Skip to content
Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation

To implement an informed, consensus-based national outreach strategy that will increase participation in recreational angling and boating and thereby increase public awareness and appreciation of the need to protect, conserve and restore this nation's aquatic natural resources.

$198k
Granted FY2025still arriving
8
Grants FY2025still arriving
8
States reached
$50k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Environment$1.4MAnimals$1.4MRecreation & Sports$76kCommunity Improvement$55k
02FY2025 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 8 grants below total $109,066, the rows itemized in this filing. The $197,923 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $88,857 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k5 grants · $37k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $22k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $50k
$9,275
Median grant
8
States reached
$289k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SOUTHEASTERN ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES (SEAFWA)$50,000
COLORADO DIVISION OF WILDLIFE$12,000
TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT$10,000
NORTH CAROLINA WILDLIFE RESOURCES COMMISSION$9,275
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE$8,154
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF GAME AND INLAND FISHERIES$7,600
FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION$6,537
RHODE ISLAND DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MGMT DIVISON OF FISH AND WILDLIFE$5,500
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 85% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT: $55k → 11%NEVADA DEPT OF WILDLIFE: $25k → 28%MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE: $55k → 11%NEBRASKA GAME & PARKS COMMISSION: $44k → 13%WESTERN ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES (WAFWA): $35k → 8%CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE: $46k → 12%NORTHEAST ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES INC: $55k → 11%TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT: $35k → 10%ARKANSAS GAME AND FISH COMMISSION: $55k → 17%Iowa Department of Natural Resources: $24k → 10%IOWA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES: $35k → 10%MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES: $55k → 16%KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND PARKS: $55k → 10%WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCE: $25k → 10%OREGON DEPT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE: $32k → 14%TENNESSEE WILDLIFE RESOURCES AGENCY: $55k → 14%UTAH DIVISION OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES: $25k → 8%Georgia Wildlife Resources Division: $42k → 11%SOUTHEASTERN ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES (SEAFWA): $50k → 14%INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE: $25k → 16%OHIO DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE: $25k → 15%MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE FISHERIES AND PARKS: $25k → 23%VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF GAME AND INLAND FISHERIES: $25k → 9%SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF GAME FISH AND PARKS: $25k → 10%MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES: $25k → 6%KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES: $25k → 14%NEVADA DEPT OF WILDLIFE: $25k → 28%California Department of Fish and Wildlife: $46k → 12%NORTHEAST ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES INC: $35k → 11%TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT: $25k → 10%ARKANSAS GAME AND FISH COMMISSION: $25k → 17%IOWA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES: $27k → 10%KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND PARKS: $25k → 10%OREGON DEPT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE: $25k → 14%TENNESSEE WILDLIFE RESOURCES AGENCY: $37k → 14%UTAH DIVISION OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES: $25k → 8%SOUTHEASTERN ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES (SEAFWA): $50k → 14%OHIO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES: $25k → 15%NEVADA DEPT OF WILDLIFE: $25k → 28%CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE: $44k → 12%TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT: $24k → 10%ARKANSAS GAME AND FISH COMMISSION: $25k → 17%SOUTHEASTERN ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES (SEAFWA): $35k → 14%NEVADA DEPT OF WILDLIFE: $25k → 28%CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE: $33k → 12%ARKANSAS GAME AND FISH COMMISSION: $25k → 17%CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE: $32k → 12%CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE: $25k → 12%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.

Which US states its grants reach

VT
WA
ID
MN
WI
MI
NY
MA
OR
NV
SD
IA
IN
OH
PA
NJ
CT
RI
CA
UT
CO
NE
KY
VA
MD
AZ
KS
AR
TN
NC
OK
LA
MS
AL
GA
TX
FL
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 17% of Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address.

Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 23% directed abroad (not shown)
How this is measured
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

90%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.7M · 32 repeat orgs$280k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +99% since the first grant, against +44% for those funded once.

32 repeat relationships: 8 still active in FY2025, 24 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

32
11

Total granted

$2.7M
$280k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+99%
+44%

Still filing today

9%
9%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
AnimalsRecreation & SportsOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as new. Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.

Backed again, and grew

  • CD
    CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH & WILDLIFE
    9× · 2017–2025 · $265k
  • TW
    TENNESSEE WILDLIFE RESOURCES AGENCY
    4× · 2020–2023 · $161k
  • ID
    IOWA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
    6× · 2017–2023 · $156k

Funded once

  • SO
    State of Arizona
    4× · 2021–2024 · $55k
  • MD
    MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
    3× · 2022–2025 · $55k
  • WA
    WESTERN ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIESgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $35k · revenue +44%
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its field
05the grantee network

7 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 7 of the 43 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/7
Grantees still filing
5/7
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH & WILDLIFE: $265,271 · OtherCALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH & WILDLIFETENNESSEE WILDLIFE RESOURCES AGENCY: $160,850 · OtherTENNESSEE WILDLIFE RESOURCES AGENCYIOWA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES: $155,619 · OtherIOWA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCESPENNSYLVANIA FISH AND BOAT COMMISSION: $145,000 · OtherARKANSAS GAME AND FISH COMMISSION: $142,920 · OtherCAPE COD COMMUNITY COLLEGE: $136,000 · OtherSOUTHEASTERN ASSOC OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES INC: $135,000 · OtherTexas Parks & Wildlife Department: $130,582 · OtherNEVADA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES: $116,560 · OtherVA DEPT OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES: $95,077 · Other+30 more: $1,311,807 · Other+30 moreNORTHEAST ASSOCIATION OF FISH & WILDLIFE AGENCIES INC: $89,977 · AnimalsFISH & WILDLIFE FOUNDATION OF FLORIDA I: $15,650 · AnimalsWESTERN ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES: $35,000 · Recreation & Sports
Other$2,794,686Animals$105,627Recreation & Sports$35,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetSOUTHEASTERN ASSOC OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES INC: $135,000 over 3y, 2.4% of budgetNORTHEAST ASSOCIATION OF FISH & WILDLIFE AGENCIES INC: $89,977 over 2y, 22% of budgetWESTERN ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES: $35,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetFISH & WILDLIFE FOUNDATION OF FLORIDA I: $15,650 over 2y, 0.1% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

  • Who funds SOUTHEASTERN ASSOC OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES INC ↗
  • Who funds NORTHEAST ASSOCIATION OF FISH & WILDLIFE AGENCIES INC ↗
  • Who funds WESTERN ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES ↗
  • Who funds FISH & WILDLIFE FOUNDATION OF FLORIDA I ↗

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

National Fish and Wil…American Bar Associat…Council of State and …Rocky Mountain Elk Fo…Investor Protection T…Association of State …The Pew Charitable Tr…Association of Public…The Nature ConservancyNational Assembly of …National Association …Association of Matern…
National Fish and Wildlife FoundationDC55.4× affinity29 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · American Bar Association · Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists Inc · Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Inc · Investor Protection Trust · Association of State and Territorial Health Officials · The Pew Charitable Trusts · Association of Public Health Laboratories Inc · The Nature Conservancy · National Assembly of State Arts Agencies Inc · National Association of State Procurement Officals Inc · Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%2%6%14%25%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 1%
  • Fish & Wildlife Foundation of Florida I: 1% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
0rely on government for over half their income
typical government reliance, FY20–25
How this is measured
Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12 to 24 months.

On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 43 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

How this is measured
Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

Generated from the IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2026) is on record and reports no grant expense, so the figures above are from FY2025, the most recent year this funder made grants.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Recreational Boating and Fishing’s filings →

More from the funding graph

The unnamed billions
grants reported with no recipient in the public record
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
The endowment market
who holds foundation money, and what just moved
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home