How is NDoW funded?

In 2002, NDoW received $27.5 million from the Question 1 Bond, and this bond is paid back from Nevada’s general fund.  The Q.1 fund has subsidized NDoW operations every year since 2003. (source: NDOW web page & report to Senate subcommittee, 2012).

Between 2006 & 2013 NDoW received $12.7 million from Nevada’s General and Tourism funds, or about 7.7% of the total operating budget. NDoW receives funding from 43 revenue sources, most of them not separately reported. (source: NDoW report to the Senate Finance, Assembly Ways & Means Natural Resource Joint Subcommittee, Feb. 2011).

FY2012-13 budget: 13% of NDoW’s revenue came from boating licenses and fees, 29.1% from hunting & fishing licenses and fees, 5.9% from the Nevada general fund and unclassified “other” sources, 42% came from federal tax transfers (about 14% of which comes from hunting and fishing, according to some estimates). (source: NDoW FY2012-2013 biennial budget).

FY2014-15 budget: NDoW’s operation budget will increase by a whooping 21.8% over fiscal 2012.   The total revenue includes 28.2% from Ruby Pipeline LLC (direct payment for offsets & mitigations), 4.2% comes from the 2002 Question 1 bond fund, 29% from hunting & fishing (licenses, tags and stamps), 13% from boating (licenses, inspection fees), and the balance from a combination of federal & state tax revenue. (source: NDOW FY2014-2015 budget).

Closing note: NDoW changes their reporting methods nearly every year, in part because their internal tracking system is very limited (that according to their director) and in part to “sell” their ever-increasing budget to the legislature.  One example: in prior years they reported license, tag and stamp sales in one category (with hunting and fishing separated) and federal tax transfers in another. In their latest budget NDoW is now grouping hunting & fishing revenue with federal taxpayer transfers, making it very difficult for the casual observer to see from whence the money is actually coming   In our figures above we have tried to estimate the more detailed allocations to be consistent year-on-year, but with any such endeavor there is room for error.