44 



spending, but so have sporting goods and outdoor equipment manufactures, disiributors and 

 dealers. IhousandK of jobs have been created 



There is no doubt thnt witliout a "I'ittman-Rubunson" program the nation would have been 

 poorer in terms of knowledge, science, and the confidence that we can indeed change ihings 

 for the bencr. 



On August 9, 1950, Congress passed the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act, modeling 

 the legislation after the highly successful Federal Aid m Wildlife Restoration Act. The new 

 Act, was known as the Diagcll-Johjison Act, after its sponsors. Representative John Dingell, 

 Sr., of Michigan, and Senator Edwin Johnson of Colorado. Following enactment m 1984 of 

 substantial changes to the Act, tlie program began lo be called the "Wallop-Bieaux progiam" 

 al\er Senator Malcolm Wallop of Wyoming and Senator John Brcaiix of Louisiana, the 

 visionary sponsors of the new provisions. 



The Sport Fish Restoration program is ftinded by revenues collected from the manufacturers 

 of fishing rods, reels, creels, lures, flies ajid artificial baits, who pay an excise lax on these 

 items lo the U.S. Treasury, l^inds are also received from import duties on sport fishing 

 equipment, pleasure boats and yachts. One other source of revenue is an excise tax from the 

 sale of motorboat fuels. 



These excise taxes, collected directly from the exporter or nianufaeturcr, are paid lo the U.S. 

 Treasury and then transferred to the Fish and Wildlife Service for disirihuiion among the 

 States and territories. Each State's share is based 60 percent on tlie number of licensed 

 fishermen and 40 percent on the area of land and water No Stale may receive more than 5 

 percent or less than 1 percent of each year's total appiirtionmeni, Puerto Rico receives 1 

 percent, and the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, Northern Marianna Islands, and the 

 District of Columbia each receive one-third of 1 percent. 



For fiscal year 1996 the sum of $197 million was apportioned to the States and territories 

 •u.'ith Alaska, California and Texas receiving the maximum amounts (S9.8 million), and the 

 District of Columbia and the territories receiving the minimum amount ($657,123). 



Up to 75 percent of the cost of ever>' Sport Fish Restoration project is borne by Federal fbnds 

 and 25 percent by matching State funds. Though the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service assures 

 adherence lo the law, provides tcclinical assistance, sets standards for performance, and 

 monitors progress, each State selects, plans and performs the management work 



.So, under the Spori Fish Restoration program one state may choose to devote much of its 



Federal Aid money to improvement of aquatic habitats for certain warm water species of fish, 



while another may stress laud acquisition and construction of fishing areas for the public. 



Still another might emphasis Jong-rangc rishcries research using sopiiisiicau^d laboratory investigations 



'I'he Sport Fish Resturation Act program serves as the States' financial cushion witli which 



