Urban and Community Fisheries Programs: Development, Management, and Evaluation

Paying the Bills: Funding Urban and Community Fishing

Gene Gilliland

doi: https://doi.org/10.47886/9781934874042.ch1

Abstract.—Funding for urban and community fishing programs (UCF) has changed markedly in the last 30 years. Early projects relied primarily on corporate donations and legislative appropriations. In 2006, state or provincial fishing license dollars and Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration (SFR) funds supported the vast majority of projects and programs. Fifty-four of 62 agencies (87%) responded to an e-mail and telephone survey. Of those responding, 43 agencies (80%) relied on a combination of license dollars and SFR funds for all or part of their UCF activities. Arkansas and Missouri use revenue received from special sales taxes earmarked for conservation programs. Arizona relies on a special urban fishing license to make its program self-sufficient. Three states reported using annual legislative appropriations for management assistance, while three others request occasional special appropriations. Twelve programs are funded in part through renewable grants from state or federal agencies. Nine agencies require local communities to pay a portion of program costs as cash per-acre or flat fees. Four states allow municipalities to use in-kind contributions as match for SFR funds. Four states utilize a percentage of the proceeds from state-run lotteries or Indian gaming to finance urban fishing. Corporate or private donations are widely used, but make up a significant portion of program revenue by only three agencies. State and provincial resource agency budgets are shrinking with declining license sales. Agencies that find diverse but stable sources of funding will be able to put together workable coalitions to develop or expand UCF programs.