Blog
Three Ways States Are Strengthening Their Wildlife Agencies in 2025
April 9, 2024
Overview
State fish and wildlife agencies face two intersecting challenges: conserving the vast array of fish, wildlife, and plants, while serving the interests of a diverse public. And with much of their funding traditionally tied to hunting and fishing licenses, which are steadily declining nationwide, wildlife agencies are seeking new ways to fund and fulfill their full range of responsibilities.
In 2025, states are considering numerous bills to strengthen wildlife agencies to better serve all wildlife and all people. Below, we explore the three primary policy levers being pursued to achieve this vision: diversifying agency funding, expanding agency authority, and updating agency governance structures.
Catch Up Quick: The Current Context of State Wildlife Agency Funding
At least 60%, and up to 100%, of funding for state wildlife agencies originates from activities tied to hunting and fishing, including (1) the sale of hunting and fishing licenses, and (2) federal funding from the Pittman-Robertson (1937) and Dingell Johnson (1950) (PRDJ) Acts.
The PRDJ Acts established excise taxes on firearms, ammunition, archery equipment, and fishing gear. The Wallop-Breaux Act (1984) added an excise tax on motorboat fuel. These taxes generate ~$1.3 billion annually, which is divided among all 50 state wildlife agencies. It’s important to note that Tribes are restricted from using PRDJ funds. Additional federal support comes from State Wildlife Grants and Tribal Wildlife Grants, which provide ~$70 million per year for states and territories, and only ~$6 million for all 574 federally recognized Tribes, to conserve species of greatest conservation need.
State wildlife agencies receive the rest of their funding from a variety of sources, including the state general fund, tax revenue, and voluntary donations. See NCEL’s resource library for an overview of state-based funding sources for state wildlife agencies.
Unless otherwise stated, the legislation listed below is currently being considered and has not yet been enacted into law.
Policy Lever One: Expanding and Diversifying State Wildlife Agency Funding Sources
With the increasing threats to wildlife from climate change, habitat fragmentation, and invasive species, as well as an increasingly diverse set of public values and interests toward wildlife conservation, states are investing in their state wildlife agencies to meet these challenges. The primary approaches taken by states to boost investments in wildlife agencies in 2025 include (1) general fund appropriations, (2) tax revenue, and (3) increasing hunting and fishing license fees.
General Fund Appropriations
Most state wildlife agencies receive very little funding from the state General Fund. Several states have proposed a greater allocation from the General Fund to diversify and expand wildlife agency funding. Hawaii, New Mexico, North Carolina, Kansas, and Washington are considering this type of legislation.
View 2025 Legislation
- Hawaii HB 913: Appropriates $550,000 from the state’s general revenues for several FTE positions in the Department of Land and Natural Resources to assist with invasive species management, noncommercial fishery management, environmental permitting, environmental review, and emergency response.
- New Mexico HB 2: Appropriates $9.5 million to the Department of Game and Fish over three years for capacity-building to conserve species of greatest conservation need.
- North Carolina S. 687: Appropriates $15 million from the General Fund for wildlife conservation initiatives, including chronic wasting disease monitoring, quail habitat restoration, and red wolf conservation.
- Kansas HB 2063: Appropriates $60 million annually from the state General Fund to a new State Conservation Fund, 25% of which will be allocated annually to a Wildlife Conservation Fund for biodiversity and habitat restoration.
- Washington SB 5167: Designates $13 million of the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s general fund appropriation for the protection, recovery, and restoration of biodiversity and threatened and endangered species.
Tax and Fee Revenue
Many states use tax revenue from a variety of sources, including retail sales, outdoor gear, real estate transfer, natural resource extraction, and cannabis to help fund their state wildlife agencies. Several states introduced measures in 2025 to create new or expanded tax-based funding sources, including Hawaii, Oregon, and Utah.
View 2025 Legislation
- Hawaii HB 504: Increases the transient accommodations tax and allocates funds to the Department of Land and Natural Resources to support the preservation of native forests, plants, animals, aquatic resources, coastal lands, and freshwater resources.
- Hawaii HB 1458: Introduces a $50 environmental stewardship fee for visitors to Hawaii’s natural areas, establishing a fund and commission to manage and allocate the revenue for resource protection and resilience projects.
- Oregon HB 3856: Increases the personal income tax with revenue deposited into the State Wildlife Fund and establishes a tax credit for individuals purchasing fishing and hunting permits.
- Utah HB 378 (Enacted, 2025): Increases the brine shrimp industry royalty and creates a new tax on uranium disposal, wind and solar electricity generation, and direct current transmission, to help fund the Species Protection Account.
Hunting and Fishing Licenses
Hunting and fishing license sales, as well as other fees, stamps, and surcharges on hunting and fishing, are an important source of revenue for state wildlife agencies. Many states (listed below) are seeking to increase these funding sources to keep pace with inflation and improve investment in wildlife conservation, while also ensuring affordability of hunting and fishing for in-state residents and underserved groups.
View 2025 Legislation
- Massachusetts, Mississippi, New York, and Virginia have introduced bills requiring reimbursement from the General Fund when the state wildlife agency offers free or reduced-cost hunting and fishing licenses.
- Kansas (Passed, 2025), Massachusetts, New York, Washington, and Virginia introduced bills to offer free or reduced-cost hunting and fish licenses, including for youth, senior citizens, and veterans.
- Colorado SB 25-49: Continues the Wildlife Habitat Stamp Program indefinitely, which requires the purchase of a habitat stamp before purchasing a hunting and fishing license.
- Maine LD 77: Establishes the Inland Fisheries Conservation and Enhancement Fund, financed by a $7 increase in inland fishing license fees, and increases the resident and nonresident combination hunting and fishing license fees.
- Mississippi SB 2281: Requires individuals 16 and older to obtain a conservation stamp for hunting, fishing, or trapping in Mississippi, with funds supporting wildlife conservation.
- Nevada SB 79: Empowers the Board of Wildlife Commissioners to set and adjust license, permit, and tag fees based on inflation.
- New Hampshire SB 159: Establishes a fee for individuals who take, transport, or possess marine species for distribution into a new account to support marine habitats.
- New Mexico SB 5 (Enacted, 2025): Increases hunting license fees to match inflation and provides the state wildlife agency with the authority to recommend future changes in fees.
Policy Lever Two: State Wildlife Agency Scope and Authority
Some state wildlife agencies lack the scope and authority to conserve all wildlife on behalf of all people. For example, some state wildlife agencies lack the authority to manage all species within state borders, particularly insects, such as pollinators. Moreover, while hunting and fishing management remain a key function of state wildlife agencies, many agencies are recognizing the need to expand their scope and programs to serve the broader non-hunting (96%) and non-fishing (83%) public.
Agency Outreach and Community Engagement
Some states – including Minnesota, New Mexico, and North Dakota – are working to enhance their state wildlife agencies’ ability to engage with the public. Public engagement opportunities include educational events and programs, wildlife watching opportunities, participatory science, and fostering career interest in wildlife conservation-related fields.
View 2025 Legislation
- Minnesota HF 1218: Appropriates $712,000 from the Natural Resources Trust Fund to the nongame wildlife program to engage needs-based schools, young adults, and communities underrepresented in natural resources through bird watching, conservation career pathway development, and community science programs.
- New Mexico HM 31: Establishes a “Citizen Science Day” and integrates citizen science practices into state agencies, particularly focusing on youth engagement and environmental data collection, building on the work of the Wild Friends program.
- North Dakota HB 1174 (Enacted, 2025): Authorizes the Game and Fish Department to establish community outreach programs that enhance public understanding of fisheries and wildlife management while fostering interest in careers related to these fields.
Agency Authority
Several states are expanding the authority of their state wildlife agency to conserve all wildlife species, adequately address threats such as invasive species, manage outdoor recreation, and assist with implementing federal land management regulations impacting wildlife. Colorado, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, Maine, Nevada, and New Mexico are considering this type of legislation.
View 2025 Legislation
- Colorado HB 1323: Clarifies that Colorado Parks and Wildlife is the primary entity responsible for outdoor recreation management and infrastructure planning in the state; requires the department to integrate outdoor recreation efforts with statewide conservation efforts and to develop a river recreation program.
- Hawaii SB 1017: Authorizes the Board of Land and Natural Resources to implement federal regulations related to public lands, minerals, water, and coasts of the state, and provides the BLNR with authority to set and collect fees and issue bonds.
- Maine LD 402: Transfers administration of the Natural Areas Program from the state agriculture agency to the wildlife agency to streamline natural area, endangered species, and invasive species management; establishes the Natural Areas Conservation Fund.
- Nevada AB 85: Expands the management authority of the Department of Wildlife to include non-pest invertebrate species identified in the State Wildlife Action Plan.
- New Mexico SB 5 (Enacted, 2025): Changes the name of the Department and Commission to include ‘Wildlife’ instead of ‘Game’ and expands the authority of the agency to manage all wildlife species residing in the state, including those that are not hunted or fished.
- Pennsylvania HB 441: Amends the Wild Resource Conservation Act to include wild native terrestrial invertebrates and requires the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources to investigate and regulate their protection.
Hunting Management
The regulation and management of hunting remains an important activity of state wildlife agencies. While only 4% of the public engages in hunting, around 84% of people approve of legal hunting for sustenance. Many members of Tribes also exercise their treaty hunting and fishing rights for both subsistence and cultural purposes. While sustenance hunting is widely supported, hunting for a challenge (41%) and trophy hunting (29%) receive less public support. In addition, many hunters, as well as nonhunters, are concerned about the negative impacts of lead ammunition on wildlife, the public, and environmental health. Some states are proposing measures to ensure hunting follows principles of “fair chase” and responsible restrictions on lead.
Fair Chase
Several states – including Montana, New York, and Utah – are seeking to update hunting regulations to ensure the sportsman-like and ethical pursuit of legally hunted animals (“fair chase“).
View 2025 Legislation
- Montana HB 202: Restricts the use of aircraft and drones for hunting. Similar bills restricting the use of wildlife location data and motion tracking devices by hunters have been introduced in Montana.
- New York S. 562: Enhances the prohibition on canned shoots at facilities that harbor non-native big game mammals, to prevent unethical hunting practices where individuals pay a fee to hunt animals under unfair conditions.
- Utah HB 153: Regulates the use of guides, outfitters, and spotters in wildlife hunting on public lands, establishing a fund for administration, and requiring annual registration with penalties for violations.
Lead Ammunition
While cheaper than non-lead options, lead ammunition can negatively impact wildlife that feed on animal remains left by hunters, as well as human health. California banned lead ammunition in 2013, several states now restrict its use in sensitive areas or for certain species, and the USFWS has also piloted a voluntary incentive program to reimburse hunters for non-lead alternatives. Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New York have introduced legislation to address lead ammunition.
View 2025 Legislation
- Massachusetts HD 783: Requires the use of non-lead ammunition for hunting, introduces penalties, mandates reporting on enforcement, and requires the director to inform hunters of these requirements and non-lead options.
- Minnesota HB 1218: Appropriates $563,000 from the Natural Resource Trust Fund to expand and assess hunter participation in monitoring scavenger use of deer gut piles, assess small mammal occurrence and disease exposure at offal sites, and study how messaging impacts hunters’ use of lead ammunition.
- New York A. 1089: Prohibits the use of lead ammunition in state-owned wildlife management areas, forests, and parks, as well as areas contributing surface water to New York City water supply.
Policy Lever Three: State Wildlife Governance
Most state wildlife commissions and boards, which are typically appointed by the governor and often confirmed by the legislature, are tasked with making regulatory decisions related to hunting and fishing and other decisions impacting all wildlife and all people. Despite this broad mandate, many commissions and boards do not reflect all residents of their state.
Commissioner Qualifications and Appointment Processes
Some states are changing the appointment process and qualifications for commissioners to improve wildlife governance and ensure balanced political, geographic, recreational, and scientific backgrounds, expertise, and interests. Florida, Missouri, and New Mexico are among the states pursuing this type of legislation.
View 2025 Legislation
- Florida HJR 1625: Increases the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission from seven to nine members, requiring the Department of Agriculture to appoint two members, including a farmer or rancher, the Department of Environmental Protection to appoint two members, including a hunter or angler and a conservationist affiliated with a nonprofit organization, and the Department of Air and Water Pollution Control to appoint a scientist with a doctoral degree in relevant environmental fields. The governor will appoint four members, including local officials from urban and rural counties and two scientists with expertise in forestry and agriculture.
- Missouri HJR 43: Provides for a restructuring of the Conservation Commission to require that no more than half of the members belong to the same political party and that each resides in different congressional districts.
- New Mexico SB 5 (Enacted, 2025): Reforms the State Game Commission to consist of three at large members, one farmer or rancher, one individual from an organization focused on nongame wildlife conservation, an individual who has held a hunting and fishing license in the previous four years, and a scientist with at least a master’s degree in wildlife biology or a comparable field. Establishes a wildlife commission nominating committee consisting of the majority and minority party leaders of the House and Senate. Requires the governor to not dismiss any commissioner without cause.
Transparency and Accountability
Public involvement in wildlife decision-making processes is essential for increasing support for state wildlife agencies to address the intensifying challenges they face. States including New Hampshire and Oregon are seeking to improve transparency and citizen involvement in wildlife governance.
View 2025 Legislation
- New Hampshire SB 32: Concerning the Fish and Game Commission, allows public hearing notices to be posted digitally on newspaper websites to enhance accessibility and modernize communication methods.
- Oregon SB 1153: Requires the Water Resources Department to evaluate the impact of water right transfers on in-stream habitats for sensitive, threatened, or endangered aquatic species, and requires the Department to allow Tribal review of certain water right transfer applications, providing Tribes the opportunity to assess potential impacts on Tribal water rights, cultural resources, and environmental conditions.
Strengthening Tribal Wildlife Governance
Tribes are sovereigns that hold the right and authority to manage fish and wildlife on Tribal land. These rights are upheld through treaties, the nation-to-nation relationships between Tribes and the US, and the federal trust relationship. Some states – including Connecticut, Massachusetts, and North Carolina – are introducing measures to support Tribal sovereignty in wildlife governance.
View 2025 Legislation
- Connecticut HB 5388: Establishes a commission to manage Tribal hunting and fishing rights, grants regulatory authority to certain Tribes, exempts Tribal members from state fees, and ensures protection from legal actions.
- Massachusetts S. 2279: Requires the executive office of energy and environmental affairs to establish an advisory council on offshore wind and wildlife habitat management comprised of experts and stakeholders in wildlife monitoring and protection, representation from both federally recognized Tribes in the commonwealth, and relevant state and federal agencies.
- North Carolina H 103: Exempts members of recognized Tribes in North Carolina from hunting, trapping, and fishing license requirements.
More Resources
- NCEL Fact Sheets: State Wildlife Agency Funding, Authority, and Governance.
- Toolkit: Strengthening State Wildlife Agencies for Wildlife Conservation Leaders (National Wildlife Federation)
- Webinar Series: Contemporary Issues Facing State Wildlife Agencies (Society for Conservation Biology North America)
- Roadmap: Fish and Wildlife Relevancy Roadmap (Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies)