The Conservation Column

With the “1% for Wildlife” bill, Oregon has a real chance to meaningfully fund conservation. HB 4134 calls for raising the state’s hotel and lodging taxes by 1.25% in order to fund a wide range of wildlife and habitat conservation programs, from wildlife crossings to wildfire resilience. The bill will be taken up by the Oregon legislature when the new session opens on February 2. Please consider contacting your state legislators and voicing your support for this significant legislation. Learn more at 1PERCENT4WILDLIFE.ORG

Below are excerpts from an excellent article about the legislation that recently appeared in High Country News, followed by some information from the bill’s advocates.

Would you pay 1% more for wildlife?
By Amal Ahmed

When Oregon’s short legislative session convenes in early February, conservation advocates will once again try to convince lawmakers to pass a major funding bill that could provide nearly $30 million annually to protect the state’s biodiversity.
The 1% for Wildlife bill, sponsored by state Reps. Ken Helm, D-Beaverton, and Mark Owens, R-Crane, would increase the state’s current hotel and lodging taxes by 1.25%, creating a new revenue stream for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to support long-neglected habitat conservation programs. Last session, the bill passed the House, but two Republicans blocked it in the Senate.
Oregon’s federally required State Wildlife Action Plan identifies species at risk of extinction or decline due to habitat loss, climate change and other threats. In 2025, as the plan was being updated, dozens of species were added, including the Crater Lake newt, the California condor and the North American porcupine, bring-ing the total to more than 300.
“It’s a blueprint of the most imperiled species and habitats in the state,” said Sristi Kamal, deputy director of the Western Environmental Law Center, which supports the bill. “But a plan is only as good as the funding to implement it.”
Though Oregon’s Fish and Wildlife Department receives some state funding, most of its budget comes from state hunting and fishing licenses and federal taxes on guns and ammunition via the Pittman-Robertson Act of 1937. The majority of Oregon’s federal funds, about $20 million annually, are earmarked for big game species and sport fish. Other federal grants primarily support species already protected by the Endangered Species Act. That means that Fish and Wildlife, like most state wildlife agencies, has little money to prevent species from becoming endangered in the first place. Between 2023 and 2025, it spent just 2% of its budget on wildlife conservation programs.
Increasing hotel and lodging taxes would leverage the state’s robust eco-tourism industry, which annually at-tracts tens of thousands of out-of-state and international visitors. If the bill passes, Oregon’s statewide hotel tax rate would be 2.5% — the third-lowest rate in the U.S. and less than half of what Washington, Montana and Idaho charge. The 1% for Wildlife bill could provide a new model for state-level conservation funding, said Mark Humpert, director of conservation initiatives at the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, which advocates for state agencies at the federal level.
“Ninety-five to 99% of species that states are responsible for have no dedicated funding from the federal government. We sometimes joke that state agencies have to offer bake sales to fund this work,” Humpert said. Some sell specialty license plates; others use a small percentage of sales taxes on outdoor equipment. The “gold standard,” Humpert said, is Missouri, where a state constitutional amendment dedicates one-eighth of 1% of its sales tax to its Department of Conservation.
According to a 2016 study by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and its partners, fully implement-ing every State Wildlife Action Plan in the country would cost around $1 billion annually. But for years, Congress has failed to pass the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act, a bipartisan bill that would bolster states’ conservation funding. Now, as the Trump administration slashes federal conservation and climate funding, advocates say that the 1% for Wildlife bill could provide the stable funding needed to implement Oregon’s wildlife action plan. “The bill is a very innovative concept, and there are probably 49 other states that are watching closely to see if it’s successful,” Humpert said.
Last year, two Republican senators, Daniel Bonham and Cedric Hayden, killed the bill by refusing to allow the final committee vote that would bring it to the governor’s desk. Now, conservation advocates from across the political spectrum are determined to pass it.
“You won’t always see all these logos on the same page,” says Amy Patrick, policy director at the Oregon Hunters Association, which is working with conservation groups like Oregon Wild to shape the bill. “The goal of this funding is to keep common species common, and that’s something sportsmen can get behind. There’s a real sense that this is an investment that will benefit all of our wildlife and habitats.”

Why Oregonians Support HB 4134

Investment into Oregon’s Natural Legacy: It will conserve and restore Oregon’s 300+ vulnerable species and their habitats that support Oregonians livelihoods, quality of life and recreation needs.

Diverse Stakeholder Support: It will solve a long-standing funding gap for wildlife and habitats, and is widely supported by a di-verse group of stakeholders with a presence in all parts of Oregon.

Investment in Wildfire Risk Reduction and Workforce Development: It includes stable funding for the Oregon Conservation Corps to keep Oregon’s communities safe from wildfire and help build Oregon’s workforce.

Reinvestment in Oregon’s Tourism: Outdoor recreation is a $8 billion industry in Oregon and makes up 2.6% of the state’s GDP. This concept would reinvest in our natural resources, a major draw for out-of-state tourists, which helps attract more visitors (“if you build it, they will come”).

Not a Cost-of-Living Increase: The majority (65%) of those who pay the tax are visitors from other states and countries.
Bipartisan Support: The concept enjoys bipartisan support in both chambers due to its effort to sustainably fund a range of important programs.

Establish Stable Funding: It would make these programs more resilient in an uncertain fund-ing environment.