As Oregon’s short legislative session convenes in early February, conservation advocates are making a renewed, urgent push to secure passage of a pivotal funding bill designed to safeguard the state’s rich, yet increasingly imperiled, biodiversity. The proposed legislation, dubbed the "1% for Wildlife" bill, aims to generate approximately $30 million annually for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) through a modest increase in the state’s hotel and lodging taxes. This dedicated revenue stream is critical for bolstering long-neglected habitat conservation programs, which are vital for preventing the decline and extinction of numerous species across the state.

Sponsored by state Representatives Ken Helm (D-Beaverton) and Mark Owens (R-Crane), the bill proposes to increase the existing state hotel and lodging taxes by 1.25 percentage points. This seemingly small adjustment is projected to unlock significant financial resources, transforming how Oregon approaches wildlife management. The initiative faced a crucial setback in the previous legislative session, successfully navigating the House only to be stalled and ultimately blocked in the Senate by the opposition of two Republican senators. Their resistance underscores the ongoing political challenges inherent in securing stable, dedicated funding for environmental initiatives, even those with broad ecological and economic benefits.

The urgency of this legislative effort is underscored by Oregon’s federally mandated State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP), a comprehensive blueprint identifying species at heightened risk due to pervasive threats such as habitat loss, climate change, and various human-induced pressures. The most recent update to the SWAP in 2025 painted a sobering picture, adding dozens of species to an already extensive list, bringing the total to over 300. Among these newly identified species are the Crater Lake newt, a unique amphibian endemic to Oregon, the iconic California condor, and the North American porcupine, all facing distinct pressures that threaten their long-term survival. "It’s a blueprint of the most imperiled species and habitats in the state," remarked Sristi Kamal, deputy director of the Western Environmental Law Center, a staunch supporter of the bill. "But a plan is only as good as the funding to implement it." This sentiment highlights a critical paradox: while scientific understanding of ecological threats is growing, the financial capacity to act often lags far behind.

The current financial architecture supporting Oregon’s ODFW reveals a systemic challenge common to many state wildlife agencies across the United States. While the department receives some direct state appropriations, the bulk of its operational budget historically derives from sales of state hunting and fishing licenses, supplemented by federal excise taxes on guns and ammunition collected under the Pittman-Robertson Act of 1937. This landmark federal legislation, originally enacted to fund wildlife restoration through taxes on sporting goods, has been instrumental in conserving game species and their habitats for nearly a century. However, its scope is inherently limited. The majority of Oregon’s annual federal funds, approximately $20 million, are specifically earmarked for the management of big game species and sport fish, reflecting the act’s original intent. Other federal grants primarily target species already afforded protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), meaning they are often in critical condition and require intensive, reactive intervention. This leaves the ODFW, like its counterparts nationwide, with severely limited funds for proactive conservation efforts—those crucial, preventative measures designed to keep common species common and avert the costly, often last-ditch efforts required once a species becomes endangered. Between 2023 and 2025, a mere 2% of ODFW’s total budget was allocated to broader wildlife conservation programs, a stark indicator of the funding disparity.

The proposed 1% for Wildlife bill seeks to rectify this imbalance by tapping into a burgeoning economic sector: eco-tourism. Oregon’s stunning natural landscapes, from its rugged coastline and ancient forests to its high desert and volcanic peaks, annually attract tens of thousands of out-of-state and international visitors. This robust eco-tourism industry generates substantial revenue for the state, yet historically, a disproportionately small share has been reinvested directly into the natural assets that draw these visitors. By increasing hotel and lodging taxes, the bill proposes a direct link between the economic benefits derived from Oregon’s natural beauty and the funding required to preserve it.

Even with the proposed 1.25% increase, Oregon’s statewide hotel tax rate would still stand at a competitive 2.5%. This rate would remain the third-lowest in the U.S., less than half of what neighboring states like Washington, Montana, and Idaho currently charge. This comparative analysis strengthens the argument that the proposed tax increase is modest and unlikely to significantly deter tourism, especially given the state’s unique appeal. The initiative has garnered national attention, with conservation leaders like Mark Humpert, director of conservation initiatives at the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, suggesting that the 1% for Wildlife bill could establish a groundbreaking new model for state-level conservation funding. "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 noted, underscoring the severe chronic underfunding plaguing state wildlife efforts nationwide.

Indeed, states have historically resorted to various creative, albeit often insufficient, mechanisms to fund conservation, from selling specialty license plates featuring local wildlife to allocating a small percentage of sales taxes on outdoor equipment. Missouri stands out as the "gold standard" in state conservation funding, where a state constitutional amendment dedicates one-eighth of 1% of its sales tax to its Department of Conservation, providing a stable, substantial revenue stream. The national scale of the problem is immense; a 2016 study by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies estimated that fully implementing every State Wildlife Action Plan across the country would necessitate approximately $1 billion annually. For years, the federal government has struggled to pass the bipartisan Recovering America’s Wildlife Act (RAWA), a monumental piece of legislation that would significantly bolster state conservation funding. With federal conservation and climate funding facing potential reductions, the Oregon bill represents a critical state-level innovation, offering a potential lifeline for proactive wildlife management. "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 added, highlighting its potential ripple effect across the nation.

The tangible benefits of such funding are evident across Oregon’s diverse ecosystems. In the rugged high-desert region of northeast Oregon, Jamie Dawson, conservation director for the Greater Hells Canyon Council, envisions the funds supporting crucial wildlife crossings on Highway 82. This section of the Blue Mountains serves as an absolutely critical habitat connectivity corridor, recognized for its continental importance. It is a vital migration route for deer, elk, and other large mammal species moving between the Rocky Mountains and the Cascades Range in western Oregon and Washington. However, this route is also a notorious wildlife collision hotspot, with hundreds of animals tragically killed by vehicles annually, posing risks to both wildlife and human safety. Elsewhere, the funding could enable essential studies of migratory bird habitats, such as vulnerable eelgrass estuaries and wetlands, according to Joe Liebezeit, conservation director for the Bird Alliance of Oregon. These habitats are critical stopovers for countless species during their arduous migrations. A concerning trend emerged in spring 2025, when local birdwatchers and radar data indicated that bird migration through the state was halved, though the underlying reasons remain unclear, underscoring the urgent need for robust ecological research and habitat protection.

The existing reliance on an often unpredictable state general fund means ODFW’s budget fluctuates biennially, preventing the agency from implementing long-term, strategic solutions for species conservation. Davia Palmeri, ODFW’s federal policy director, explained the challenge: "We do monitoring for these species when we can—when there’s a grant or short-term funding—to get pulses on species like reptiles or amphibians." This reactive, piecemeal approach makes it exceedingly difficult to conduct the sustained research, habitat restoration, and management necessary to address complex, long-term environmental threats.

The push for stable state conservation funding is not new in Oregon; advocates have championed various proposals for over a decade. "At one point, there was a proposal to put a tax on birdseed," recounted Danielle Moser, wildlife program manager at Oregon Wild. "There was the idea of a gear tax—things you buy at REI." However, none of these past ideas gained sufficient traction or were projected to raise adequate funds, ultimately fizzling out. The 1% for Wildlife bill represents the most viable and comprehensive solution proposed to date.

The current iteration of the bill has forged an unusual, yet powerful, bipartisan coalition. "You won’t always see all these logos on the same page," stated Amy Patrick, policy director at the Oregon Hunters Association, referring to the diverse groups now collaborating, including conservation organizations like Oregon Wild. "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." This broad-based support, bridging traditional divides between outdoor enthusiasts and environmental groups, highlights a shared recognition of the urgent need to protect Oregon’s natural heritage for future generations.

Despite this robust support, the bill faces significant opposition, primarily from segments of the tourism and hospitality industry. Travel Portland, an independent nonprofit closely associated with the state’s tourism promotion efforts, has voiced concerns that the additional tax could deter large conferences and events, potentially impacting the city’s convention business. (While Travel Oregon, the state’s official tourism agency, later clarified it does not take positions on bills, the sentiment from industry stakeholders remains strong.) The Oregon Restaurant and Lodging Association (ORLA) has been particularly vocal in its opposition, with President Jason Brandt describing the bill as a "Pandora’s box" that could open the door to an endless series of future tax increases. Brandt and other critics point out that while the bill’s original text proposed a 1% tax increase exclusively for ODFW, amendments have since added an additional 0.25% for conservation efforts by other state departments, including invasive species management at the Department of Agriculture and anti-poaching initiatives at the Department of Justice, fueling concerns about mission creep. The association’s political action committee has historically contributed significantly to legislators, including over $17,000 to Senator Daniel Bonham, one of the two Republicans who blocked the bill last session before his resignation in October for a federal appointment.

Advocates for the bill, including Sristi Kamal, find the industry’s opposition ironic, arguing that the very revenue generated by the new tax would be reinvested into the state’s most popular attractions—its natural landscapes. Surveys conducted by Travel Oregon consistently show that scenic beauty is the top draw for approximately 90% of out-of-state visitors. "A lot of people come to Portland for business, but then they go to our beaches, or the mountains," Kamal observed. "The tourism industry is standing on the back of these natural resources. If you don’t invest in it, the pressures on these resources will make that legacy crumble." This perspective underscores a fundamental truth: the long-term economic viability of Oregon’s tourism sector is intrinsically linked to the health and vitality of its natural ecosystems. As the legislative session approaches, the outcome of the 1% for Wildlife bill will not only determine the future of countless species in Oregon but also serve as a critical test case for innovative state-led conservation funding initiatives across the nation.