and Senate leadership to help advance durable funding for nongame conservation. 

Another stalled funding bill is the Endangered Species Recovery Act (ERSA), which was introduced in 2006. ERSA would improve species recovery efforts, especially on private lands where over 80 percent of endangered species live. It introduces new policies and strong tax incentives to motivate private landowners to voluntarily engage in conservation practices that aid species recovery, including conservation easements and habitat management plans. Additionally, the act seeks to resolve conflicts arising from the ESA’s restrictions by making wildlife conservation economically attractive to landowners, reducing litigation, and fostering cooperation. However, despite passing the Senate, the tax incentives were weakened in the House. 

In the Spring 2023 issue of Fair Chase magazine, James Cummins, then-President of the Boone and Crockett Club, wrote about the benefits of private landowner incentives. He wrote, in part, “North American conservation is nothing shy of a miracle.  The Club has helped conceptualize and develop innovative tools and resources to help farmers and landowners with conservation while producing quality wood for homes and healthy food at affordable prices.” Addressing the most pragmatic concerns of today, Cummins wrote, “Conservation efforts cannot simply seek to preserve our environment but must consider the needs of the people and communities that live and work here. We must have conservation solutions that make economic sense to sustain our environment and way of life.” And that is why the Club and its members continue to reach across the aisle to engage lawmakers, landowners, and public agencies to address the needs of our wildlife today. 

Even as our numbers decline, hunters and anglers continue to support the lion’s share of conservation through license fees and excise taxes. We hope that lawmakers will work to differentiate and diversify funding sources for wildlife conservation efforts, as well as continue to collaborate with state and federal agencies to improve the efficient delivery of conservation benefits that benefit both people and wildlife. 

PJ DelHomme writes and edits content in western Montana. He runs Crazy Canyon Media and Crazy Canyon Journal. 

Since 1934, the Duck Stamp has raised more than $1.1 billion to protect over 6 million acres of wetlands habitat on national wildlife refuges.

Pittman-Robertson Act of 1937

Earmarked revenues from an existing 11 percent excise tax on firearms ammunition to distribute to individual states for habitat acquisition, wildlife management, and research. Today, the P-R Act includes an 11 percent tax on archery equipment and a 10 percent tax on handguns and ammunition. Since 1937, PR has generated at least $13 billion for wildlife restoration and projects

Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act

Very similar to the P-R Act, the D-J Act placed a tax on fishing gear. The money from which goes to fund fisheries management, research, and restoration efforts.

$1 Billion
(that’s billion with a ‘b’) 

In 2019, hunters, anglers, and shooters generated nearly $1 billion in excise taxes alone. To see how much of that money was allocated to your state, click here for more info. 

Consider reading this report from the Blue Ribbon Panel on Sustaining Diverse Fish and Wildlife Resources.

Sustaining and Connecting People to Fish and Wildlife